PDA

View Full Version : So why are so many people upset with the ending? *SPOILERS*



UncappedWheel82
11-08-2012, 09:19 PM
I've got to say. I'm glad that all I heard was "the ending sucks" before I beat the game and saw it myself.

THE ENDING OF ASSASSIN'S CREED IS AWESOME!!

What was everyone expecting? Because all that I really expected was the destruction of the world being stopped. This was the end of this desmond story arc, and we finally see what was at the core of the Templar vs Assassin war all this time.

Can someone break down all the hate for me?

Aethlwin
11-08-2012, 09:34 PM
To be honest, I love the ME series more than the AC series and the ending was so disappointing that I forgot how ME3 ended. It's a story that's been building up over 5 games and the way it ended was just...well disgusting. It was a half-arsed ending with bugger al effort put into, I mean I sat through half of the credits wondering if it was all just a joke. It's as if the team were sitting there on a Friday afternoon, developping the game and someone pops in and says "Hey guys, we're off for Nacho's and drink, coming?" so the lead-writer spends 10 minutes writing in some complete buggery and sends it off.

Bioware at least knew that they buggered up, they didn't re-write the end but gave it some substance at least, something I could chew on as I grumbled, but they're on the end of EA's leash so it's understandable, but Ubisoft? I wish there was a way to make my dissapointment shown rather than just grumbling about it on a forum. They've been up a story properly from Ezio and have spent years on the series just to give us a grumbling teenage drama queen "assassin" in an "America! F*** yeah" story and filled this sandwich of hate with the worst thing possible, a Worcestershire sauce story.

ACfan443
11-08-2012, 09:56 PM
There are numerous 'ending' threads, did you not read through any of them?

Some people hate the ending because it left loose threads hanging
Some people hate the ending because they killed off Desmond
Some people hate the ending because it's another cliff hanger, and doesn't give a sense of AC3 being a conclusive game
Some people hate the ending because it was executed really badly (was too short, anti-climactic, not dramatic)

And many more reasons.

pablo2977
11-08-2012, 10:30 PM
I liked the ending and I don't think everyone relies what happened Desmond spent most of the time talking about what he was going to do with his future like helping the world and moving back home but he never does

scooper121s
11-08-2012, 10:32 PM
There are numerous 'ending' threads, did you not read through any of them?

Some people hate the ending because it left loose threads hanging
Some people hate the ending because they killed off Desmond
Some people hate the ending because it's another cliff hanger, and doesn't give a sense of AC3 being a conclusive game
Some people hate the ending because it was executed really badly (was too short, anti-climactic, not dramatic)

And many more reasons.
I don't think that's the last well see of desmond :p

TeamCoby
11-08-2012, 11:29 PM
Most people are just mad that they killed off Desmond.

Bashilir
11-09-2012, 12:35 AM
I don't understand why people hate that they killed off Desmond. The world was going to end anyways. Did you expect to see him save the word and live happily ever after? That's never how life works. Desmond sacrificed his life to save humanity. Except well.. whatever Juno is going to do. I've always thought he was going to die ever since the beginning of this series. Yes, it's sad that he died but come on, move on.

IlDiv0
11-09-2012, 12:51 AM
Because it was a crappy ending.

Do the writers want to kill off Desmond? Go ahead. But let's actually have a conclusion that serves as an emotional end for the character. Ezio got it. Altair got it. There's no build-up to Desmond's sacrifice. If you're going to kill the main character, you better make it emotional, something Assassin's Creed failed to do. Hell, Shaun and Rebecca don't even say anything. Desmond presses a button, falls over, and Juno gloats for a bit. Brotherhood had the most Desmond content post-Animus. AC3 should have had just as much, if not more.

Layytez
11-09-2012, 01:01 AM
It's like the one who cared that Desmond was going to die was his Dad when he just joined them. Shaun and Rebecca don't care ? No questions ? It was rushed 100%. They made sure when Altair and Ezio passed it was emotional but when the main character of the whole series dies not a single **** is given. Also they still left unanswered question from AC2. Dude this was the end of Desmonds story yet you don't wrap it up properly ? I let them get away with ACR when Desmond didn't ask Clay what the hell he was talking about but AC3 is taking the piss. 3 years ? Please don't turn this into a Tobi from Naruto. After years of no answers right before the actual end you tell us. People would have forgetten or simply stopped caring by then.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-09-2012, 04:55 AM
'Cause it's a blatant "SEQUELEELLLL!!!" ending. After 5 freaking games waiting for this story to wrap up

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 05:27 AM
'Cause it's a blatant "SEQUELEELLLL!!!" ending. After 5 freaking games waiting for this story to wrap up

The devs have said this wasn't the last game in the story. the was always going to be a sequel.

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 05:31 AM
There are numerous 'ending' threads, did you not read through any of them?

Some people hate the ending because it left loose threads hanging
Some people hate the ending because they killed off Desmond
Some people hate the ending because it's another cliff hanger, and doesn't give a sense of AC3 being a conclusive game
Some people hate the ending because it was executed really badly (was too short, anti-climactic, not dramatic)

And many more reasons.

Of all these only the last one is legitimate, and I agree with it. Also, how many are actually "upset" with the ending? Might wanna check the poll. Not the majority anyways. the unhappy minority just make more noise and more threads.

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 07:48 AM
Because people fail to realise it's not an ending to the series, just to Desmond's journey, which is strange because we were already told BEFOREHAND there would most likely be an AC4. In all honesty, the ending WAS lacking, but mainly in that it was fairly anticlimactic.

People keep comparing this to ME3, that's just offense to the people that were at the heart of the ME3 fiasco. AC3's ending was NOWHERE NEAR as bad as ME3's. AC3's ending wasn't littered with plot holes after all, it was heavily hinted in AC3, and even before that, that there was 'a catch'.

I liked the ending to be honest. It was fairly ambiguous, meaning we can pick off were Ubisoft left off if they, for some reason, stop the AC series. I actually like endings that don't wrap everything up in a nice little bow.

twenty_glyphs
11-09-2012, 08:52 AM
I just finished the game, and that ending was unbelievably bad. I thought Mass Effect 3 was the biggest slap in the face to fans way to end a trilogy, but holy crap did AC3 outdo them. At least Mass Effect 3's ending had explosions. This ending has... nothing. It's literally two holograms arguing with a monkey-faced Desmond over the fate of the world, with an email from Shaun telling you that you stopped the big, bad Templar threat easy as pie. Not only is the story bad, but the execution is horrendous and contains no build up or emotional payoff. And who decided that all the existing characters of the series should have their faces altered to look uglier and thus remove every last bit of emotional attachment to the characters? Glad to see that trend continue from Revelations.

I completely expected Desmond to die, and for no happy endings. I also knew without a doubt that AC3 wouldn't be the end of the series by a long shot. But this ending provides no sense of closure whatsoever, and does not contain any payoff for all of the tantalizing clues they've dangled in front of us the whole series. Why should I continue to care about anything when nothing is ever resolved? There must be a million ways they could have ended Desmond's story with more closure and answers while still leaving plenty of room to grow the series from there. This mess of a "conclusion" just feels so lazy on so many levels.

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 09:01 AM
Because people fail to realise it's not an ending to the series, just to Desmond's journey, which is strange because we were already told BEFOREHAND there would most likely be an AC4. In all honesty, the ending WAS lacking, but mainly in that it was fairly anticlimactic.

People keep comparing this to ME3, that's just offense to the people that were at the heart of the ME3 fiasco. AC3's ending was NOWHERE NEAR as bad as ME3's. AC3's ending wasn't littered with plot holes after all, it was heavily hinted in AC3, and even before that, that there was 'a catch'.

I liked the ending to be honest. It was fairly ambiguous, meaning we can pick off were Ubisoft left off if they, for some reason, stop the AC series. I actually like endings that don't wrap everything up in a nice little bow.

Sigh. This comment needs to be quoted everytime someone whines this is as bad as ME3. It describes my feelings perfectly. Not perfect by any means, not great, but not horribadable either, like ME3 was.

About the trilogy scheme, I don't think the devs even consider this a trilogy anymore. I mean next year a new game might be out and the next, you might be playing AC IV with Eve fighting against Juno. So where does one trilogy end and another start? Nowhere. Its now a continuous series. They ditched the trilogy idea long ago.

EDIT: haha just what I said xD

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 11:19 AM
Dude, we passed triologies when Brotherhood came out. xD

This is more like a series now, like Star Wars or Pokemon.

@twenty_glyphs: Which explosion did you like best? R,G or B? ;P

scooper121s
11-09-2012, 11:26 AM
Sigh. This comment needs to be quoted everytime someone whines this is as bad as ME3. It describes my feelings perfectly. Not perfect by any means, not great, but not horribadable either, like ME3 was.

About the trilogy scheme, I don't think the devs even consider this a trilogy anymore. I mean next year a new game might be out and the next, you might be playing AC IV with Eve fighting against Juno. So where does one trilogy end and another start? Nowhere. Its now a continuous series. They ditched the trilogy idea long ago.

EDIT: haha just what I said xD
?

IlDiv0
11-09-2012, 12:01 PM
Because people fail to realise it's not an ending to the series, just to Desmond's journey, which is strange because we were already told BEFOREHAND there would most likely be an AC4. In all honesty, the ending WAS lacking, but mainly in that it was fairly anticlimactic.

Hey, they can make more AC games if they want to. I recall Ubisoft using the phrase "History is our playground" at one point, so there's plenty of locations for them to explore without even needing the modern story. But the constant mind-screw endings without any complete resolution is tiresome now. They should have found a way to provide a compelling conclusion, but leave enough room for someone who wants to exit the series at this point. The original Halo trilogy did this very well, for those who may not have wanted to continue into Halo 4.



People keep comparing this to ME3, that's just offense to the people that were at the heart of the ME3 fiasco. AC3's ending was NOWHERE NEAR as bad as ME3's. AC3's ending wasn't littered with plot holes after all, it was heavily hinted in AC3, and even before that, that there was 'a catch'.

<--I argued at the heart of the ME3 fiasco.

While not quite there, AC3 is very nearly as bad and some of the complaints can easily be made at both games. The most obvious one being that both games decide to ignore the main conflicts to focus on side threats, forcing the writers to resolve the actual storyline in the last five minutes. In ME3's case, we recruit an army whose only purpose is to stall the Reapers long enough to unleash a device whose function we don't understand. Then in the last ten minutes, the Catalyst does some freaky stuff. In AC3's case, instead of playing as Desmond while he looks for a way to save the world, we spend the entire game playing as Connor, whose only purpose is to allow us to open (yet another) door into the Grand Temple, a function made redundant since AC2 and Brotherhood were all about acquiring Ezio's apple to get into the grand temple. Which leaves the writers exactly 5-10 to slap together some cutscene about the end of the world and how there suddenly is a magic solution to save the world.

And in both cases, we have a "kill the protagonist button" to press.



I liked the ending to be honest. It was fairly ambiguous, meaning we can pick off were Ubisoft left off if they, for some reason, stop the AC series. I actually like endings that don't wrap everything up in a nice little bow.

Uhh, that's like saying The Empire Strikes Back is a good stopping point. Ending the series by unleashing (yet another) major antagonist who will potentially rule the world is not my idea of a great stopping point, for any reason.

At the end of Halo 3, the Chief tells Cortana "it's finished".
At the end of AC3, Juno mocks Desmond, "You played your part well, Desmond. Now I must play mine."

The latter doesn't make for resolution.

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 01:08 PM
Halo 3 was still following the trilogy structure. AC isn't. So that analogy doesn't hold. You'll most certainly see another AC next year. What kind of trilogy is that? AC already consists of five games. Whether or not such a structure is desirable is another matter of discussion. I'm divided on this regard.

The present-day problem always takes backseat in ACs. We saw that in Revelations, we saw that in every game. Thats how AC rolls and always will, like it or not. And considering the major reason people are liking AC III is the Connor part, I'll say that's a good decision. Indeed, the major reason AC is famous is because of the historical part, not present day one.

About that comment of Juno's, it shows Desmond had been played all along. I liked the twist, but some might not. But maybe it doesn't make for resolution is because we haven't reached one? Again, the comparison to other trilogies is inaccurate.

Also, the "solution" isn't magic because it is all constructed of ingame stuff and not nearly as bad as the catalyst, whose mere existence created all sorts of contradictions. That is real magic, if there ever was one.

zerocooll21
11-09-2012, 02:24 PM
Guys, please see below and help build up a nice thread. Just for voting say your piece an bounce. Don't want people arguing points. Hoping the Devs can take our, well most of us anyway's, constructive criticism and apply it to the next game.


http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/724132-Spoiler-AC-3-Ending-Poll-Spoiler

TrueAssassin77
11-09-2012, 03:12 PM
Not mad that Desmond is dead. I'm disguted with how and why he died. The point of AC2 was for Desmond to become a master assassin through the bleeding effect ... the ending makes that game seem like a filler game. Desmond in the was a tool. A hchess piece. He never evolved from that stage. He was a static character. He was a tool in AC1 and in the end was a tool as well. He was being used by everyone he came in contact with. And he died a well used tool.

That is not how you use a main protagonist. He can be a tool, but at some point he's got to evolve from that. And only then can he die. When he finally becomes his own man. But no, he died a tool. Even juno says "you played your part well, Desmond ".

The devs wanted to end his story. But apparently they are short-sighted and can't see that killing him off wasn't the only way to end his story. There were a multitude of better ways to end a story. In the end ubi simply killed him off for the "shock value " not because it was necessary that he die. Just look at Altair ending, just look at ezios, so far ubi has ended there heros through great syory writing. Desmond ending even seems rushed based on there other emotional endings. When Altair died you felt "wow, an assassin to the end "when ezio died a lot of people cried. But Desmond? It could be argued that he was a sacrificial hero.... but ubi negated that argument by making it so he caused juno to release. Juno was using him. He was suppose to die. That completely devalues his sacrifice.

Ubisoft simply stopped caring about Desmond .

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 03:15 PM
Hey, they can make more AC games if they want to. I recall Ubisoft using the phrase "History is our playground" at one point, so there's plenty of locations for them to explore without even needing the modern story. But the constant mind-screw endings without any complete resolution is tiresome now. They should have found a way to provide a compelling conclusion, but leave enough room for someone who wants to exit the series at this point. The original Halo trilogy did this very well, for those who may not have wanted to continue into Halo 4.
There has been resolution. There was resolution to Lucy's death, resolution to Subject 16, resolution in the end of the world fiasco, resolution to what Juno REALLY wanted. I don't think there'll EVER be any 'complete' resolution, they'll always be some mystery, some depth, some unanswered question left gnawing at the back of our heads. Don't you remember what Haytham said? Where there will be humans, there will be templars, and in turn, there will be assassins. And you know what? That's half the ****ing fun of AC. :)

The difference between this and let's say, Mass Effect or Halo is that this is a clearly much larger series on scale. Looking back at AC1, it's extremely clear they probably NEVER planned for this to be a triology series.


<--I argued at the heart of the ME3 fiasco.

While not quite there, AC3 is very nearly as bad and some of the complaints can easily be made at both games. The most obvious one being that both games decide to ignore the main conflicts to focus on side threats, forcing the writers to resolve the actual storyline in the last five minutes. In ME3's case, we recruit an army whose only purpose is to stall the Reapers long enough to unleash a device whose function we don't understand. Then in the last ten minutes, the Catalyst does some freaky stuff. In AC3's case, instead of playing as Desmond while he looks for a way to save the world, we spend the entire game playing as Connor, whose only purpose is to allow us to open (yet another) door into the Grand Temple, a function made redundant since AC2 and Brotherhood were all about acquiring Ezio's apple to get into the grand temple. Which leaves the writers exactly 5-10 to slap together some cutscene about the end of the world and how there suddenly is a magic solution to save the world.

And in both cases, we have a "kill the protagonist button" to press.

I very much disagree. They're two completely different games, two completely different protagionists, two completely different sets of lore. It's... unfair to compare the two.

Shepard was a character that WE had say in, that WE personalised, that WE effected. To have no say in whether he or she died? To have no say in a proper decision? To refuse? For three games, they strung us along, letting us believe we could beat the odds, and what happens in the end? A duex ex machina, never before hinted, never before available in lore. You ask anyone before ME3's ending, they would've told you the ending and the destruction of the Reapers would have something to do with the Dark Energy plot that had been developped and hinted at for

Desmond was a character already prebuilt, we had no say, no choice, we merely watched, watched as he grew, as he became somebody better, somebody more. Desmond did what he thought he had to do, he had been left breadcrumbs that the First Civ had left something behind that could and would help save humanity, what else could he hope to do? They never left him any notion before Minerva spoke out against Juno at the end that we were meant to CONTINUE the research instead. Also, the 'magic solution' still fits into AC lore. The pedestal is clearly made of the same if not greater technology than what the pieces of eden were capable of... we all know what THEY'RE capable of. It was clear then why Minerva, Juno and Jupiter hadn't used it, why they instead looked into other methods. Desmond was the only one who could activate it because he was one of ten million that could, because of his DNA. Also. We STILL don't know he's dead.


Uhh, that's like saying The Empire Strikes Back is a good stopping point. Ending the series by unleashing (yet another) major antagonist who will potentially rule the world is not my idea of a great stopping point, for any reason.

At the end of Halo 3, the Chief tells Cortana "it's finished".
At the end of AC3, Juno mocks Desmond, "You played your part well, Desmond. Now I must play mine."

The latter doesn't make for resolution.

It CAN be a good stopping point, IF for some reason, you weren't able to continue it. It explained the fate of the characters while still leaving it open enough for development. It is NOT an intended stopping point. It honestly pisses me off when someone plans a triology series, makes the first movie, but doesn't make the first movie resolute enough to stop if it need be.

Halo 3 WAS intended to be a stopping point. They didn't have ANY plans to continue onto Halo 4 until AFTER the release.

But Empire Strikes back AND AC3 were intended to continue the story.

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 03:17 PM
Ubisoft simply stopped caring about Desmond .

You honestlyt think that's the last we'll see of Desmond? Apart from what Minerva said, we've still recieved NO confirmation that's physically dead, and even if he is, whose to say he can't carry on in some form similar to what Subject 16 or even Juno did?

New protagionist is going to need a mentor after all, and Desmond still needs to make a baby.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-09-2012, 03:29 PM
and Desmond still needs to make a baby.Why?

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 03:31 PM
Guys, please see below and help build up a nice thread. Just for voting say your piece an bounce. Don't want people arguing points. Hoping the Devs can take our, well most of us anyway's, constructive criticism and apply it to the next game.


http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/724132-Spoiler-AC-3-Ending-Poll-Spoiler

I saw people started to argue with each other on that thread, even I was guilty for it once, for that I apologize :P

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 03:32 PM
Why?

"The sun..your SON"

RatonhnhakeFan
11-09-2012, 03:35 PM
"The sun..your SON"
Yeah but he just stopped the solar flare disaster. Without making a baby. Conclusion: "your son" thing didn't matter at all, just like Eve and her DNA apparently.

F4H bandicoot
11-09-2012, 03:41 PM
Yeah but he just stopped the solar flare disaster. Without making a baby. Conclusion: "your son" thing didn't matter at all, just like Eve and her DNA apparently.

Of course Eve and her DNA mattered. Eve's DNA was the key to using the eye.
Eve herself could be a variety of people.

In terms of the 'son',we'll have to see, anything can happen. To be 'neutral', all games have plot points dropped, or plot points that aren't used, AC isn't the 'perfect' series, so this was always going to happen.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-09-2012, 03:45 PM
Of course Eve and her DNA mattered. Eve's DNA was the key to using the eye.When/where was this said? And what it has to do with Desmond being asked to find her DNA which never happened?

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 03:52 PM
Yeah but he just stopped the solar flare disaster. Without making a baby. Conclusion: "your son" thing didn't matter at all, just like Eve and her DNA apparently.

Assassin's Creed: Liberation.

ALL I AM GOING TO SAY.

... Okay, I lied.

At the end of Liberation, it's revealed that Aveline actually possess an amulet similar to the one Desmond needed to open the big door in AC3. She uses this on an artifact which shows holograms of Minerva, Jupiter and Juno talking to one another, talking about Eve, how she would be the leader of humanity. It HEAVILY hinted that Aveline is related to Eve.

I don't know exactly what Ubisoft plans to do with this, but I personally feel it is a taste of what we should expect the next AC title to be about.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-09-2012, 03:54 PM
Assassin's Creed: Liberation.

ALL I AM GOING TO SAY.
Is Desmond making babies in Liberation? No? Then it didn't matter and the writers ignored it. If Eve is somehow explained in ACL then good, still doesn't change the fact that it was Desmond who was told to find her (DNA) lol.

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 03:58 PM
I edited my post. :<

If the next modern protagionist is female, like I speculate she will be, maybe Desmond's making babies with her. Desmond doesn't need to be physically alive to still have kids, Abstergo clearly has some of his DNA on file, and Desmond may have survived through the animus or in a similar fashion to how Juno and Minerva did.

... What did happen to Minerva at the end? I never understood that, was she 'alive' in some sense too?

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 04:00 PM
Is Desmond making babies in Liberation? No? Then it didn't matter and the writers ignored it. If Eve is somehow explained in ACL then good, still doesn't change the fact that it was Desmond who was told to find her (DNA) lol.

And Desmond might not yet be "dead".

Hypothetical situation: Desmond is now a ghost in the machine pretty much like Clay. Eve is the next present-day protagonist. She goes into the Animus and is contacted by Desmond.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-09-2012, 04:02 PM
I edited my post. :<

If the next modern protagionist is female, like I speculate she will be, maybe Desmond's making babies with her. Desmond doesn't need to be physically alive to still have kids, Abstergo clearly has some of his DNA on file, and Desmond may have survived through the animus or in a similar fashion to how Juno and Minerva did.

... What did happen to Minerva at the end? I never understood that, was she 'alive' in some sense too?lol it's gonna be hilarious if they will impregnate some girl (or her eggs) to make Desmond's baby after he died. Still doesn't change the fact that this 'son' was supposed to play a part in stopping solar flare. Which was already stopped. So in the end, it didn't matter.

As for Minerva & Juno, it's rather clear to me that they're both alive in some way, most likely transferred to computers and stuff.


And Desmond might not yet be "dead". I hope he is. Then need to move on finally with at least some plot points.

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 04:02 PM
That's what I'm theorising. You know what the creepy implication is though? If he tries to 'hitch a ride' back through her body, like Clay once suggested in Revelations.....

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 04:05 PM
That's what I'm theorising. You know what the creepy implication is though? If he tries to 'hitch a ride' back through her body, like Clay once suggested in Revelations.....

Implications... *deep exhale* Unpleasant..

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 04:10 PM
Implications... *deep exhale* Unpleasant..

Dude, you get a cookie for that quote. ;)

On another note, you know what I find funny? Nobody's mentioned the templar satellite yet.

F4H bandicoot
11-09-2012, 04:11 PM
Dude, you get a cookie for that quote. ;)

On another note, you know what I find funny? Nobody's mentioned the templar satellite yet.

Yeah the apple showed Desmond it wouldn't have worked, and they needed the Apple Desmond has, so yah.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-09-2012, 04:12 PM
That's what I'm theorising. You know what the creepy implication is though? If he tries to 'hitch a ride' back through her body, like Clay once suggested in Revelations.....This series had unfortunate implications from day 1. Starting with watching your great-great-great grandparents have sex lol

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 04:22 PM
This series had unfortunate implications from day 1. Starting with watching your great-great-great grandparents have sex lol

You just had to put it like that, huh? >_>

@F4H: That's disappointing, though lore wise, makes sense, given what Juno told us about the apples and the First Civs own attempt at making a 'satellite'. Still, disappointed they wrote that off. Sort of.

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 04:26 PM
This series had unfortunate implications from day 1. Starting with watching your great-great-great grandparents have sex lol

I could never look at AC the same way now. thanks for that.

twenty_glyphs
11-09-2012, 04:49 PM
Dude, we passed triologies when Brotherhood came out. xD

This is more like a series now, like Star Wars or Pokemon.

@twenty_glyphs: Which explosion did you like best? R,G or B? ;P

Okay, but Star Wars had a conclusion. Return of the Jedi didn't end with Luke dying to destroy the Death Star only to reveal that it was a plot by the Ewoks to get the Empire out of the way so they could rule the Galaxy. If it had ended with the Ewoks boarding a Star Destroyer and looking out at the Galaxy, then you'd have a point. But it didn't end that way, because even George Lucas can figure out that a story needs to end and resolve its central conflict. Return of the Jedi had a definitive ending, but there were so many more ways to continue the story, as evidenced by all the extended universe stories. AC3 felt like some crappy television show cliffhanger season finale at the end of a third season. Those endings exist solely to keep you interested in watching the next season, which is what AC3's ending is. And even many TV shows manage to resolve that season's conflict and still set up a cliffhanger for future seasons, which AC3 failed at.

My point about Mass Effect 3's ending was at least it had some kind of action, despite not making any cohesive story sense. AC3's ending is so devoid of emotion and action. It's literally a conversation.

I need to go watch the Liberation ending now. If they put stuff about Eve into a game for a crappy portable console that only a small percentage of their fanbase even has, that's brilliantly stupid.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-09-2012, 05:02 PM
I could never look at AC the same way now. thanks for that.

My second name is Buzz Killington and I love spoiling fun! ;)

Layytez
11-09-2012, 05:15 PM
So S16 Truth video from AC2 and speech from ACB was bs ? Great. This is worse than Tobi's reveal in Naruto...

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 05:57 PM
@twenty_glyphs: That's... debatable considering we're getting a third triology to that series now. Eh, let's just agree to disagree then. I personally can't wait for the next installment. Liberation was honestly not that bad, pretty good for a portable game honestly, but yes, Eve was a pretty big part of the ending, even though the mention of it was literally... maybe 5 sentences? And it was shocking that it DID go onto a portable instead of the main game. There's theories though that's just a 'taste test' of a main game focusing on Aveline, and/or that it'll eventually be ported onto the consoles/pc or incoporated into another main game.

Aveline's actually a very interesting character, so I hope she does get a main game or proper Console/PC release, but maybe that's bias on my half.

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 05:58 PM
So S16 Truth video from AC2 and speech from ACB was bs ? Great. This is worse than Tobi's reveal in Naruto...

Who said it was BS? Didn't we just clarify it is relevent?

Layytez
11-09-2012, 06:00 PM
Who said it was BS? Didn't we just clarify it is relevent?

We did but has Ubisoft clarified that ?

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 06:02 PM
We did but has Ubisoft clarified that ?

When has Ubisoft ever clarified anything? I personally think they LIKE watching us speculate like this, gnawing on our fingernails. They didn't clarify Lucy's death until Revelations, probably won't do the same until the next game.

It's a tad weird to be honest, I'm from the bioware social forums usually, devs are ALWAYS hanging around there. Or on twitter.

Layytez
11-09-2012, 06:06 PM
When has Ubisoft ever clarified anything? I personally think they LIKE watching us speculate like this, gnawing on our fingernails. They didn't clarify Lucy's death until Revelations, probably won't do the same until the next game.

It's a tad weird to be honest, I'm from the bioware social forums usually, devs are ALWAYS hanging around there. Or on twitter.

Actually to be specific they didn't clarify that until the DLC for ACR lol. I see no reason for them not to do it again. They have already made us pay for content that should have been there in the first place. What stops them from doing it again ?

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 06:12 PM
Actually to be specific they didn't clarify that until the DLC for ACR lol. I see no reason for them not to do it again. They have already made us pay for content that should have been there in the first place. What stops them from doing it again ?

No they didn't, Lucy's death in ACR was confirmed fairly early in the game, before any DLC came out. If you hang around on the 'Island' long enough, you hear Shaun, Rebecca and William talk about it a few times. She was buried in Marino, Italy funnily enough. Remember the last name of that friend of hers from Abstergo who died? Lelia Marino.

Are you thinking about The Lost Archives? All that did was confirm Lucy was a templar, you didn't need to buy it to know that, since it's openly known in AC3 and even before then, back in AC1, it was fairly obvious.

Layytez
11-09-2012, 06:16 PM
No they didn't, Lucy's death in ACR was confirmed fairly early in the game, before any DLC came out. If you hang around on the 'Island' long enough, you hear Shaun, Rebecca and William talk about it a few times. She was buried in Marino, Italy funnily enough. Remember the last name of that friend of hers from Abstergo who died? Lelia Marino.

Are you thinking about The Lost Archives? All that did was confirm Lucy was a templar, you didn't need to buy it to know that, since it's openly known in AC3 and even before then, back in AC1, it was fairly obvious.

Yeah i'm not talking about her death. I don't think they would end ACB with a stab in efforts to kill her and then find out in ACR she's not dead. In AC1 it was fairly obvious ? Since it was openly known in AC3 what was the purpose of The Lost Archive ? :/

twenty_glyphs
11-09-2012, 06:16 PM
The problem with the Eve, Eden, the sun, your son stuff is that it's dragging out way too long. If they don't want to reveal their cards yet, they should at least feed us more info on these things. By just ignoring them, they just create frustration and fatigue. I've practically lost interest in all those tantalizing clues now that things have drug on for so long without any elaboration. Why should I care if they're not treating those subjects as important themselves?

Layytez
11-09-2012, 06:21 PM
The problem with the Eve, Eden, the sun, your son stuff is that it's dragging out way too long. If they don't want to reveal their cards yet, they should at least feed us more info on these things. By just ignoring them, they just create frustration and fatigue. I've practically lost interest in all those tantalizing clues now that things have drug on for so long without any elaboration. Why should I care if they're not treating those subjects as important themselves?

This is exact what iv'e been saying. You drag a mystery on too long people will lose interest. If they have been saving it the game after AC3 when the world is saved and Juno takes controls then that's terrible pacing. 3 years is pushing it. The best time to actually mention these things was either ACR or even AC3 if they could fit in it correctly.

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 06:24 PM
Yeah i'm not talking about her death. I don't think they would end ACB with a stab in efforts to kill her and then find out in ACR she's not dead. In AC1 it was fairly obvious ? Since it was openly known in AC3 what was the purpose of The Lost Archive ? :/

More mean looking back at AC1, it's clear something wasn't right. You know how you can hack into those three different computers? The various emails between Abstergo engineers list that 'some of the blueprints for the animus' are missing, that 'Warric and Lucy had been very secretive lately', and something about 'Project Siren'. Then you have it being suspicously long for the templars to find Desmond and Co. in AC2, the emails from 'William M.' in ACB to Lucy and Lucy's computer screen in ACB too, it was a screenshot of Project Legacy. ;)

And of course, the kicker in the teeth, Juno's message before Desmond kills Lucy. 'The Cross darkers your horizon'.

Also, idn't you find it a little bit odd the templars found out about training templars using the bleeding effect around the same time they were doing it to Desmond? The hints are there, it just takes a lot of patience, digging and imagination.

Also, the point of The Lost Archives was more a chance to explore Subject 16, his 'capture' by Abstergo, his past and his defragmenting mind as he slowly loses himself.

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 06:25 PM
This is exact what iv'e been saying. You drag a mystery on too long people will lose interest. If they have been saving it the game after AC3 when the world is saved and Juno takes controls then that's terrible pacing. 3 years is pushing it. The best time to actually mention these things was either ACR or even AC3 if they could fit in it correctly.

Erm... you guys haven't heard the latest news then yet, have you? About how they hope to make it to AC10?

Layytez
11-09-2012, 06:26 PM
More mean looking back at AC1, it's clear something wasn't right. You know how you can hack into those three different computers? The various emails between Abstergo engineers list that 'some of the blueprints for the animus' are missing, that 'Warric and Lucy had been very secretive lately', and something about 'Project Siren'. Then you have it being suspicously long for the templars to find Desmond and Co. in AC2, the emails from 'William M.' in ACB to Lucy and Lucy's computer screen in ACB too, it was a screenshot of Project Legacy. ;)

And of course, the kicker in the teeth, Juno's message before Desmond kills Lucy. 'The Cross darkers your horizon'.

Also, idn't you find it a little bit odd the templars found out about training templars using the bleeding effect around the same time they were doing it to Desmond? The hints are there, it just takes a lot of patience, digging and imagination.

Also, the point of The Lost Archives was more a chance to explore Subject 16, his 'capture' by Abstergo, his past and his defragmenting mind as he slowly loses himself.

Subject 16 was there with us he could told us himself.

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 06:28 PM
Subject 16 was there with us he could told us himself.

It's a different experience to literally be in his shoes though as it happens. You aren't watching as Desmond like on a movie screen, in a way, you're experiencing it with 16. It's an optional DLC anyway, not necessary to the story and nobodys forcing you to buy it. I personally thought it was a little expensive, but well worth it. I cried at the end.

zerocooll21
11-09-2012, 06:34 PM
I saw people started to argue with each other on that thread, even I was guilty for it once, for that I apologize :P

No worries, I knew it was bound to happen. Just trying to keep it to a min :) Thanks for sharing!

pirate1802
11-09-2012, 06:34 PM
Erm... you guys haven't heard the latest news then yet, have you? About how they hope to make it to AC10?

No I haven't.. got links? :s

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 06:39 PM
Can I post links on here? Ah, oh well.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/353193/ubisoft-hopes-to-reach-assassins-creed-10/

From a while ago actually, I'm surprised nobody else heard about it.

I personally think it'd be interesting to see if it IS possible. Let's face it, Ubisoft doesn't skimp on quality, so no lack there and series like Pokemon, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Mario, Zelda, etc. have kept people entertained for YEARS. Though I won't lie, be nice to see how many of my theories are true.

Apirka
11-09-2012, 06:44 PM
PokÚmon, Mario and Zelda have a very different format though. I'm... vaguely curious if they can pull it off without completely screwing the story up, but if they continue the way the did things in AC3 (just drawing out a resolution to their existing mysteries, rather than giving some answers/new information and creating new ones), I doubt it.

Layytez
11-09-2012, 06:46 PM
But Pokemon have been reusing the same plot for years. Ubisoft can't pull that off.

LilyasAvalon
11-09-2012, 06:48 PM
So do I to be honest... It'd be nice to see them take a new direction to be honest, AC is nothing short of the after all.

As long as humans continue to exist, so will exist those who wish to exploit them, as will those who will wish to protect them.

Plus, Erudito vs. Abstergo may be even cooler than Assassins vs. Templars. Or seeing a resolution to the Consus storyline in Project Legacy.

...I really wish they'd update Project Legacy. :<

Spectures
11-09-2012, 10:08 PM
I feel like the ending was to quick. People are mad because they presented two options and gave whole explanations, but we didn't get to choose any of them. That's why.

Mega8BitPanda
11-09-2012, 10:11 PM
Not having the choice was never the problem, Assassin's Creed has never offered a choice as it is telling you a story, you never are crafting this story in any other title and here is no different. To want a choice this far in is like asking for a choice about Arkham City's ending... It was the fact they basically presented it as a 50/50 split choice leaving so much room to argue semantics on the forums, vague explanations, poor presentation and blatant advertising for future games that dragged this ending down.

Kaschra
11-09-2012, 10:13 PM
But the AC series was never about choosing an option :/


I think most people are angry because it's another cliffhanger and Desmond's part was rushed and not emotional enough.

TheHumanTowel
11-09-2012, 10:46 PM
Like other people have said while I like the ending and am excited to see where this will go I'm disappointed that we've been given another cliffhanger. We were misled to believe AC3 was some sort of conclusion to the story but it really isn't at all. Desmond's saved the world sure but my god you can't cut away after Juno get's free and is ready to enter the world and call that a bloody conclusion to the trilogy.

IlDiv0
11-09-2012, 11:00 PM
Halo 3 was still following the trilogy structure. AC isn't. So that analogy doesn't hold. You'll most certainly see another AC next year. What kind of trilogy is that? AC already consists of five games. Whether or not such a structure is desirable is another matter of discussion. I'm divided on this regard.

The comparison is perfectly valid. My argument is not contingent on either series following a trilogy structure. My argument requires that both games have stories composed of multiple installments, which they do. The point I was responding to was the idea that AC3 has a good ending point. It does not.

Halo 3 does: all major villains removed, clear resolution, rebuilding, etc. Halo 3 did not end with a mysterious new enemy suddenly obliterating Earth. I use Halo as a point of comparison because Halo 4 just recently came out and it's a perfect demonstration of how a player can choose to either stop at that point in the story or keep on going. This is not the case with Assassin's Creed.



The present-day problem always takes backseat in ACs. We saw that in Revelations, we saw that in every game. Thats how AC rolls and always will, like it or not. And considering the major reason people are liking AC III is the Connor part, I'll say that's a good decision. Indeed, the major reason AC is famous is because of the historical part, not present day one.

Indeed? Then maybe Ubisoft should have taken this opportunity to finish the modern day story altogether. Then they can cut out the middle man and simply tell stories oriented around history, which clearly is why the fans are playing the series. Your post side-steps the main issue. It doesn't matter what Ubisoft's underlying motivation was in screwing the modern day plot. From the perspective of good story-telling, the decision to keep Desmond in the background, yet again, and shoehorn another protagonist is terrible. Hell, if it's as you say, I don't think anyone should be surprised the storyline turned out so badly.



About that comment of Juno's, it shows Desmond had been played all along. I liked the twist, but some might not. But maybe it doesn't make for resolution is because we haven't reached one? Again, the comparison to other trilogies is inaccurate.

Hey, if Ubisoft wants to keep drawing out the modern day plot, they can go ahead. But you make the same mistake as above: it doesn't matter if AC is a trilogy or not.

Halo 4 works as an excellent comparison because there we have a great ending point at Halo 3, for those players who want out. On the other hand, Halo 4 still fits neatly into the lore. Assassin's Creed does not do this. As another poster said, it would be like if Return of the Jedi ended with the Ewoks turning out to be the main villains. There are other stories centered around Luke Skywalker + friends. But none of this required George Lucas make something up at the eleventh hour.



Also, the "solution" isn't magic because it is all constructed of ingame stuff and not nearly as bad as the catalyst, whose mere existence created all sorts of contradictions. That is real magic, if there ever was one.

No, it's a magic solution. Saying "it's Those Who Came Before's technology" is about as valid as saying the Catalyst's solution is "Reapertechnology". Desmond walks into a room and presses a magic button, which (somehow) saves the world. How? We have no idea. The writers couldn't even be bothered to show the solar eclipse actually being stopped. AC3 is a great game. Connor's story is phenomenal. But Desmond's conclusion is about as crappy as it gets. If five minutes before the end of the game, neither the player (nor the character) has any idea how the story is going to resolve the main conflict, the writers probably screwed something up.

Em-Man
11-09-2012, 11:35 PM
Then they can cut out the middle man and simply tell stories oriented around history, which clearly is why the fans are playing the series.
Maybe you should speak for yourself.


No, it's a magic solution. Saying "it's Those Who Came Before's technology" is about as valid as saying the Catalyst's solution is "Reapertechnology".
You're absolutely right, but ancient magical Dragon-Balls, time travel and magic beyond our understanding has always been a theme in AC.
Not the same can be said for ME. That's why the ending in AC is not as big of a deal as it was in ME in terms of contradictions.

scooper121s
11-09-2012, 11:55 PM
Desmond will most likely come back, but probably as an NPC, BECAUSE it is not confirmed that he is dead, all we saw of him was him in an unconscious like state, with a blackened hand, besides they can't just leave Desmonds story their, there is so many places they could go with it

Razrback16
11-10-2012, 03:15 AM
I've got to say. I'm glad that all I heard was "the ending sucks" before I beat the game and saw it myself.

THE ENDING OF ASSASSIN'S CREED IS AWESOME!!

What was everyone expecting? Because all that I really expected was the destruction of the world being stopped. This was the end of this desmond story arc, and we finally see what was at the core of the Templar vs Assassin war all this time.

Can someone break down all the hate for me?

I was hoping Desmond's story wouldn't end since he's basically the anchor for the whole story. I know some folks aren't crazy about Desmond, and I don't even like the previous games' Desmond missions, but I liked the anchor point story it created. We spent 4+ games building up the Desmond storyline with Assassins Vs. Templars and now just "kill him off"? Yuck. Awful ending. And just in ACB / ACR he was supposed to find Eve to help defeat the Templars and they just cut him out. I hate it. Awful way to end the story. I'm holding out a sliver of hope that maybe they'll wise up and find a way to tie everything in really well in the next game, but time will tell.

LilyasAvalon
11-10-2012, 03:39 AM
I feel like the ending was to quick. People are mad because they presented two options and gave whole explanations, but we didn't get to choose any of them. That's why.

... That's a stupid explaination if there ever was one. AC was NEVER about OUR personal choice. We are voyeurs in someone elses story, that's all.

It's like someone saying Harry Potter sucked because we didn't get to choose how it ended.

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 03:43 AM
I think most people are angry because it's another cliffhanger and Desmond's part was rushed and not emotional enough.

Indeed.

LilyasAvalon
11-10-2012, 03:53 AM
The comparison is perfectly valid. My argument is not contingent on either series following a trilogy structure. My argument requires that both games have stories composed of multiple installments, which they do. The point I was responding to was the idea that AC3 has a good ending point. It does not.

Halo 3 does: all major villains removed, clear resolution, rebuilding, etc. Halo 3 did not end with a mysterious new enemy suddenly obliterating Earth. I use Halo as a point of comparison because Halo 4 just recently came out and it's a perfect demonstration of how a player can choose to either stop at that point in the story or keep on going. This is not the case with Assassin's Creed.


Halo 3 was INTENDED to be the end of a series. AC3 wasn't. The developers clearly want to continue the story, so they are. If the player wants to essentially quit midseason, that's their problem, not Ubisoft's. I'm not going to lie, they executed Halo 4 rather well, but it was still NOT AN INTENTIONAL CONTINUATION. They had NO plans to continue the story after Halo 3, Ubisoft clearly does have plans to continue onto AC4 and planned this in advance.

That's like somebody reading the Goblet of Fire, then *****ing because the ending was 'unresolved'. You can't even CALL IT the ending because it ISN'T the ending. If that person wasn't intelligent enough to wait for Order of the Phoenix, the Half Blood Prince and the Deathly Hallows that is NOT JK Rowling's fault. It's the same principal.


No, it's a magic solution. Saying "it's Those Who Came Before's technology" is about as valid as saying the Catalyst's solution is "Reapertechnology". Desmond walks into a room and presses a magic button, which (somehow) saves the world. How? We have no idea. The writers couldn't even be bothered to show the solar eclipse actually being stopped. AC3 is a great game. Connor's story is phenomenal. But Desmond's conclusion is about as crappy as it gets. If five minutes before the end of the game, neither the player (nor the character) has any idea how the story is going to resolve the main conflict, the writers probably screwed something up.
How is it 'magic'? It fits with the lore. We were given SEVERAL hints prior to time that the Pieces of Eden are capable of things humans aren't even capable of comprehending and that the First Civ HAD found a solution, or a partial one at least. AC3 hinted several times that this solution would come at A PRICE, before they even opened the door.

The Catalyst came out at THE LAST ****ING SECOND and presented us with a solution that DID NOT FIT with lore at the time. Prior to that, both ME1 and ME2 hinted that the solution (or the problem) had something to do with dark energy, yet there was NO MENTION of dark energy being even remotely involved in ME3.

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 03:58 AM
The comparison is perfectly valid. My argument is not contingent on either series following a trilogy structure. My argument requires that both games have stories composed of multiple installments, which they do. The point I was responding to was the idea that AC3 has a good ending point. It does not.

Then ACB had a worse ending, but clearly they didn't mean to stop there, so people didn't complain. AC III was supposed to be Desmond's end. Not a stopping point or resting point for the trilogy. Hell it isn't even a trilogy now. People assumed that, and that's why they are angry. The story was meant to continue to a next game probably next year.


Indeed? Then maybe Ubisoft should have taken this opportunity to finish the modern day story altogether.

That would have been for the best IMO, but clearly they aren't going in that direction, and I'm ok with that.


No, it's a magic solution. Saying "it's Those Who Came Before's technology" is about as valid as saying the Catalyst's solution is "Reapertechnology". Desmond walks into a room and presses a magic button, which (somehow) saves the world. How? We have no idea. The writers couldn't even be bothered to show the solar eclipse actually being stopped. AC3 is a great game. Connor's story is phenomenal. But Desmond's conclusion is about as crappy as it gets. If five minutes before the end of the game, neither the player (nor the character) has any idea how the story is going to resolve the main conflict, the writers probably screwed something up.

The whole series basically is based on magical TWCB stuff from day 1. It is one of the themes of the series, that what we consider magic and magicians are not so. Also the solution was hinted at since ACB. Both not the case with ME3, which suddenly saw a heavy overdose of magic right at the end, and also influx of characters we had no idea about.

TrueAssassin77
11-10-2012, 06:26 AM
Not mad that Desmond is dead. I'm disguted with how and why he died. The point of AC2 was for Desmond to become a master assassin through the bleeding effect ... the ending makes that game seem like a filler game. Desmond in the was a tool. A hchess piece. He never evolved from that stage. He was a static character. He was a tool in AC1 and in the end was a tool as well. He was being used by everyone he came in contact with. And he died a well used tool.

That is not how you use a main protagonist. He can be a tool, but at some point he's got to evolve from that. And only then can he die. When he finally becomes his own man. But no, he died a tool. Even juno says "you played your part well, Desmond ".

The devs wanted to end his story. But apparently they are short-sighted and can't see that killing him off wasn't the only way to end his story. There were a multitude of better ways to end a story. In the end ubi simply killed him off for the "shock value " not because it was necessary that he die. Just look at Altair ending, just look at ezios, so far ubi has ended there heros through great syory writing. Desmond ending even seems rushed based on there other emotional endings. When Altair died you felt "wow, an assassin to the end "when ezio died a lot of people cried. But Desmond? It could be argued that he was a sacrificial hero.... but ubi negated that argument by making it so he caused juno to release. Juno was using him. He was suppose to die. That completely devalues his sacrifice.

Ubisoft simply stopped caring about Desmond .

just to add to this. desmonds death reminds me of lucy's. lucy was ONLY killed for "shock value". nothing more. it was like the end of some bad tv show seasons. her death didn't even advance the story. didn't change anything. Devs killed her off simply for the sake of killing her off

zhengyingli
11-10-2012, 08:53 AM
Then ACB had a worse ending, but clearly they didn't mean to stop there, so people didn't complain. AC III was supposed to be Desmond's end. Not a stopping point or resting point for the trilogy. Hell it isn't even a trilogy now. People assumed that, and that's why they are angry. The story was meant to continue to a next game probably next year.



That would have been for the best IMO, but clearly they aren't going in that direction, and I'm ok with that.



The whole series basically is based on magical TWCB stuff from day 1. It is one of the themes of the series, that what we consider magic and magicians are not so. Also the solution was hinted at since ACB. Both not the case with ME3, which suddenly saw a heavy overdose of magic right at the end, and also influx of characters we had no idea about.

Dude, the comaprison is so prevalent in the mainstream, it is not even funny. Some reviewer (and other popular youtubers) on youtube started comparing, and a legion of his/her fans took the comparison obviously not having watched or understood the series themselves. I tried explaining how it's clear that the modern era, at the very least, hasn't ended, then my post got flagged as spam......I was being pretty nice, too. Thank God for the forums not being able to rate or flag anyone's posts.

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 09:08 AM
Dude, the comaprison is so prevalent in the mainstream, it is not even funny. Some reviewer (and other popular youtubers) on youtube started comparing, and a legion of his/her fans took the comparison obviously not having watched or understood the series themselves. I tried explaining how it's clear that the modern era, at the very least, hasn't ended, then my post got flagged as spam......I was being pretty nice, too. Thank God for the forums not being able to rate or flag anyone's posts.

I think ME3's endings have warped videogamer's minds permanently. Now everything slightly out the player's satisfaction zone would be branded ME3-like. I even heard someone say ME3's ending was better because it had moar explosions. I was left speechless. I'm seriously not trying to insult him/her, whoever it was, but that was my reaction. people will always have nitpicks about videogame endings. AC endings traditionally, have always been riddled with mysteries and cliffhangers, so it'll be more so. If I had to count videogame endings I have absolutely no complaints then there'll be only one such game in my last one year of gaming: Alan Wake, and that too faced flak from my friends.

LilyasAvalon
11-10-2012, 10:17 AM
just to add to this. desmonds death reminds me of lucy's. lucy was ONLY killed for "shock value". nothing more. it was like the end of some bad tv show seasons. her death didn't even advance the story. didn't change anything. Devs killed her off simply for the sake of killing her off

I disagree. It's clear she was going to die at some point in time, she was a templar working among assassins. She was either going to die in ACB because Juno didn't want her interfering or she was going to die in AC3, when she returned to Warric and he was killed.

LilyasAvalon
11-10-2012, 10:19 AM
I think ME3's endings have warped videogamer's minds permanently. Now everything slightly out the player's satisfaction zone would be branded ME3-like. I even heard someone say ME3's ending was better because it had moar explosions. I was left speechless. I'm seriously not trying to insult him/her, whoever it was, but that was my reaction. people will always have nitpicks about videogame endings. AC endings traditionally, have always been riddled with mysteries and cliffhangers, so it'll be more so. If I had to count videogame endings I have absolutely no complaints then there'll be only one such game in my last one year of gaming: Alan Wake, and that too faced flak from my friends.

Only two games I've been disappointed in in the last few years are ME3 and DA2. Oddly enough, both Bioware games. They haven't been the same since EA bought em'.

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 10:52 AM
Only two games I've been disappointed in in the last few years are ME3 and DA2. Oddly enough, both Bioware games. They haven't been the same since EA bought em'.

Well yeah. Thats what I'm saying. That there's a spectrum of .. like-ness for endings. Only one game's ending truly disappointed me last year, you what that is. Also, only one game really had me asking nothing else. All other endings lie in the middle, AC III included. So what I'm saying is, if people thing a videogame ending can be such that there are virtually no complaints, then such games are very rare indeed. There have been certain complaints against All ACs. Some people had similar complaints against ACR's ending last year, if I remember correctly.

kuled2012
11-10-2012, 10:58 AM
I just saw the ending again...It's not that bad really, I think people are frustrated with it because it lacked emotion and they thought this was the end of the series (althought they've said countless times that it's not) I think if there was more emotions mixed in the scene (ex. desmond telling the team to go, could have been executed better, desmond being nervous touching the pedestal, desmond looking at the apple to see how BAD things would have turned out if he doesn't touches the pedestal etc) people would have liked it more...It's not that bad as people have made it out to be really.

Blind2Society
11-10-2012, 10:59 AM
The ending makes perfect sense to me. It was no where near as epic as it should have been but it makes sense. It is the perfect way to keep the series going while ending the ongoing Desmond/end-of-the-world arc. I hate to bring it up but it was pretty much the exact opposite of ME3.

Now, we have the epitome of all Templars in Juno and the Assassin-Templar war rages on.

The only thing that was a bit strange to me was Desmond being so sure he was going to side with Juno. It's obviously the logical choice but it seemed the ending was rushed. The options weren't clearly presented and Desmond made up his mind in a heartbeat.

It was a good way to end the arc while keeping the series alive but the presentation was pretty terrible.

LilyasAvalon
11-10-2012, 11:03 AM
Well yeah. Thats what I'm saying. That there's a spectrum of .. like-ness for endings. Only one game's ending truly disappointed me last year, you what that is. Also, only one game really had me asking nothing else. All other endings lie in the middle, AC III included. So what I'm saying is, if people thing a videogame ending can be such that there are virtually no complaints, then such games are very rare indeed. There have been certain complaints against All ACs. Some people had similar complaints against ACR's ending last year, if I remember correctly.

Everything will always have it's faults, someone will ALWAYS find something to nitpick about. Hell, if the ending had been perfect and what everyone had hoped for, someone probably would've *****ed that it was too soon to end AC.

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 11:09 AM
Everything will always have it's faults, someone will ALWAYS find something to nitpick about. Hell, if the ending had been perfect and what everyone had hoped for, someone probably would've *****ed that it was too soon to end AC.

That person would probably be me lol. Don't want AC to end, not so soon. There are still so many places to see, so much time to travel. It can't end this soon :(

kuled2012
11-10-2012, 11:13 AM
That person would probably be me lol. Don't want AC to end, not so soon. There are still so many places to see, so much time to travel. It can't end this soon :(

Agreed. As a history lover this is my favourite game of all time and there's still so much to see.

LilyasAvalon
11-10-2012, 11:34 AM
Don't worry, guys, I'm with you. I personally love the AC universe and it helps that Ubisoft apparently loves it just as much, considering all the work they put into it.

I still want my game with Shao Jun anyway.

zhengyingli
11-10-2012, 11:45 AM
I still want my game with Shao Jun anyway.

Hell yeah. She's actually been mentioned by name in ACIII, so I wish that's a hint of potential future protagonists. Kung Fu style fighting in an AC game? Bring it on.

IlDiv0
11-10-2012, 02:30 PM
That's like somebody reading the Goblet of Fire, then *****ing because the ending was 'unresolved'. You can't even CALL IT the ending because it ISN'T the ending. If that person wasn't intelligent enough to wait for Order of the Phoenix, the Half Blood Prince and the Deathly Hallows that is NOT JK Rowling's fault. It's the same principal.

No. Let's rephrase your analogy so it's somewhat accurate: It would be like if J.K. Rowling had told us that Book Seven was the end of Harry's Journey and the Voldemort plot, killed off Harry, but revealed at the end that Snape was really the evil mastermind and now all the other characters have to find a way to stop him. Now, imagine the outrage that fans would have had at the idea that not only did Harry die, but the conflict did not end with him, at which point she tells us she never saw Book 7 as the end of the series, only as Harry's end.

Here's the relevant point: Harry Potter, and Desmond, were the key windows through which players experienced the respective conflicts. Ubisoft told us that this story would resolve Desmond's plot and the Sun plot. Saying "they never promised to conclude everything" is a cop-out. All the cards were assumed to be on the table at this stage. Hence the Halo 4 comparisons. You can leave Halo 3 on a pretty satisfactory note, regarding all the central conflicts. You can leave Star Wars Episode VI on a satisfactory note. Likewise with Harry Potter, regardless if whether J.K. Rowling decides to release sequel novels later. AC3's problem is that this conflict is built up around Desmond, but his role in the story is incredibly diminished and serves only as a segue into the next world-altering state. Five games playing through the eyes of this character, telling us about his importance, and all he had to do was press a button prepped for him. Regardless of how Brotherhood and Revelations may have diverted Ubisoft's original plans, they did continually build up AC3 in terms of its importance to ending relevant conflicts. Claiming they didn't promise to conclude the story is really just wordplay.



How is it 'magic'? It fits with the lore. We were given SEVERAL hints prior to time that the Pieces of Eden are capable of things humans aren't even capable of comprehending and that the First Civ HAD found a solution, or a partial one at least. AC3 hinted several times that this solution would come at A PRICE, before they even opened the door.

So magic. We have no idea how it works, it functions by some arbitrary set of rules set by the author. The First Civ did not find a solution, prior to the last five minutes of AC3, at which point our magic button is unveiled. Everyone says "Desmond, you have to discover a solution". Insert Connor plotline, because we need to open another door, despite AC2 and Brotherhood already equipping us to do this. No one says "Desmond, you have to get into the Grand Temple, so you can use a solution already pre-planned". As I said, by the end of the story, the player (and Desmond) has no idea where the story could even be going. When you write an overwhelming force into the story, there should be some sense of how you're going to prevent global destruction, unless you wish to cheapen its value.



The Catalyst came out at THE LAST ****ING SECOND and presented us with a solution that DID NOT FIT with lore at the time. Prior to that, both ME1 and ME2 hinted that the solution (or the problem) had something to do with dark energy, yet there was NO MENTION of dark energy being even remotely involved in ME3.

No they didn't. Far as I'm aware, ME1 has absolutely no mention of dark energy as being a threatening force. And ME2's "foreshadowing" was limited at best to Tali's Recruitment and the Gianna Parasini quest, assuming she survived the events of ME1, which were not definitive indicators that ME3 was going to be centered around it. The Dark Energy plotline was speculation at best and Drew Karpshyn's (ME1's and ME2's writer) version of the story at the time was a vague outline which had its own level of suck, including the idea that somehow human DNA was special in its ability to stop the spread of dark energy.

Hence the comparison. By the last five minutes, we have no idea how Shepard is going to stop the Reapers, an overwhelming force. Hence the writers had to crap together some solution. Likewise with AC3. For all the build-up towards Desmond's role as a protagonist (AC2 and Brotherhood were about him acquiring the relevant skills, Revelations was about finishing up with his ancestors and his newfound willingness to embrace his role as an assassin), AC3 backpedals. All of Desmond's assassin skills were so he could participate in a single mission to save his father from Abstergo and so he can activate a button to stop a conflict, to which all evidence indicated did not exist. It wasn't about him becoming proactive like Altair, or Ezio, or Connor. He still has the same function he had the last four games: he's a tool, but never learned from all his experiences.

IlDiv0
11-10-2012, 02:39 PM
Maybe you should speak for yourself.

I always do. I was simply taking his claim that most fans play for the historical background at face value. It's certainly not the only reason I'm playing this series, at least.



You're absolutely right, but ancient magical Dragon-Balls, time travel and magic beyond our understanding has always been a theme in AC.
Not the same can be said for ME. That's why the ending in AC is not as big of a deal as it was in ME in terms of contradictions.

To an extent, I agree. This is where stuff like Clark's third law come into play, the idea that advanced technology can't be differentiated from magic, since the audience isn't given any insight into how it functions. While both sci-fi, AC3 is definitely "more wacky" in its element and that's not inherently bad. But in any story, the player/viewer relies on the in-world characters to explain how and why this unobtanium functions. When most characters, TWCB included, emphasize the fact that there is no solution to the Sun problem, it cheapens the conflict when easy access to a solution is introduced, regardless of what alot of players seem to think about Juno's "foreshadowing".

I agree that AC3 isn't as bad as the ME3 ending, simply due to its style, but I don't think that makes it immune to criticism. The problem with the magic beyond our understanding angle is that it technically allows the writers to implement anything they want into a story, simply because we don't know how it works. And I think that's an exceptionally dangerous line to cross. Since no one has any idea how this magic functions, what differentiates Juno's magic button from, say, Peter Pan suddenly appearing in the story by virtue of "old magic"? The audience can't distinguish which is logical from a technological stand point because we were never told how the technology functions, which means all we have to go on is what other characters tell us. That's why I make such a big deal about introducing these solutions before the 11th hour because it allows time for the audience to become familiar with them.

IlDiv0
11-10-2012, 02:59 PM
Then ACB had a worse ending, but clearly they didn't mean to stop there, so people didn't complain. AC III was supposed to be Desmond's end. Not a stopping point or resting point for the trilogy. Hell it isn't even a trilogy now. People assumed that, and that's why they are angry. The story was meant to continue to a next game probably next year.

And ACB was supposed to conclude...what, exactly? You said it yourself: Assassin's Creed is no longer a trilogy. I don't say AC3 had to conclude the story out of some arbitrary reason, but because Ubisoft built it up as a good stopping point. If you're going to tell your players "we always envisioned this as a trilogy", which they have said (true or not), promise the end of the protagonist's journey and the central conflict, people are not out of line to expect some kind of resolution, as opposed to more mind screws. That AC3 fails to provide resolution for the storyline and treats Desmond's end so lacking were terrible decisions. Especially when you consider the send-offs which Ezio, Altair, and Connor received. It's like watching a balloon deflate, by comparison.



The whole series basically is based on magical TWCB stuff from day 1. It is one of the themes of the series, that what we consider magic and magicians are not so. Also the solution was hinted at since ACB. Both not the case with ME3, which suddenly saw a heavy overdose of magic right at the end, and also influx of characters we had no idea about.

See Clark's Third Law. Magic has only ever been a word for technological elements of a story which elude our understanding and the writers have no wish to explore the function of. Alot of universes which employ magic often employ the caveat "you cannot resurrect the dead", for example, which implies a certain set of rules by which the universe functions, similar to how we view/use science.

There was no hint of the solution in ACB. As far as I'm aware, no one knew about our magic button to save the world.

Markie577
11-10-2012, 03:18 PM
I think the ending is exacty was was needed for an emotional ending but I don't think we won't see desmond again.
It looks like juno has taken hold over desmonds body so we will probably see him as bad guy in the future. Perhaps in the quest to find Eve, Eve will save Desmond? Or in an sequel to AC3 we find that Desmond has been transported to the temple where he will experience more adventures of connor and an way out?

It has to go like this or else i'm going to be very upset!

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 03:23 PM
I think we're going to see Desmond again, as a ghost-in-the-animus. Like Sixteen.

xboxauditore
11-10-2012, 03:25 PM
I think we're going to see Desmond again, as a ghost-in-the-animus. Like Sixteen.

Hopefully not as crazy.

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 03:29 PM
Hopefully not as crazy.

Hey, Clay wasn't crazy. :( Just a guy in trouble.

xboxauditore
11-10-2012, 03:33 PM
He wasn't bad-crazy though, he was cool-crazy. :D

It made him wise and clever. If a bit unsettling.

Markie577
11-10-2012, 03:44 PM
Do you guys remember when they said that they could transport themself to "these walls" but the sacrifice to bring them back would be to big! I honestly thought at that moment they needed a sacrifice from a human or a host body. So that's what I think has happened with atleasts desmonds body.

godsmack_darius
11-10-2012, 05:58 PM
I was angry was because they built up Desmond to be this massive badass, and then all for nothing. EVERYTHING Altair, Desmond, AND CONNOR caught ended up just being a plan for Juno to do this. EVERYTHING THEY DID WAS POINTLESS!!!!!

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 07:10 PM
And ACB was supposed to conclude...what, exactly? You said it yourself: Assassin's Creed is no longer a trilogy. I don't say AC3 had to conclude the story out of some arbitrary reason, but because Ubisoft built it up as a good stopping point. If you're going to tell your players "we always envisioned this as a trilogy", which they have said (true or not), promise the end of the protagonist's journey and the central conflict, people are not out of line to expect some kind of resolution, as opposed to more mind screws. That AC3 fails to provide resolution for the storyline and treats Desmond's end so lacking were terrible decisions. Especially when you consider the send-offs which Ezio, Altair, and Connor received. It's like watching a balloon deflate, by comparison.

Brotherhood was supposed to conclude nothing. AC III too, is supposed to conclude nothing except Desmond and the 2012 storyline. I believe Ubisoft said that "we always envisioned this as a trilogy" thing long ago. They have long since abandoned the trilogy structure. AC II was supposed to turn out differently initially. They changed it and incerted the apocalypse storyline when they ditched the trilogy structure. They never, in recent times have said that AC III is supposed to be a resting point or anything. Just that it would conclude Desmond and 2012 storyline. And that it did.



There was no hint of the solution in ACB. As far as I'm aware, no one knew about our magic button to save the world.

The Grand Temple was first introduced in ACB, if I'm correct.


EVERYTHING THEY DID WAS POINTLESS!!!!!

The Apocalypse was averted. We still live. Don't miss the key point. There sacrifice wasn't meaningless. Only because of them Earth isn't a wasteland now. Yes Juno was released, but as Al-Mualim once said, there are always unforeseen complications. It is our task, as Assassins, to adjust to them. We have broken free of their rule once before, haven't we? Back then when the world was full of them. Now there is only one of them (there may be more, but we don't know that yet).

Kaschra
11-10-2012, 07:16 PM
I was angry was because they built up Desmond to be this massive badass, and then all for nothing. EVERYTHING Altair, Desmond, AND CONNOR caught ended up just being a plan for Juno to do this. EVERYTHING THEY DID WAS POINTLESS!!!!!
Nope, Desmond saved the lives of billions of people.
Now they only need to get rid of Juno...

IlDiv0
11-10-2012, 07:48 PM
Brotherhood was supposed to conclude nothing. AC III too, is supposed to conclude nothing except Desmond and the 2012 storyline. I believe Ubisoft said that "we always envisioned this as a trilogy" thing long ago. They have long since abandoned the trilogy structure. AC II was supposed to turn out differently initially. They changed it and incerted the apocalypse storyline when they ditched the trilogy structure. They never, in recent times have said that AC III is supposed to be a resting point or anything. Just that it would conclude Desmond and 2012 storyline. And that it did.

So it was a lie of omission then? Well, that certainly makes me feel better. Generally speaking, if you tell your viewers that you're going to conclude the central conflict of the story, which was the Sun, it's not a good idea to include Crisis 2.0 as an immediate follow-up. Your defense amounts to "well, they never promised that they wouldn't artificially extend the storyline", which isn't a defense at all.

Once more: Halo 4 does this very well. If you want to stop at 3, with the conclusion of the primary conflict, there's nothing stopping you. AC3 on the other hand solves one issue, then immediately launches into crisis #2. Hell, if I remember right, they don't even tell (or show us) how the Sun catastrophere is averted. It's awkward, it's contrived, and resulted in a lackluster end for the character who held all these historical stories together. It's about as idiotic as all the Expanded Universe material for Star Wars. It wasn't enough to kill Palpatine in Episode VI, the writers had to include Palpatine clones, Luke falling to the dark side. But at least Star Wars ended with closure, for the relevant conflict of the series. You can ignore all crappy post-movie stuff. The same can't be said for AC3.



The Grand Temple was first introduced in ACB, if I'm correct.



That's more than a bit of a stretch. The Grand Temple was mentioned in ACB, correct, though Minerva also mentioned other, minor temples at the conclusion of AC2. That Desmond's final goal will be involved with them we already knew. Jupiter mentions this point. But it's a farcry from that to say the solution was "foreshadowed". As far as saving the world goes, it absolutely was not. There was nothing to hint at the existence of a solution of any kind, hence why every character is constantly reminding Desmond that it's his job to find the way forward. So we went from Desmond, being a fully developed master assassin, who needs to save the world, to the solution already being prepped for him, so all he has to do is press a button. All that was indicated was that how we solve the 2012 plotline would be tied into the Grand Temple, which is about as much foreshadowing as saying we knew we had to build the crucible to stop the ME3 Reapers; it tells you nothing of value.

MagusShadow
11-10-2012, 08:02 PM
A couple things about the ending make no sense to me whatsoever.
1) After desmond dies? How are we back in the animus with connor? Shawn still talks through the animus to you like nothing happened. WTF?
2) If Juno can save the world with a wave of her magic wand, why didn't she just do that to save the First People? How does being trapped in a box for thousands of years suddenly make you more powerful?
3) The last few Connor missions are so loose ended that they might as well not be there. Connor has a chat with Daniel Boone - who doesn't even introduce himself. Connor looks and see's some slaves being sold, but doesn't help them.

Not only this, but there are other things. The "Key" is buried on Achilles Grave. If you havent done the homestead missions, its a complete surprise he's even dead! Last i knew he was sick in bed... then i buried a key on his grave...then he was alive again asking me to retrieve a costume from a cave, then a painting, and then he dies again...

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 08:18 PM
So it was a lie of omission then? Well, that certainly makes me feel better. Generally speaking, if you tell your viewers that you're going to conclude the central conflict of the story, which was the Sun, it's not a good idea to include Crisis 2.0 as an immediate follow-up. Your defense amounts to "well, they never promised that they wouldn't artificially extend the storyline", which isn't a defense at all.

Everyone who followed AC in recent times knew they planed to continue. Hutchinson and Ubisoft have publicly said they plan on going ahead with yearly sequels. I am not 100% happy about that but that's another matter. So it is not as much as "well, they never promised that they wouldn't artificially extend the storyline" as it is "They never said they'll stop here." Also not seeing how it is a lie of omission.


That's more than a bit of a stretch. The Grand Temple was mentioned in ACB, correct, though Minerva also mentioned other, minor temples at the conclusion of AC2. That Desmond's final goal will be involved with them we already knew. Jupiter mentions this point. But it's a farcry from that to say the solution was "foreshadowed". As far as saving the world goes, it absolutely was not. There was nothing to hint at the existence of a solution of any kind, hence why every character is constantly reminding Desmond that it's his job to find the way forward. So we went from Desmond, being a fully developed master assassin, who needs to save the world, to the solution already being prepped for him, so all he has to do is press a button. All that was indicated was that how we solve the 2012 plotline would be tied into the Grand Temple, which is about as much foreshadowing as saying we knew we had to build the crucible to stop the ME3 Reapers; it tells you nothing of value.

We got to know that something called the crucible exists at the last game. We got to know something capable of saving the world exists 2 games before. I'd say that's better foreshadowing than the crucible.

Em-Man
11-10-2012, 08:19 PM
A couple things about the ending make no sense to me whatsoever.
1) After desmond dies? How are we back in the animus with connor? Shawn still talks through the animus to you like nothing happened. WTF?
2) If Juno can save the world with a wave of her magic wand, why didn't she just do that to save the First People? How does being trapped in a box for thousands of years suddenly make you more powerful?
1) After finding all the piots on the epilogue, they tease on the thought of Connors memories being "hacked" or acquired by another group of people. It can either be that OR a projection of a desmond coma-state like in revelations.
2)In one of the first Juno encounters, she talks about a solution requiring thousands of years to build. This is most likely what happened and therefore it was not possible for the first civ to save themselves.

Kaschra
11-10-2012, 09:24 PM
Not only this, but there are other things. The "Key" is buried on Achilles Grave. If you havent done the homestead missions, its a complete surprise he's even dead! Last i knew he was sick in bed... then i buried a key on his grave...then he was alive again asking me to retrieve a costume from a cave, then a painting, and then he dies again...
I agree that they should have put Achilles' death as one of the main story missions, but they key wasn't buried in Achilles' grave, it was buried in the grave of his son Connor (yes, he named RatonhnhakÚ:ton after his dead son)

IlDiv0
11-10-2012, 09:25 PM
Everyone who followed AC in recent times knew they planed to continue. Hutchinson and Ubisoft have publicly said they plan on going ahead with yearly sequels. I am not 100% happy about that but that's another matter. So it is not as much as "well, they never promised that they wouldn't artificially extend the storyline" as it is "They never said they'll stop here."

That AC was going to continue? Sure, I never thought it was going to stop any more than Final Fantasy would. That they were going to inject a half-baked plot into the mix is another story entirely. You said it yourself: most people play for the historical angle. That doesn't bode well for arguments trying to defend the ending on the grounds that it was planned or that it was quality. Quite the contrary since it tells us that the writers are willing to screw over the modern day plot, for the historical plotline which was AC3's case. Revelations ends with the impression that Desmond is going to find out how to save the world. "I know what we need to do", in his words. Assassin's Creed 3 instead opens with another scavenger hunt to open a door. Jarring, to say the least. We're at the point in the story where Desmond is supposed to take the reins, but back into history we go, for some contrived reason.



Also not seeing how it is a lie of omission.

A lie of omission is a statement which is composed entirely of true statements, but still manages to create the impression of a falsehood.

Ex: If I've stolen money from your wallet at 3:58 p.m. and you ask me if I stole money from your wallet at 4:00 p.m., I would be committing a lie of omission if I simply answered 'no', since it's clear I'm responsible for taking money from your wallet.

In a similar sense, giving the impression that we're concluding a story arc by telling us Desmond's story is ending, that we have to finish the 2012 plotline, which is what the series has been about, gives the impression that we're concluding the main storyline. Because the Solar Flare was the main conflict introduced. By the end, we've transitioned from that to giving the player another over the top threat to deal with in the span of 5 minutes. Same comparison as eariler: I doubt J.K. Rowling's fans would have been as receptive if she had played these kinds of mind games with the Harry Potter series: "I never promised the story was over, only that the protagonist was finished".

Edit: Actually, take any series you want: Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Batman, etc. I doubt anyone would have been receptive to this kind of thing in those cases. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single good story which introduces a new world-destroying threat in the same five minutes which it resolves the central conflict. Suggestions (from anyone) are appreciated, simply to serve as a point of comparison.



We got to know that something called the crucible exists at the last game. We got to know something capable of saving the world exists 2 games before. I'd say that's better foreshadowing than the crucible.

So...we knew the location where Desmond was going to save the world? Well, that's something. Again, this is reaching. I said, several pages ago, that AC3 has a slightly better ending than ME3. But that's not saying much in the long run. It's the same flaw in its foundations: bad writing, because the writers can't be bothered to focus on the actual main threat. We spend all of Mass Effect 3 building an army, but since the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally, we really spend the entire game building a stalling force, throughout which we have no idea what the crucible will actually do. Likewise, we spend all of AC3 trying to get through one bloody door playing as Connor, so the developers have no time to write a story which actually deals with Desmond resolving the Solar Eclipse. Until the last 5 minutes, in neither games does the player have any idea how the conflict is going to sort itself out. The parallels are pretty clear. Hence why both games hand us a magic button to press.

Mega8BitPanda
11-10-2012, 09:26 PM
Quite frankly, all I can say regarding the fiasco is this; should Desmond appear in any other sequel then his story hasn't truly ended, has it? If he's still around and his story is continuing, he just won't be a main focus, and then the 2012 would have only ended, not him. Assuming if he does return.

Even then, his story hasn't ended. Beating a dead horse about the Eve, his son and so on but my point is that taking one plot point out of a character's story and then going; " Oh no, that's for a bigger story!" is ridiculous as then it becomes that Desmond never had a story. Why purposely address Desmond with these things and then say; " Oh no, actually you're not meant to do any of that, someone else is meant to." They've written themselves into a corner there, unless they drop those points completely or do some marvelous, un-heard of explaining it away. However, I know people have their own explanations on a lot of this and by no means am I claiming this is 100% fact that these have been dropped within the Desmond plot.

It's not that they want to continue that is the problem, it's how they've handled it in such ill manner, the modern day story felt as the briefest one yet as there was hardly any conflict merely getting power cells first try every single time with Desmond's "master assassin" talents being wasted on sucker punching Cross and few times and pulling every mission off with no real hitches. They were basically rushing you towards the end to unveil Juno and the game really felt that way around the mid-point. It was clear they really wanted this plot over and done with, you could barely interact with the group between missions on anything relevant bar semantic debates and very rushed ending in comparison to Connor's. Had the game had actually conflict and resolution, had the game been presenting the modern day being cared and 2 memory sequences long like we had been promised then I doubt many of us would care, what we got was 3 missions. That's 1 memory sequence, in AC3's books for it's shortest memory sequences. If they truly intend on continuing the game yearly, they really need to stop with the idea that "Cliffhangers worked last time!"

We wanted a sense of closure and a chapter closing, the new danger is far to present far too quickly and completely undermines Desmond's achievement. What good is saving 'x' amount of people while immediately dooming them to a new fate? Had they just held off on this plot point about Juno until next year and focused much more on Desmond saving the world and showed us the world being saved then okay. Having an ending where the group barely says a word, despite being the most chattiest people within these games prior 3, and only William half heartily trying to show emotion towards Desmond, text on a screen and less than 5 second clip of Juno confirming she's a villain... That's a very big no, no, even in continuous story writing. Sure, Desmond saved the world... for an new fate to immediately enslave them and fight them. There is no player reward in that, and it just comes off as "BUY THE NEXT ONE, KIDS!" rather than here is an in-depth story we want you to care about.

Juno was foreshadowed far too much in AC3 to the point it came off as being apart of the 2012 plot, but nope. Going to just ignore the threatening e-mails, Shaun's observation about Minerva and so until the 11th hour. This is what disappointed me the most. I honestly asked aloud at the ending that if we're seriously going to be starting this now, and they did...

Also, ME and Halo were both franchises that had sequels planned beyond their trilogies in the case of being well received. ME1-era they said there would always expand the lore should there be demand, just without Shepard, as for Bungie, they were under contract at the time and not everyone wished to stay. Most of 343 is the original team who pestered for that "Legendary" ending so they could reform their contracts and make 4 while Bungie made Reach and ODST. Although this could be chalked down to both franchises having rather unclear futures within the real world where as AC is very safe and sound both financially and legality.

I also have to disagree about Brotherhood and Revelations breaking trilogy structure is incorrect, too, as many trilogies have side stories accompanying them. The animated Clone Wars film is not part of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy but sits nicely as a companion, which is what Brotherhood and Revelations are, companions. They elaborate on plot points that we pretty much already knew about other than Lucy's death but even then, that is talked about in 3 and thus can be attributed to this as many films, books and games have done this with big character deaths.

The 2012 thing has been in play since AC1, too, as the satellite launch date was given in an E-Mail in 1. To say that isn't foreshadowing be a bit of a stretch. As I recall, anyway.

Elegana
11-10-2012, 09:47 PM
The ending to Desmond's story was stressful. While I'm walking Desmond down the walkway, I kept thinking what was going to happen, like was Juno gonna take over Desmond's body? Is everyone going to die? Will we really save the world? So much anxiety, haha. It was heroic of him to give himself up, but I doubt that is the last we see of Desmond. The ending is a cliffhanger and I can't shake the feeling that AC4 will be taking down Juno.

TheHumanTowel
11-10-2012, 09:55 PM
Well I just watched the ending of ACB to refresh my memory. Holy dropped plot threads Batman! Juno's telling Desmond to find some woman who will "accompany him through the gate". Completely forgot about that. Well the only woman Desmond walked through the gate with was Rebecca and I don't think she was the one Juno was talking about. So am I missing something here or did the AC writing team decide to pretend that that never happened so they wouldn't have to think of a resolution to it?

Elegana
11-10-2012, 10:03 PM
Well I just watched the ending of ACB to refresh my memory. Holy dropped plot threads Batman! Juno's telling Desmond to find some woman who will "accompany him through the gate". Completely forgot about that. Well the only woman Desmond walked through the gate with was Rebecca and I don't think she was the one Juno was talking about. So am I missing something here or did the AC writing team decide to pretend that that never happened so they wouldn't have to think of a resolution to it?
I'm not entirely sure, but I know that with Liberation's true ending, Aveline sees a memory about "Eve leading the rebellion". Supposedly, Desmond's mind is still alive, so he can try to search for "Eve" (assuming Desmond was "Adam"). So, next protagonist might be a female modern-day assassin. Who knows? But yeah, I kind of feel like Ubisoft forgot about the whole "Search for the woman who will accompany you through the gate".

Em-Man
11-10-2012, 11:45 PM
Well I just watched the ending of ACB to refresh my memory. Holy dropped plot threads Batman! Juno's telling Desmond to find some woman who will "accompany him through the gate". Completely forgot about that. Well the only woman Desmond walked through the gate with was Rebecca and I don't think she was the one Juno was talking about. So am I missing something here or did the AC writing team decide to pretend that that never happened so they wouldn't have to think of a resolution to it?

Juno never said that Desmonds need to find a woman who will accompany him through the gate (or am I missing something?). She said the following:

There is one who would accompany you through the gate. She lies not within our sight. The cross darkens the horizon.
For all we know, Juno could be referring to Lucy in all of these sentences. And "she lies not within our sight" could have a metaphorical meaning that Lucy is not within their "plans" for the overall outcome in AC3, and therefore she must die. Keep in mind that this was still during a stage where Juno was shaping the future.

TheHumanTowel
11-10-2012, 11:52 PM
Juno never said that Desmonds need to find a woman who will accompany him through the gate (or am I missing something?). She said the following:

For all we know, Juno could be referring to Lucy in all of these sentences. And "she lies not within our sight" could have a metaphorical meaning that Lucy is not within their "plans" for the overall outcome in AC3, and therefore she must die. Keep in mind that this was still during a stage where Juno was shaping the future.
But after Desmond has stabbed Lucy she says "It is done. The way lies all before you. Only she remains to be found." So she isn't talking about Lucy because she's already dead. And even if it was Lucy she doesn't accompany Desmond through the gate. No one does.

Em-Man
11-11-2012, 12:16 AM
But after Desmond has stabbed Lucy she says "It is done. The way lies all before you. Only she remains to be found."
I don't see how this makes any difference? Now she could easily be talking about eve without contradiction.
Let me translate Junos cryptic babble:


There is one who would accompany you through the gate. She lies not within our sight. The cross darkens the horizon.
Translation: Lucy would accompany you through the gate in the future if she remains alive and this is not according to our plans. Lucy darkens your path and therefore she must die.


It is done. The way lies all before you. Only she remains to be found.
Translation: It is done. You successfully killed Lucy and she can no longer interfere with our plans for world domination in the future. The only thing that remains to be done now is to find Eve.

There you go. I'm not saying that I'm right, I'm just stating that this is a possibility.

Saqaliba
11-11-2012, 05:07 AM
This would have been an awesome ending, AND an awesome sequel plot:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/1610/desmondt.jpg

Saqaliba
11-11-2012, 05:20 AM
I'm not entirely sure, but I know that with Liberation's true ending, Aveline sees a memory about "Eve leading the rebellion". Supposedly, Desmond's mind is still alive, so he can try to search for "Eve" (assuming Desmond was "Adam"). So, next protagonist might be a female modern-day assassin. Who knows? But yeah, I kind of feel like Ubisoft forgot about the whole "Search for the woman who will accompany you through the gate".


Yeah. So many direction changes in the over-arching plot that it just seems they are making it up as they go and not covering their tracks. I seriously doubt that the 'Eve' was ever intended to be Juno back in Brotherhood. I always assumed it would have something to to with Mitochondrial DNA or something. This whole Juno being the antagonist is such a deus ex machina. It does not make sense to the rest of the story. In the Roman mythology, Juno never betrayed her colleges in the Capitoline Trio, so bad research on Ubisoft's script-team. Furthermore. I thought that the whole focus of Desmond on Connors struggles in the birth of a Nation in a 'new world' was actually leading Desmond to how to deal with a 'new world' after the apocalypse... and then WTF - they kill him off. Was that whole dialogue with Connor just a plot device - WTF happened to the whole political compass thing - control v.s. freedom, monarchy/anarchy, templar/assassin dialogue.... Oh, Ubisoft have replaced that with the whole Gods v.s Humans thing now. Lame. Very sloppy writing. I could write better plots than this.

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 05:34 AM
That AC was going to continue? Sure, I never thought it was going to stop any more than Final Fantasy would. That they were going to inject a half-baked plot into the mix is another story entirely. You said it yourself: most people play for the historical angle. That doesn't bode well for arguments trying to defend the ending on the grounds that it was planned or that it was quality. Quite the contrary since it tells us that the writers are willing to screw over the modern day plot, for the historical plotline which was AC3's case. Revelations ends with the impression that Desmond is going to find out how to save the world. "I know what we need to do", in his words. Assassin's Creed 3 instead opens with another scavenger hunt to open a door. Jarring, to say the least. We're at the point in the story where Desmond is supposed to take the reins, but back into history we go, for some contrived reason.

Hey, I never said the ending was perfect or without flaws did I? I just said its unfair to compare AC 3 to Halo 3 because unlike Halo, AC clearly stated they intend to move along. Also not trying to defend anything, just clarifying my points. If someone thinks the ending was bad its his prerogative.
Now the modern day plot has always been a weak link in AC games. Its just there to provide a context to Desmond's time travels. What was the sync nexus? Was it important the main storywise? Not much. But it was there so that the player could play as Ezio and Altair. Again, I'm not going to defend this, or whether it is a good or bad decision, just saying it is the way it has been since day one. Desmond was always going to stop for some petty reason and he'd be forced to go into the animus and we'd play as Connor. Thats what happened, more or less. There was a big thread here in june/july after AC III was revealed. people speculated why he'd need to play as Connor, and they came up with a good guess, that Desmond would need to acess Connor's memories to find a way into the Temple.. Yes, the writers screw over the modern day plot and they've been doing so since AC 1. I'd have preferred to have them finish the modern storyline altogether and focus on the past, but now, thanks to Juno for the first time I'm actually interested in the modern day plotline.


A lie of omission is a statement which is composed entirely of true statements, but still manages to create the impression of a falsehood.

Ex: If I've stolen money from your wallet at 3:58 p.m. and you ask me if I stole money from your wallet at 4:00 p.m., I would be committing a lie of omission if I simply answered 'no', since it's clear I'm responsible for taking money from your wallet.

In a similar sense, giving the impression that we're concluding a story arc by telling us Desmond's story is ending, that we have to finish the 2012 plotline, which is what the series has been about, gives the impression that we're concluding the main storyline. Because the Solar Flare was the main conflict introduced. By the end, we've transitioned from that to giving the player another over the top threat to deal with in the span of 5 minutes. Same comparison as eariler: I doubt J.K. Rowling's fans would have been as receptive if she had played these kinds of mind games with the Harry Potter series: "I never promised the story was over, only that the protagonist was finished".

And she'd be correct, if, she said she plans to continue writing Harry Potter books after finishing the main story. Also mind games are nothing new as far as AC endings are concerned. If they do this kind of tricks at the very last AC, which they announce beforehand to be the last AC to be made, then I'd be pissed, not now.


So...we knew the location where Desmond was going to save the world? Well, that's something. Again, this is reaching. I said, several pages ago, that AC3 has a slightly better ending than ME3. But that's not saying much in the long run. It's the same flaw in its foundations: bad writing, because the writers can't be bothered to focus on the actual main threat. We spend all of Mass Effect 3 building an army, but since the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally, we really spend the entire game building a stalling force, throughout which we have no idea what the crucible will actually do. Likewise, we spend all of AC3 trying to get through one bloody door playing as Connor, so the developers have no time to write a story which actually deals with Desmond resolving the Solar Eclipse. Until the last 5 minutes, in neither games does the player have any idea how the conflict is going to sort itself out. The parallels are pretty clear. Hence why both games hand us a magic button to press.

Again, like I said, we were always going to end up playing majorly as Connor. Thats how AC has always been, like it or not. A full game with Desmond (or mostly Desmond) searching about a way to save the world would probably please some literary experts abut the quality of the writing, and some Desmond fangirls would be happy too, but it would not be the AC we know and love, atleast the one I love. And I doubt it would be anything this grand as AC III is now, So I'm glad what they did. ME had no such compulsion. I'm just a little sad they didn't elongate Desmond's story, showing more emotions. Thats my complaint about the ending, but again, maybe they didn't show it because there's more to it?


Quite frankly, all I can say regarding the fiasco is this; should Desmond appear in any other sequel then his story hasn't truly ended, has it? If he's still around and his story is continuing, he just won't be a main focus, and then the 2012 would have only ended, not him. Assuming if he does return.

It remains to be seen how big of a fiasco it actually is. According to the poll, most fans are actually ok with the ending.

TrueAssassin77
11-11-2012, 05:39 AM
This would have been an awesome ending, AND an awesome sequel plot:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/1610/desmondt.jpg
agreed. i actually liked it. old desmond reminded me of old ezio in a strange way. not a ahppy ending. but a good one... unlike the current ending

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 05:42 AM
This whole Juno being the antagonist is such a deus ex machina.

Lol.

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 05:50 AM
agreed. i actually liked it. old desmond reminded me of old ezio in a strange way. not a ahppy ending. but a good one... unlike the current ending

Its got happiness written all over it. This very picture describes it.

twenty_glyphs
11-11-2012, 06:55 AM
Lots of good points here about why the story structure of AC3 is so shoddy. At the end of the day, the reason I hate it is because it makes the first 5 games feel like one giant prequel to the real central conflict of the series. It feels like it exists for the sole reason to be a plot twist without having any sort of satisfaction. Well-written plot twists are the ones that make you look back at the story and see all the hints and feel a satisfaction at putting it together. This plot twist feels like it exists for its own sake and does not make me look back at the story and feel satisfied when I see the foreshadowing. Sure, you can see a thing or two that makes you think they were planning this a game or two back, but it still feels so artificial. Good plot twists always have clues that you can't use to predict them, but when looking back with a changed perspective you see that they were clues. This plot twist just makes me feel like I've been lied to for 5 story chapters, and people do not like the feeling they've been lied to.

I was the person who said Mass Effect 3's ending was better because it had explosions. My point was simply that even though its story sucked, at least it had some action and emotional impact and showed you the results of the final choice. AC3's ending does not show you the results of your actions that the whole series has been leading up to. It simply shows you a news cast that discusses the aftermath as if it's a minor scientific curiosity. There's just absolutely no weight there. The presentation was so terrible.

I think one of the reason Brotherhood's ending sticks with me as so good was because it had great buildup. You finish Ezio's story, which was decently satisfying for me, and find the information you've been told is central to the chapter of the story at the beginning -- where Ezio hid his Apple. Then you get a cutscene where the characters figure out the last piece of their puzzle, and you wind up in Rome to retrieve the Apple. But you don't just go to another cutscene, you get to play as Desmond exploring the Colosseum while everything builds up to the final moment with more dialogue. Things continue to crescendo, with Desmond seeing visions of Ezio and you really feel that sense of connection between their stories. Then you meet Juno, which does come out of nowhere, but still connects to the story of the previous game. You get to see and hear her several times as the moment continues to build. Then you finally reach the Apple Chamber and get the final cutscene with the plot twist ending. Contrast that to AC3's ending, where you find the info you're looking for in the past, and then you just sit and watch the rest of the action unfold in the next 10-15 minutes. There's no buildup to anything, it all just happens.

And yes, they never said the AC series would end with AC3. You would have been naive to think so. I of all people fully expected the 2012 and Desmond stories to conclude, but have a new cliffhanger or hint of the next conflict to come. Everything the developers have said about this game was about how it was wrapping up the 2012 storyline, which is what the entire series has been about from day one. It's not like we're talking about the conclusion of a small side story in the franchise, we're talking about the core modern-day plot introduced in AC1 once the date of "12/21/2012" was thrown out there. Sometimes they'd talk about concluding Desmond's story, and sometimes they'd get coy and say they really couldn't say it was ending. But still, they have been saying the series was originally conceived as a trilogy and this game was obviously being built up to as a huge focal point of the series. Instead, it feels like just another random episode in the middle of a long series.

They did conclude the 2012 storyline like they promised, but it was with a wave of their hand. Before they could even conclude it, they introduced the real threat of Juno -- they couldn't even wait until after they'd concluded the first threat! And to really top it off, they also managed to completely neuter the original antagonists of the series, introduced in the first 5 minutes of the AC story and built up as an all-knowing, controlling enemy -- Abstergo. Remember the enemy who knew all these things that we didn't, and who controlled all the important businesses, politicians and technology in the world? Brotherhood told us that Abstergo had planned every move and engineered every response in their little chess game. Well, even if their plans had gone the way they wanted, their entire scheme would have failed (Desmond said Juno showed their satellite launch and fail). In addition, they are so bumbling and idiotic that they goaded the one person who had a weapon to stop them in the Apple to just walk right in their front door and ruin a scheme they'd been planning for decades. That takes real writing skills to end the major threat of a series with a magic button, introduce a new threat just before the clock strikes midnight, and make a laughing stock out of what had been presented (very well, in fact) as the main antagonist of the series from day one.

thePhilCasper
11-11-2012, 10:22 AM
It's like the one who cared that Desmond was going to die was his Dad when he just joined them. Shaun and Rebecca don't care ? No questions ? It was rushed 100%. They made sure when Altair and Ezio passed it was emotional but when the main character of the whole series dies not a single **** is given. Also they still left unanswered question from AC2. Dude this was the end of Desmonds story yet you don't wrap it up properly ? I let them get away with ACR when Desmond didn't ask Clay what the hell he was talking about but AC3 is taking the piss. 3 years ? Please don't turn this into a Tobi from Naruto. After years of no answers right before the actual end you tell us. People would have forgetten or simply stopped caring by then.

Agreed.

dandins
11-11-2012, 10:40 AM
actually "total armageddon" isnt very realistic and comprehensible in any way... but im glad desmond and all the future story is gone.

maybe in the next part they can focuse on the "assassin game" itself. i would like to live more moments of history trough the eye┤s of an assassin.

weston_19
11-11-2012, 10:56 AM
I hate the ending. And not for arbitrary reasons. Id really like to have been at these writer meetings facepalming as they contradict there own story, and write in paradoxical story. Who to watch a movie that screws up how paradox in time travel works? People that have no flipping clue about the nature of time and paradox. If you want to make sure every faucet of your story is historically accurate, is it wrong that i ask for it to be even scientifically believable? I have a super funny feeling dlc is going to smack us with some ******ed story twist. I seen somthing on wikipedia about the shard of eden causing a bleeding effect and desmond was gaining its effects. Who knows whats on the board to resolve all this. Or they can just leave it up to us. But bar none, the writing feels cheap. It has nothing to do with what i expected, because i expected somthing like this. The pressure got to them, between profit, loyal fans, and trying to get GOTY. We all see things that we didnt expect are were dissatisfied with, given the nature of previous titles, they really elude to somthing profound, to hook your curiosity. And once again, they can only vaguely elude to some more profound, hoping we buy the next game, ad infinitum until its run its course. Sounds kinda like lost to me, and that show had me lost at season 6...

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 11:11 AM
Actually most fans are ok with the ending. Crazy thought I know..

kuled2012
11-11-2012, 12:36 PM
Something that left me puzzled in the game was when Charles Lee meets baby Connor and tells him to go warn his people that they are coming..Why does William Johnson knocks him out with a musket..which makes him lose a lot of time because to regain conscious? I know Washington was behind the village attack but still..why'd he knock him out?

TheHumanTowel
11-11-2012, 01:44 PM
Lots of good points here about why the story structure of AC3 is so shoddy. At the end of the day, the reason I hate it is because it makes the first 5 games feel like one giant prequel to the real central conflict of the series. It feels like it exists for the sole reason to be a plot twist without having any sort of satisfaction. Well-written plot twists are the ones that make you look back at the story and see all the hints and feel a satisfaction at putting it together. This plot twist feels like it exists for its own sake and does not make me look back at the story and feel satisfied when I see the foreshadowing. Sure, you can see a thing or two that makes you think they were planning this a game or two back, but it still feels so artificial. Good plot twists always have clues that you can't use to predict them, but when looking back with a changed perspective you see that they were clues. This plot twist just makes me feel like I've been lied to for 5 story chapters, and people do not like the feeling they've been lied to.

I was the person who said Mass Effect 3's ending was better because it had explosions. My point was simply that even though its story sucked, at least it had some action and emotional impact and showed you the results of the final choice. AC3's ending does not show you the results of your actions that the whole series has been leading up to. It simply shows you a news cast that discusses the aftermath as if it's a minor scientific curiosity. There's just absolutely no weight there. The presentation was so terrible.

I think one of the reason Brotherhood's ending sticks with me as so good was because it had great buildup. You finish Ezio's story, which was decently satisfying for me, and find the information you've been told is central to the chapter of the story at the beginning -- where Ezio hid his Apple. Then you get a cutscene where the characters figure out the last piece of their puzzle, and you wind up in Rome to retrieve the Apple. But you don't just go to another cutscene, you get to play as Desmond exploring the Colosseum while everything builds up to the final moment with more dialogue. Things continue to crescendo, with Desmond seeing visions of Ezio and you really feel that sense of connection between their stories. Then you meet Juno, which does come out of nowhere, but still connects to the story of the previous game. You get to see and hear her several times as the moment continues to build. Then you finally reach the Apple Chamber and get the final cutscene with the plot twist ending. Contrast that to AC3's ending, where you find the info you're looking for in the past, and then you just sit and watch the rest of the action unfold in the next 10-15 minutes. There's no buildup to anything, it all just happens.

And yes, they never said the AC series would end with AC3. You would have been naive to think so. I of all people fully expected the 2012 and Desmond stories to conclude, but have a new cliffhanger or hint of the next conflict to come. Everything the developers have said about this game was about how it was wrapping up the 2012 storyline, which is what the entire series has been about from day one. It's not like we're talking about the conclusion of a small side story in the franchise, we're talking about the core modern-day plot introduced in AC1 once the date of "12/21/2012" was thrown out there. Sometimes they'd talk about concluding Desmond's story, and sometimes they'd get coy and say they really couldn't say it was ending. But still, they have been saying the series was originally conceived as a trilogy and this game was obviously being built up to as a huge focal point of the series. Instead, it feels like just another random episode in the middle of a long series.

They did conclude the 2012 storyline like they promised, but it was with a wave of their hand. Before they could even conclude it, they introduced the real threat of Juno -- they couldn't even wait until after they'd concluded the first threat! And to really top it off, they also managed to completely neuter the original antagonists of the series, introduced in the first 5 minutes of the AC story and built up as an all-knowing, controlling enemy -- Abstergo. Remember the enemy who knew all these things that we didn't, and who controlled all the important businesses, politicians and technology in the world? Brotherhood told us that Abstergo had planned every move and engineered every response in their little chess game. Well, even if their plans had gone the way they wanted, their entire scheme would have failed (Desmond said Juno showed their satellite launch and fail). In addition, they are so bumbling and idiotic that they goaded the one person who had a weapon to stop them in the Apple to just walk right in their front door and ruin a scheme they'd been planning for decades. That takes real writing skills to end the major threat of a series with a magic button, introduce a new threat just before the clock strikes midnight, and make a laughing stock out of what had been presented (very well, in fact) as the main antagonist of the series from day one.
I agree with your point on the presentation. My problem with the ending isn't so much what happened but how it was presented. Right after we're finished with Connor we just warp to a cutscene in the Homestead then warp back to the temple instantly. All moments missed to add a bit a character depth and build up a sense of climax. And the final confrontation beyond the gate is just so muted it fails to give you a real sense of the gravity of the situation.

And then Desmond sacrifices himself and frees Juno. And then the game ends. I mean come on, we get to see zero of the consequences of Desmond's actions. He just released a god into the world and all we get is a news report confirming that yes Desmond saved the world, surprise surprise. Absolutely nothing on what's happened to William, Shaun and Rebecca or even a hint of what Juno's presence might mean for the world.It was misleading and basically dishonest to call this game any sort of conclusion. It's just as much a cliffhanger as any of the other games.

kuled2012
11-11-2012, 02:02 PM
Sounds very lame but we'll have to keep an eye on Initiates after 21st december

IlDiv0
11-11-2012, 03:23 PM
Hey, I never said the ending was perfect or without flaws did I? I just said its unfair to compare AC 3 to Halo 3 because unlike Halo, AC clearly stated they intend to move along. Also not trying to defend anything, just clarifying my points. If someone thinks the ending was bad its his prerogative.
Now the modern day plot has always been a weak link in AC games. Its just there to provide a context to Desmond's time travels. What was the sync nexus? Was it important the main storywise? Not much. But it was there so that the player could play as Ezio and Altair.

We talked about this. The writers don't need a context for the time travel. They can easily explore whatever setting they want without super-advanced technology, simply by building up the Assassin Order as an expansive organization. The historical plotlines of Altair, Ezio, and Connor could work just as well without Desmond.

And Revelations was incredibly important. The purpose was to conclude the storylines of his respective ancestors and prep Desmond to step into the forefront of the conflict, evidenced by him saying "I am an assassin" and "I know what we need to do" at the end, pro-active statements (for a change). He is ready to step into the role of his ancestors, something not established in previous games.

This is why Assassin's Creed 3 fails more than the previous games; Desmond wasn't ready to step into the lead role, an idea mentioned multiple times. He sidesteps Vidic and Lucy in AC1 when they call him an assassin. In AC2, he mentions to Lucy how he's "no good at this". Yes, the modern day story was simply a framed narrative, but there were clear implications that the story was going to pick up in importance. This is why Connor's story is completely out of left field. At least in both Altiar's and Ezio's cases, exploring their stories allowed something new/important to be learned. They had main plot significance, which is why it worked there. All AC3 does is throw another magic door at the player and say "surprise! Another ancestor!". The reason why we are exploring memories in the previous four games is clear and built up. This is not the case with Connor. Desmond being placed on the backburner worked as a function of the narrative then. From a story-telling perspective, we were done with the historical backgrounds after Desmond confronted the reality of who he really is.



Again, I'm not going to defend this, or whether it is a good or bad decision, just saying it is the way it has been since day one. Desmond was always going to stop for some petty reason and he'd be forced to go into the animus and we'd play as Connor. Thats what happened, more or less. There was a big thread here in june/july after AC III was revealed. people speculated why he'd need to play as Connor, and they came up with a good guess, that Desmond would need to acess Connor's memories to find a way into the Temple.. Yes, the writers screw over the modern day plot and they've been doing so since AC 1. I'd have preferred to have them finish the modern storyline altogether and focus on the past, but now, thanks to Juno for the first time I'm actually interested in the modern day plotline.

A framed narrative is not indicative that the modern day story is screwed over. There is a huge difference between what we are doing in AC1 vs. AC3 in terms of both tone and importance. AC1 introduces the conflict, the setting, premises, etc. Desmond for example can't really fall victim to the bleeding effect if they don't set up a plotline where he spends most of his time as his ancestors. Insert AC1 and 2. Connor's story however has no integration into Desmond's. There's no overarching plot significance, which the other 4 games have, either in moving the story forward or for character development.

As I said before, Ezio's apple already served as the key to get us into the grand temple, making Connor's plot significance non-existent. It would be like having Desmond succumb to the bleeding effect all over again in AC3, when the plot thread finished in AC:R.



And she'd be correct, if, she said she plans to continue writing Harry Potter books after finishing the main story. Also mind games are nothing new as far as AC endings are concerned. If they do this kind of tricks at the very last AC, which they announce beforehand to be the last AC to be made, then I'd be pissed, not now.

Actually, she'd be regarded as a hack and a laughing stock, failing in basic rules of dramatic tension. No one ever said mind games are anything new, hence why I regard the ending as slightly better than Mass Effect's, which always focused on grounded story-telling. The mistake is in the assumption that a writer has to explicitly say "I won't open up more plot threads". Lies of omission are not dependent on explicit statements. Desmond was the main protagonist for five games, stopping the solar flare was the main conflict. If an author promises to resolve the central conflict, that alone should be more than enough that we shouldn't have to wait for them to say "But I didn't say there wouldn't be a bigger threat! behind it". It's nothing more than word games. Concluding Desmond's story/Solar flare plot in the same five minutes that they unleashed Juno prevented any sense of resolution to the Desmond character. It was rushed, plain and simple.



Again, like I said, we were always going to end up playing majorly as Connor. Thats how AC has always been, like it or not. A full game with Desmond (or mostly Desmond) searching about a way to save the world would probably please some literary experts abut the quality of the writing, and some Desmond fangirls would be happy too, but it would not be the AC we know and love, atleast the one I love. And I doubt it would be anything this grand as AC III is now, So I'm glad what they did. ME had no such compulsion. I'm just a little sad they didn't elongate Desmond's story, showing more emotions. Thats my complaint about the ending, but again, maybe they didn't show it because there's more to it?
.

I mentioned this before: this is not a counter-argument. The thread title is not "why did Ubisoft screw over the modern day story", the thread title is "Why are people upset with the ending". The OP did not ask whether people considered that decision a good one. It is irrelevant why they did it, the key point was to show why it is a failure in story-telling.

If someone asks me what I think of AC:R's den defense, which was terrible, it wouldn't be a good idea to then mention "Well, no one cared about den defense anyway". That's not defending the game mechanic, it's a sidestep. Developers shouldn't be inserting/continuing plot elements no one cares about any more than gameplay elements people don't enjoy.

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 03:34 PM
Well maybe then we'd just have to agree to disagree. I think the fail lies more in how it happens rather than what happens. Had Desmond been given a more emotional send-off I don't think many people would have been complaining, going by what most people had a problem with.

Layytez
11-11-2012, 03:54 PM
Come on Ubisoft explain yourself.

F4H bandicoot
11-11-2012, 03:59 PM
I hate the ending. And not for arbitrary reasons. Id really like to have been at these writer meetings facepalming as they contradict there own story, and write in paradoxical story. Who to watch a movie that screws up how paradox in time travel works? People that have no flipping clue about the nature of time and paradox. If you want to make sure every faucet of your story is historically accurate, is it wrong that i ask for it to be even scientifically believable? I have a super funny feeling dlc is going to smack us with some ******ed story twist. I seen somthing on wikipedia about the shard of eden causing a bleeding effect and desmond was gaining its effects. Who knows whats on the board to resolve all this. Or they can just leave it up to us. But bar none, the writing feels cheap. It has nothing to do with what i expected, because i expected somthing like this. The pressure got to them, between profit, loyal fans, and trying to get GOTY. We all see things that we didnt expect are were dissatisfied with, given the nature of previous titles, they really elude to somthing profound, to hook your curiosity. And once again, they can only vaguely elude to some more profound, hoping we buy the next game, ad infinitum until its run its course. Sounds kinda like lost to me, and that show had me lost at season 6...

There is no time travel in the AC universe. We are told, by Juno, that it didn't work properly.

mashroot
11-11-2012, 04:19 PM
Why are people assuming that Desmond is dead? Is it because he collapsed after he released Juno? After that happens, and at the very end, some new guy tells Desmond to place and find pivots, which shouldn't be possible if Desmond's body is really dead. They couldn't communicate with subject 16 through the animus as easily as they did with Desmond, so how could this guy communicate so easily with a dead Desmond? And that seems to be the case, because after he hacks the animus from inside it, that guy uploads his data to "the cloud". I think that Desmond is probably in the same kind of comatose condition that he was in after he killed Lucy.

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 04:24 PM
Why are people assuming that Desmond is dead? Is it because he collapsed after he released Juno? After that happens, and at the very end, some new guy tells Desmond to place and find pivots, which shouldn't be possible if Desmond's body is really dead. They couldn't communicate with subject 16 through the animus as easily as they did with Desmond, so how could this guy communicate so easily with a dead Desmond? And that seems to be the case, because after he hacks the animus from inside it, that guy uploads his data to "the cloud". I think that Desmond is probably in the same kind of comatose condition that he was in after he killed Lucy.

Haven't seen the ending in great detail but.. you sure the guy being told to find pivots is 100% Desmond? If yes I'd say that's a strong lead towards him being alive.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-11-2012, 04:31 PM
did the AC writing team decide to pretend that that never happened so they wouldn't have to think of a resolution to it?Yup.

TheHumanTowel
11-11-2012, 04:45 PM
I hate the ending. And not for arbitrary reasons. Id really like to have been at these writer meetings facepalming as they contradict there own story, and write in paradoxical story. Who to watch a movie that screws up how paradox in time travel works? People that have no flipping clue about the nature of time and paradox. If you want to make sure every faucet of your story is historically accurate, is it wrong that i ask for it to be even scientifically believable? I have a super funny feeling dlc is going to smack us with some ******ed story twist. I seen somthing on wikipedia about the shard of eden causing a bleeding effect and desmond was gaining its effects. Who knows whats on the board to resolve all this. Or they can just leave it up to us. But bar none, the writing feels cheap. It has nothing to do with what i expected, because i expected somthing like this. The pressure got to them, between profit, loyal fans, and trying to get GOTY. We all see things that we didnt expect are were dissatisfied with, given the nature of previous titles, they really elude to somthing profound, to hook your curiosity. And once again, they can only vaguely elude to some more profound, hoping we buy the next game, ad infinitum until its run its course. Sounds kinda like lost to me, and that show had me lost at season 6...
What the hell are you talking about? There was no time travel in AC3. TWCB could only look to the future and leave messages. And I think it's funny you asking for the game to be scientifically believable as if past AC games were great examples of scientific accuracy. Have you forgotten about the magic golden balls that can control peoples' minds that have been with us since the start of the series?

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 04:48 PM
Love the dp of this humantowel.

EDIT: Also really digging that quote. You a Templar? O.o

Mega8BitPanda
11-11-2012, 05:02 PM
It remains to be seen how big of a fiasco it actually is. According to the poll, most fans are actually ok with the ending.

I did just write a clearer explanation as to what I meant but my internet cut after clicking post so I'll just quickly boil it down. I basically meant by "fiasco" the general ravings and discussion that have spawned from it, didn't mean to come off as someone who hated the ending given I voted in the poll as I "liked it but..."

It just irks me that the game had some great character development at the start, William and Desmond arguing and throwing a punch. It felt great and was the main reason I rushed Connor's story, expecting that caliber throughout yet it kinda just sizzled away by the NYC mission. I know it is the norm' for them to side-line the Modern Day plot but they did build this one up, yet kinda stopped with extremely short cut-scenes and dialogue between characters by that mission although I think that's bordering on presentation, where we agree mainly on I gather.

TheHumanTowel
11-11-2012, 05:07 PM
Love the dp of this humantowel.

EDIT: Also really digging that quote. You a Templar? O.o
Nope I just love me some awesome quotes. Even from Templars.

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 05:08 PM
I did just write a clearer explanation as to what I meant but my internet cut after clicking post so I'll just quickly boil it down. I basically meant by "fiasco" the general ravings and discussion that have spawned from it, didn't mean to come off as someone who hated the ending given I voted in the poll as I "liked it but..."

It just irks me that the game had some great character development at the start, William and Desmond arguing and throwing a punch. It felt great and was the main reason I rushed Connor's story, expecting that caliber throughout yet it kinda just sizzled away by the NYC mission. I know it is the norm' for them to side-line the Modern Day plot but they did build this one up, yet kinda stopped with extremely short cut-scenes and dialogue between characters by that mission although I think that's bordering on presentation, where we agree mainly on I gather.

Sorry I misinterpret you.

I agree with what you wrote. The ending felt rushed and devoid of emotions. Those are my personal problems with the ending. But then I think they didn't show much emotion in Desmond's demise maybe because he isn't totally done for yet?

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 05:08 PM
Nope I just love me some awesome quotes. Even from Templars.

Sad.. I though I spotted another Templar brother. :(

Apirka
11-11-2012, 05:11 PM
The problem I have with the poll is that I don't think that "I liked it, but..." is a sufficient "neutral" option. I don't like the ending, I really don't like it, but I hesitate to vote I hate it. Hate is a pretty string word. And there are a lot of other things in the story that bothered me as well, anyway, not just the ending... That was just the icing on the cake. And if there is a "I liked it" option, I think there should have been at least an "I dislike it" option, rather an outright hate option as the only negative one, and the other two be more or less positive.


Sad.. I though I spotted another Templar brother. :(

Isn't that one of Haytham's quotes? And if all Templars were like young Haytham, I'd have to seriously consider siding with them.

Em-Man
11-11-2012, 05:12 PM
Yup.

I presume that my explanation to the brotherhood ending didn't make much sense to you guys?

TheHumanTowel
11-11-2012, 05:15 PM
Sad.. I though I spotted another Templar brother. :(
I kind of agreed with the Templars in AC3. Haytham is just too good.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-11-2012, 05:19 PM
I presume that my explanation to the brotherhood ending didn't make much sense to you guys?

Link me where can I read it :)

pirate1802
11-11-2012, 05:23 PM
The problem I have with the poll is that I don't think that "I liked it, but..." is a sufficient "neutral" option. I don't like the ending, I really don't like it, but I hesitate to vote I hate it. Hate is a pretty string word. And there are a lot of other things in the story that bothered me as well, anyway, not just the ending... That was just the icing on the cake. And if there is a "I liked it" option, I think there should have been at least an "I dislike it" option, rather an outright hate option as the only negative one, and the other two be more or less positive.

Vote for the one closest to your thoughts!. :P Even if the wording may not be totally spot on.


Isn't that one of Haytham's quotes? And if all Templars were like young Haytham, I'd have to seriously consider siding with them.

I wouldn't know. I'm yet to play the game lol.

I always found myself liking the Templars more.. when they are not being outright d*cks. Might have something to do with my liking for villains in general.

Em-Man
11-11-2012, 05:23 PM
Link me where can I read it :)

The first 3 posts made in page 12.
It was pretty clear to me what Juno was talking about in Brotherhood but maybe I just like to imagine things.

Apirka
11-11-2012, 06:13 PM
Vote for the one closest to your thoughts!. :P Even if the wording may not be totally spot on.

Hngh, but I don't like voting when it's not quite accurate d: *sigh* Fine, I'll add mine to the hate pile then...



I wouldn't know. I'm yet to play the game lol.

I always found myself liking the Templars more.. when they are not being outright d*cks. Might have something to do with my liking for villains in general.

Ah, right. Though I'm reasonably sure it is. He's awesome like that. And I liked most of the Templars, too, because I love villains (not Vidic, though. Never Vidic. Not after what happened to Clay.) But Haytham is the first one I can actually somewhat agree with, even if I'm cynical and think both factions are chasing unattainable goals. (well, if we go with Haytham's dream of peace through order, not just mere hunger for power for the Templars.)

mashroot
11-11-2012, 06:24 PM
Haven't seen the ending in great detail but.. you sure the guy being told to find pivots is 100% Desmond? If yes I'd say that's a strong lead towards him being alive.

It takes us right back to where Desmond left off in the animus and to me that makes it pretty evident that it is his experience, so I'm reasonably positive. And there are other reasons too. For instance, the context in which "you" was used impersonally to refer to the Assassin order just prior to the warning Minerva gave him and the flexibility of the words "destroy" and "painless" used by Juno. It gave me the impression that they were saying that Juno will disband the Assassins, especially considering that humans with precursor technology caused them so much trouble by uprising against them in the first place. But if even if that isn't the case, there is the possibility that Desmond's exposure to the animus and his experience with subject 16 may have caused his hybrid DNA to "evolve" in some unexpected way, or something, that might allow him to survive beyond the future that Minerva, or Juno could see and ultimately give him the power to defeat her. I also read an article some time back that said that Desmond will become the ultimate assassin by the end of Connor's story and that can't happen if he's dead. I think UBI is having some fun with us on this one, especially after Haytham turned out to be a templar.

thePhilCasper
11-11-2012, 07:11 PM
It takes us right back to where Desmond left off in the animus and to me that makes it pretty evident that it is his experience, so I'm reasonably positive. And there are other reasons too. For instance, the context in which "you" was used impersonally to refer to the Assassin order just prior to the warning Minerva gave him and the flexibility of the words "destroy" and "painless" used by Juno. It gave me the impression that they were saying that Juno will disband the Assassins, especially considering that humans with precursor technology caused them so much trouble by uprising against them in the first place. But if even if that isn't the case, there is the possibility that Desmond's exposure to the animus and his experience with subject 16 may have caused his hybrid DNA to "evolve" in some unexpected way, or something, that might allow him to survive beyond the future that Minerva, or Juno could see and ultimately give him the power to defeat her. I also read an article some time back that said that Desmond will become the ultimate assassin by the end of Connor's story and that can't happen if he's dead. I think UBI is having some fun with us on this one, especially after Haytham turned out to be a templar.

Well, I hope you are right. Ubisoft must complete what they promised. And Desmond┤s survival would explain no emotions or hurried events in the end of ACIII. I would like to see him killing Juno by using POE.

thePhilCasper
11-11-2012, 07:12 PM
Well, I hope you are right. Ubisoft must complete what they promised. And Desmond┤s survival would explain no emotions or hurried events in the end of ACIII. I would like to see him killing Juno by using POE.

It doesn┤t matter that Ubi said ACIII will be Desmond┤s story End. They keep changing things and improvising. Or this was the part of their plan all along? Was they planning Desmond┤s edited DNA? Was they preparing him to face Juno?

Elegana
11-11-2012, 07:55 PM
It takes us right back to where Desmond left off in the animus and to me that makes it pretty evident that it is his experience, so I'm reasonably positive. And there are other reasons too. For instance, the context in which "you" was used impersonally to refer to the Assassin order just prior to the warning Minerva gave him and the flexibility of the words "destroy" and "painless" used by Juno. It gave me the impression that they were saying that Juno will disband the Assassins, especially considering that humans with precursor technology caused them so much trouble by uprising against them in the first place. But if even if that isn't the case, there is the possibility that Desmond's exposure to the animus and his experience with subject 16 may have caused his hybrid DNA to "evolve" in some unexpected way, or something, that might allow him to survive beyond the future that Minerva, or Juno could see and ultimately give him the power to defeat her. I also read an article some time back that said that Desmond will become the ultimate assassin by the end of Connor's story and that can't happen if he's dead. I think UBI is having some fun with us on this one, especially after Haytham turned out to be a templar.
While you make good points, there's one problem: The guy who talks to you (about Pivots) sounds nothing like Desmond. Desmond cannot "hack" the Animus because he doesn't even know how to hack. The only person we know to hack are Shaun, Rebecca, and Erudito. Shaun has a british accent and a higher pitch then the Guy and Rebecca is a female. Thus leaves Erudito. If you played Liberation, he plays a very big role in the game, hacking the memories and giving players the truth. He was also in Project Legacy and gave players the truth and wanted to completely take down Abstergo. In Brotherhood, he gave Desmond the email passwords to Shaun, Rebecca, and Lucy.

Another theory that its an Abstergo Employee. They had Desmond for months and Miles did say that Abstergo can dig through memories... but it could take months. Once you find all the pivots, you get the Head in The Cloud achievement and you see the Abstergo logo in the center of three arrows. This could either mean that the Cloud is property of Abstergo or the pivot points are going to be used against Abstergo.

But I know its not Desmond who talks to the player. That does not sound like Nolan North.

scooper121s
11-11-2012, 08:57 PM
I know what's going to happen, desmmond will come back, and you nitpikers will be saying, WTF ubisoft, he was dead!

zerocooll21
11-11-2012, 09:11 PM
Lots of good points here about why the story structure of AC3 is so shoddy. At the end of the day, the reason I hate it is because it makes the first 5 games feel like one giant prequel to the real central conflict of the series. It feels like it exists for the sole reason to be a plot twist without having any sort of satisfaction. Well-written plot twists are the ones that make you look back at the story and see all the hints and feel a satisfaction at putting it together. This plot twist feels like it exists for its own sake and does not make me look back at the story and feel satisfied when I see the foreshadowing. Sure, you can see a thing or two that makes you think they were planning this a game or two back, but it still feels so artificial. Good plot twists always have clues that you can't use to predict them, but when looking back with a changed perspective you see that they were clues. This plot twist just makes me feel like I've been lied to for 5 story chapters, and people do not like the feeling they've been lied to.

I was the person who said Mass Effect 3's ending was better because it had explosions. My point was simply that even though its story sucked, at least it had some action and emotional impact and showed you the results of the final choice. AC3's ending does not show you the results of your actions that the whole series has been leading up to. It simply shows you a news cast that discusses the aftermath as if it's a minor scientific curiosity. There's just absolutely no weight there. The presentation was so terrible.

I think one of the reason Brotherhood's ending sticks with me as so good was because it had great buildup. You finish Ezio's story, which was decently satisfying for me, and find the information you've been told is central to the chapter of the story at the beginning -- where Ezio hid his Apple. Then you get a cutscene where the characters figure out the last piece of their puzzle, and you wind up in Rome to retrieve the Apple. But you don't just go to another cutscene, you get to play as Desmond exploring the Colosseum while everything builds up to the final moment with more dialogue. Things continue to crescendo, with Desmond seeing visions of Ezio and you really feel that sense of connection between their stories. Then you meet Juno, which does come out of nowhere, but still connects to the story of the previous game. You get to see and hear her several times as the moment continues to build. Then you finally reach the Apple Chamber and get the final cutscene with the plot twist ending. Contrast that to AC3's ending, where you find the info you're looking for in the past, and then you just sit and watch the rest of the action unfold in the next 10-15 minutes. There's no buildup to anything, it all just happens.

And yes, they never said the AC series would end with AC3. You would have been naive to think so. I of all people fully expected the 2012 and Desmond stories to conclude, but have a new cliffhanger or hint of the next conflict to come. Everything the developers have said about this game was about how it was wrapping up the 2012 storyline, which is what the entire series has been about from day one. It's not like we're talking about the conclusion of a small side story in the franchise, we're talking about the core modern-day plot introduced in AC1 once the date of "12/21/2012" was thrown out there. Sometimes they'd talk about concluding Desmond's story, and sometimes they'd get coy and say they really couldn't say it was ending. But still, they have been saying the series was originally conceived as a trilogy and this game was obviously being built up to as a huge focal point of the series. Instead, it feels like just another random episode in the middle of a long series.

They did conclude the 2012 storyline like they promised, but it was with a wave of their hand. Before they could even conclude it, they introduced the real threat of Juno -- they couldn't even wait until after they'd concluded the first threat! And to really top it off, they also managed to completely neuter the original antagonists of the series, introduced in the first 5 minutes of the AC story and built up as an all-knowing, controlling enemy -- Abstergo. Remember the enemy who knew all these things that we didn't, and who controlled all the important businesses, politicians and technology in the world? Brotherhood told us that Abstergo had planned every move and engineered every response in their little chess game. Well, even if their plans had gone the way they wanted, their entire scheme would have failed (Desmond said Juno showed their satellite launch and fail). In addition, they are so bumbling and idiotic that they goaded the one person who had a weapon to stop them in the Apple to just walk right in their front door and ruin a scheme they'd been planning for decades. That takes real writing skills to end the major threat of a series with a magic button, introduce a new threat just before the clock strikes midnight, and make a laughing stock out of what had been presented (very well, in fact) as the main antagonist of the series from day one.


Well Said.

ShugoAC
11-11-2012, 09:11 PM
There has been lots of good discussion in this thread about what it is that bothered so many of us about this game. For me it was the abysmal storytelling. This game series has been leading up to this moment, the big 2012 solar flare, for 4 games. As IlDiv0 pointed out, at the end of Revelations Desmond finally knows what he's supposed to do (thank god).

And then we find out, in AC3, that what he needs to do is sit in the Animus some more and go through yet another ancestor to find where Conner hid the key so he (Desmond) can go press the magic button and save everyone.

I have no issue with some precursor technology saving the planet. They hint that "it would have taken thousands of years to build" in one of the explanatory hologram moments. Since it's been 70k years since the precursors were around i surmised that something had gone ahead and built the tech while they were gone. Once again, totally OK with the idea, just not Ubisoft execution of it. We don't see how the tech that Desmond activated saved earth, other than it turned the sky green. I assumed it was a shielding tech, but that was ruled out earlier in the same game. (Remember? They said they couldn't even shield one city.) So no explanation about the "how" , you just get to assume the magic precursors found a way.

I'm OK with the possibility of Desmond dying. Hell, from the first game I suspected that this wasn't a round trip flight for Desmond. This is being debated I know, so maybe he dead or maybe he isn't... My issue with his "apparent" death is that there is absolutely zero dramatic tension before the moment he presses the button. None of the characters with him seem like they care one way or the other that Desmond is about to do some dramatic button pushing to save them. And beyond that, why is Desmond the only one who can push the button? Why is he the spark? Why did we just spend 160-200 hours of game-play to have the protagonist fall on the floor dead/coma/napping with no explanation at all? I'm fine with wanting to introduce a new major plot-line, but at least explain the 2012/Desmond major story point before moving on. How is touching the magic button going to save the planet? Why are we told Desmond is the only one who can do it? Why did Desmond need master assassin skills to touch an orb?

The Harry Potter analogy is very good actually. It's as if the last book had been 700 pages of Ron and Hermione having a relationship spat, and then in the last two sentences JK Rowling had written "Voldemort dies, Harry has a bunch of kids on Ginny, Fog happens a lot". Everyone would have had the same "What the hell?" moment that we all had with AC3's ending. There was no explanation for "why" or "how".

I spent the 15+ minutes of the credits thinking that there had to be more afterward... There's no way they would just end a major plot with zero further development/closure and then introduce a new foe moments later.

Nope.

Felix-Vivo
11-11-2012, 09:13 PM
When I first witnessed the ending, I was angry, slightly put out, and wondering where my answers were... sad that a lot of what all these characters were working towards wasn't the noble goal they intended, but just part of Juno's twisted scheme.

THEN, I thought about it. I remembered what Malik says in the first game. And I asked myself:


"Why, for one second, did you assume that you knew everything about what you were doing? Why did you think you had the answers, or that you knew what was going on? Why did you think you could predict this? You have forgotten both the most important part of the series, a piece of its namesake, and one of the most crucial lessons of the franchise:

Nothing is true."

Ubisoft may have simply come up with a cack ending that was poorly planned, written and executed. But I like to think that they were actually being very clever. Like the twist with Haytham, they drew us into a position when we thought we knew where we stood, we thought we knew the rules - only to turn around, BAM, and say, "Nope, that wasn't it at all."

Except this was on a much larger scale. Since ACII, we have been building up to something we thought was going to happen. Well, BAM! It didn't.

You cannot know anything. Only suspect. You must expect to be wrong, to have overlooked something. As said Malik Al-Sayf nearly a thousand years ago, so say I today.

And so I consider the ending, after reflection, to be rather fitting.

weston_19
11-11-2012, 09:18 PM
What the hell are you talking about? There was no time travel in AC3. TWCB could only look to the future and leave messages. And I think it's funny you asking for the game to be scientifically believable as if past AC games were great examples of scientific accuracy. Have you forgotten about the magic golden balls that can control peoples' minds that have been with us since the start of the series?



Read my post again. I realise there is no time travel. But guess what. Foresight and premonition is contexual to time travel. They present the same paradoxical arguments as time travel. Get it right or dont do it. And its pretty clear that we dont have a clue how the POE work, but much how a television would appear magical to a person unexposed to the modern world, we dont have a clue as to were TWCB were scientifically. This is a justification for the nature of the "magic" properties of the POE. Like the quote goes, any sufficently advanced technology would appear to be magic. But the laws of time apply, and its oh so clear as to why time travel doesnt work for them. Its the paradox complex that is inherent.

What im getting at is given minervas seeminly rediculous ability to tell the future it has created the same paradox as time travel in a sense. Minerva can accuratly see ezio going into the vault under the vatican. The sheer scale of seeing the events over at least 40,000 years and not one hiccup. Not one mistake. And she can also see desmond reliving the memories. But then somehow, she cant see that humanitys chance for salvation has been squandered by fighting. Not by hours or minutes, but centuries. To my question, it remains. What grants minerva the luxury of selective premonition? Do you see the inheret contradiction here? She just ignores this end goal and tells them to try anyway? Only to know that its a waste? Why didnt minerva talk to connor or tell ezio to put the apple somewere it would end up in conners hands, giving him and the assassins the hundreds of years to solve the problem? Plot for convience pisses me off. The time paradox is vast and deep, read up on it if your confused or dont see the obvious point im making. Even star trek wrecked time travel, and paradox related to time. Its insurmountable. And now its a gaping hole in the plot.

Like i said, ill break it down further to illustrate my point. Minerva, as far as we know is dead. Say she died 40000 years ago. So for her to have the pre-cog ability to leave a message in a vault for a guy that would have his memories relieved by another guy tells us that out of the seemingly endless list of outcomes over 40,000 years, is profound. Theres a billion thing that could have changed that outcome. More actually. It illustrates that minerva has a profound ability to see exactly what the future holds. And then, after every game telling us that these beings have some profound insight of time, to say she comes into the room and says well, you squandered your chance is insulting. This is also a premonition. Shes dead. Meaning that relative to her she knew everything that happened before she died. She knew that the templars and assassins would squander it all, and miss the mark by centuries.

The obvious conclusion is why the hell have we even played the last 3 games. Minervas message was false. Its self contradicory unless minervas not dead. That is all. Shes also in an eye like juno. It also means she probley is getting released too. Its like they looked at everything set up from the last 4 games is irrelevent. First time players will definatly like this ending. People that dont have a good grasp on time will like this ending. People like me draw the obvious conclusion that just like god having the ability to see the future, to what grants them the luxury of making mistakes? They know whats going to happen, i find it hard to believe that minerva can see so much and be so ignorant. She also knew juno was in the grand temple btw. Minervas the one that told them to go there in the first place. Jupiter and minerva locked her up. And now shes surprised? Wow, thats a great ending guys. Keep thinking that, you clearly havnt a clue as to how time works, and neither does ubisoft.

You see, if you can predict the future, it might as well have already happened. It means time is a predetermined line and cannot split off or change. Because if it did, Minerva would know this and also know theres no way to accuratly predict whats going to happen. Youll have better luck dividing by 0. Its undefined. I dont even care what part juno bas to play. Its illrelevent. This paradox has ubisoft locked in a corner with more explaining to do than OJ Simpson. Do me a favour. Draw a line. Put minerva at 40,000 bc. Put ezio at 1500 ad. Put desmond at 2012. Everything along this line, minerva can know. So how in the (insert some very angry words) can she not know that they would t have a chance to save the world in the first place? Keep in mind you cant split off after minerva, because youd have to split everytime somthing did or didnt happen. Leaving you with literally endless possibilities. Ubisoft really needed to draw this timeline, and terrible justifications in story telling end up tearing the story apart. Maybe ubi didnt think it gamers would have a good grasp on time, but they were wrong. Once again pre-cog is inherently mental time travel. Creating the same god**** paradox time travel does.

Does anybody here grasp this heavy concept? Am i alone in seeing the inheret paradoxical nature of this? If i am ill just submit it all to ubi via letter. But i have a point, theres no possible justification for the paradox. The hole is like the same one in space, of the black gravity well type. No back filling is going to fix it. If its over your head then just ignore this. Im not going to teach time travel paradox 101 to everyone.

ShugoAC
11-11-2012, 09:23 PM
You cannot know anything. Only suspect. You must expect to be wrong, to have overlooked something. As said Malik Al-Sayf nearly a thousand years ago, so say I today.

And so I consider the ending, after reflection, to be rather fitting.

You're right.. while a terrible ending.. it might have been rather apropos. However, had they intended that then I think they would have had Juno say something to the affect of "Thank you for releasing me Desmond.. As you say Nothing is true, everything is permitted."

Still would have left gaping plot holes, but would have made at least a sad attempt at closure.

ShugoAC
11-11-2012, 09:44 PM
Does anybody here grasp this heavy concept? Am i alone in seeing the inheret paradoxical nature of this? If i am ill just submit it all to ubi via letter. But i have a point, theres no possible justification for the paradox. The hole is like the same one in space, of the black gravity well type. No back filling is going to fix it. If its over your head then just ignore this. Im not going to teach time travel paradox 101 to everyone.

You're absolutely right Weston.

If Minerva could see all the way to 2012, she should have been able to see all of the history leading up to that moment. We know she didn't have just small snippets of pre-cog, because she managed to be in just the right place in Ezio's time to leave clues for him to relay to Desmond through DNA. It should not have been some shock that Desmond wouldn't be able to save the earth in time. In fact, she should have known before attempting to contact him that it was pointless to chose that moment in time and that person to save everything. By the time Desmond was born it was too late, blaming him is rather foolish.

And that's not evening getting into the insanely impossible task of trying to predict the future. The size of the calculations to determine if someone will step off the curb with their left foot rather than their right a week from now is mind-boggling.

weston_19
11-11-2012, 10:20 PM
Thank you, you illustrate it perfectly. Paradox. To an interesting degree, we ourselves realise that if the processing power was available, we could calculate atomic interaction and literally predict the future. Which coinside well for Minerva. The only explaination capable of rectifying this would be that the eye was the means of these calculations and juno screwed with them. But again, minerva knew that. Maybe she just ignored it, like the writers did to this entire ending. Paradox is bad in story telling. It leads viewers into an endless cycle of possibilities. It also makes people like me very upset, that somthing so obvious to the viewer was overlooked by writers. It seems they had to set-up juno and kill of desmond, and filled story around those two points, regardless of canon.

mashroot
11-11-2012, 10:40 PM
While you make good points, there's one problem: The guy who talks to you (about Pivots) sounds nothing like Desmond. Desmond cannot "hack" the Animus because he doesn't even know how to hack. The only person we know to hack are Shaun, Rebecca, and Erudito. Shaun has a british accent and a higher pitch then the Guy and Rebecca is a female. Thus leaves Erudito. If you played Liberation, he plays a very big role in the game, hacking the memories and giving players the truth. He was also in Project Legacy and gave players the truth and wanted to completely take down Abstergo. In Brotherhood, he gave Desmond the email passwords to Shaun, Rebecca, and Lucy.

Another theory that its an Abstergo Employee. They had Desmond for months and Miles did say that Abstergo can dig through memories... but it could take months. Once you find all the pivots, you get the Head in The Cloud achievement and you see the Abstergo logo in the center of three arrows. This could either mean that the Cloud is property of Abstergo or the pivot points are going to be used against Abstergo.

But I know its not Desmond who talks to the player. That does not sound like Nolan North.

Yes, in another post I did say that I think that Abstergo has Desmond now, and I think it is an Abstergo employee telling him what to do and uploading his genetic memories to "the cloud", which I think is like a server that connects the animus network and it is probably used to train templar recruits. But if this is an Abstergo employee telling Desmond to place and collect pivots and Desmond can only listen, not be heard by people who are talking to him through the animus, so it would do him little good to say anything. Sean and Lucy used to give Desmond instructions while he was in the animus, like when he was collecting data left by subject 16, and he would usually remain silent then too. I think that Asassins Creed III set the stage for the Assassins to team up with the Templars to fight a common enemy, that is to say, Juno.

F4H bandicoot
11-11-2012, 11:28 PM
Cut out for length.

And if time is not a straight line??
Imagine they run on a parallel line, until a said point, then our timeline starts directly below, they can only see the equivalent time 'slot' on our line. What then??
We know they guide us and make things happen. Ezio didn't turn up there by accident. TWCB guided him there.
Minerva also mentions devices, saying "she had more" or something to that effect. These things are obviously the key to looking forward, isay she had two left, she used one to talk to Desmond at the end of ACB, and one to talk to Desmond in 2012.

I suppose I would put it like this.
Today, I have a device. It allows me to look 1000 years ahead, to 11/11/3012
Tommorow, I can use a device, to look the 12/11/3012
I cannot look any further ahead or for that matter behind, because one day has passed on 'both' timelines.

Therefore Minerva, when she looked forward in ACB, she couldn't know what would happen in the future, because the equivalent time frame for looking to 2012 hadn't come to be in their timeframe.

That is how I would explain it.

Not sure how she would know about Des using this, but I'm sure it's involve some sort of meddling from the past. The Nexus maybe.

ShugoAC
11-11-2012, 11:57 PM
I suppose I would put it like this.
Today, I have a device. It allows me to look 1000 years ahead, to 11/11/3012
Tommorow, I can use a device, to look the 12/11/3012
I cannot look any further ahead or for that matter behind, because one day has passed on 'both' timelines.



So basically a precursor oracle that let them see a small snapshot of the future.. It'd an interesting idea for sure and would probably have been accepted out of hand. Remember she first appeared to Ezio though, and that was hundreds of years before Desmond. Either the precursors live a very very long time or there was a way to adjust the scope. If there was then Minerva falls into the trap of knowing failure would happen and blaming someone who couldn't fix it. Plus when you get into talking about "different timelines" you're talking about the multi-verse and that is it's own can of worms.

Even if you're absolutely correct though Ubisoft failed to give us any explanation and so we sit here and idly guess at fictional mechanics of pre-cognition.

weston_19
11-12-2012, 12:34 AM
Those are some pretty far fetched justifactions that we shouldnt have to make. Its just a faucet of illogical redundency i found in the ending. Im not going to ask ubisoft to fix it, but its so wide open that future dlc could do whatever it wants at this point. Which is the problem. We paid for a game that didnt deliver the final kick. And we cant really know were they will go. I found on wikipedia earlier that the shard of eden had some effect on desmond. Maybe he was fooling juno. But we could also make up 100,000 other conclusions, the problem is it never had to end that way. The ending pretty much stood on its own. There wasnt any foreshadowing as to what was going to happen. Which leads me to believe that its not the end of the game. I thought ubisoft had learned its lesson from the nature of dlc in ac2. They took a chunk out of the story. The same thing is happening again, and really whats the point of waiting for this dlc. Its so ubi can correct mistakes. They knew how big this was. They left it wide open because the end doesnt have to be the end. They could easily have desmond get up and go mono-a-mono with juno. Conclusions cant be vague, and can anwser alot of questions with room to grow. Look at the ending of Return of the Jedi. Its a spectacular ending with room to expand. But theres just too much to expand, leaving us speculating and ubisoft in a position to do whatever they want really.

Which leaves everyone else in a bad position. We can speculate, but i could make a thread about space monkeys saving the day and it fits just as well as any other theory. Or the age old animus within an animus. Being too vague is terrible in story telling if thats what you end on. Im okay with conners story, and all the way up to the save daddy mission for desmond. But now inask myslef, if they wanted this big revealing ending, and this is what i get, why would i expect the next game to reveal anymore than this?I know AC4 is comming and this isnt the end, but they arnt going to try to tie things up too much. Just leave it vague and reveal how juno breturns to power. I seen people tossing around ideas of fighting juno with POE's. And i swear, if we are going to go there ill scream. Its her technology, it doesnt affect them. Maybe inadvertantly but why cant juno just make a POE that shuts the others down? She probably will, and humanity is pretty screwed. The only power to fight them will be another TWCB, probably Minerva. Lemme ask you. How do you fight somthing that knows what your next move is? Or can create technology we cant even grasp? Theres only about 3 ways the next game can do this right, and 10,000 ways they can plunder it into a profiteering game.

If Alex Hutchinson doesnt care if people like the ending and feels a true ending is good enough, he should have a chat with me and ill tell him why he needs to forget about what ubisofts rights are. Us, the fans brought this game into its flagship status. We overlooked the pitfalls of AC1 and knew ubisoft hit a jackpot. We flocked to get AC2 and it lived up to what we hoped. And ACB and ACR were even tweaks i can appreciate. But now he comes out before the game is released and tells fans that they should be happy with what they get. This sounds like we cant live ip to our promises and theres a deadline to release this game, so we slapped it together and you may not like it but too bad. He read the script, and just him talking about the ending means he knew it was bad and was softening us up for the kick in the nuts we got. Ive said it a few times here. I wagched the ubi video, everyone all antsy in there pantsy cause its a GOTY run. The game is flawless on the surface, every judge is going to score it high. But to some of us, emotionally committed to the story, it was a dumb blonde that looks super hot. We all were attracted and she would be a 10/10 on hot or not, but i wont put up with the crap she spews.

jamgamerforever
11-12-2012, 12:39 AM
It was just really abrupt is all. I do like the way that the 6 failed plans of TWCB factored in. The "pedestal" used EYE-Abstergo tech. The sun would be captured by the towers that were being built. Juno transcended.

justknowz
11-12-2012, 01:11 AM
I think the ending was cool.... Des saved the world and yeah... another cliffhanger... but that did not tarnish my overall experience.. THIS GAME IS AWESOME!!!! Comparisons to ME3 are bogus and ludicrous... ME3 literally felt like a rape.

witness84
11-12-2012, 06:43 AM
I didn't like the ending because it basically boiled down the entire lives of Altair, Ezio and Connor to "We spent our lives looking for pieces of eden so that we could give them to our ancestor. So he can use them to free a space witch and enslave the world". It stripped the entire sense of destiny that we spent 4 games building up to. Why was Desmond training so hard to be an assassin? Why was the point of having him learn all of these skills? Couldn't we have had a semi-dramatic moment with Desmond and the team we spent 4 games getting close to before Des abruptly kills himself?

It was just poor storytelling, plain and simple. I understand fully if Ubi was ready to move on to a new main character, but at least give the one you just forced on us for 4 games a proper send off.

pirate1802
11-12-2012, 06:57 AM
I didn't like the ending because it basically boiled down the entire lives of Altair, Ezio and Connor to "We spent our lives looking for pieces of eden so that we could give them to our ancestor. So he can use them to free a space witch and enslave the world".

Another one misses the point. Sigh.

witness84
11-12-2012, 07:15 AM
Another one misses the point. Sigh.

Did we play the same game?

Because you seem to be implying with this pretentious "Sigh" that this ending has more depth than it does.

I was utilizing something called "hyperbole" in my post. I understand this may be difficult for you to pick up on, as you seem to believe the ending had some kind of unfathomable depth or merit. But come on, now.

It was a great game. The storyline leading up to this point was pretty stellar. The ending was irresponsible storytelling.
And Ubi seems to know so themselves. (See here: http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1491104/assassins_creed_3_ending_is_making_ubisoft_nervous .html )

So, please, enlighten me as to what point I missed.

Turul.
11-12-2012, 07:18 AM
I was expecting Desmond's story to be over, I pretty much expected assassins creed to be over, but it's obvious theyve got a long way to go.

i guess everyone was expecting the "problem solved, hero saves the world" ending, which he did....but he also let out an ancient evil.

pirate1802
11-12-2012, 07:34 AM
Did we play the same game?

Because you seem to be implying with this pretentious "Sigh" that this ending has more depth than it does.

I was utilizing something called "hyperbole" in my post. I understand this may be difficult for you to pick up on, as you seem to believe the ending had some kind of unfathomable depth or merit. But come on, now.

It was a great game. The storyline leading up to this point was pretty stellar. The ending was irresponsible storytelling.
And Ubi seems to know so themselves. (See here: http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1491104/assassins_creed_3_ending_is_making_ubisoft_nervous .html )

So, please, enlighten me as to what point I missed.

Do you have some kind of a problem? I saw you get into a similar conversation with another person. I have my own set of complaints about the ending and I by no means think it is perfect. But i guess unless I go bat**** crazy over it or consider it the worst atrocity leveled on mankind people would take it for granted that I absolutely adored the ending. I can't be bothered to enlighten you because if you had taken the trouble of reading through the previous pages you'd seen it. But maybe you find it easier to just read the last couple of posts and have a go at it.

Oh and that story is nothing new. Almost everyone seems to know it. Developers would always be nervous with endings that are not your average rainbow and sunshine ending. On top of that the ending was clearly rushed and not much effort was put into it. So yes, if I was Ubisoft I'd be nervous.

zhengyingli
11-12-2012, 07:41 AM
Did we play the same game?

Because you seem to be implying with this pretentious "Sigh" that this ending has more depth than it does.

I was utilizing something called "hyperbole" in my post. I understand this may be difficult for you to pick up on, as you seem to believe the ending had some kind of unfathomable depth or merit. But come on, now.

It was a great game. The storyline leading up to this point was pretty stellar. The ending was irresponsible storytelling.
And Ubi seems to know so themselves. (See here: http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1491104/assassins_creed_3_ending_is_making_ubisoft_nervous .html )

So, please, enlighten me as to what point I missed.


Well, as with every ending of the AC games, they always struck us as WTF, and always answered most of the questions in the next game. So in other words, they'll probably explore the angle on why Desmond did what he did (some mentioned his choice was aligned with the Templar's), and along with that, Juno. Personally, I'm fine with a cliffhanger that at least gave me some answers about why Minerva and Juno said the things they said. Maybe Tinia/Jupiter also will play a major role or simply appear as a cameo. So much to speculate.

witness84
11-12-2012, 07:53 AM
Do you have some kind of a problem? I saw you get into a similar conversation with another person. I have my own set of complaints about the ending and I by no means think it is perfect. But i guess unless I go bat**** crazy over it or consider it the worst atrocity leveled on mankind people would take it for granted that I absolutely adored the ending. I can't be bothered to enlighten you because if you had taken the trouble of reading through the previous pages you'd seen it. But maybe you find it easier to just read the last couple of posts and have a go at it.

Oh and that story is nothing new. Almost everyone seems to know it. Developers would always be nervous with endings that are not your average rainbow and sunshine ending. On top of that the ending was clearly rushed and not much effort was put into it. So yes, if I was Ubisoft I'd be nervous.

Ah, I see you're quite good at hyperbole, too. Yes, I do have a problem with your response. And I have read this entire thread. I've dived into the storyline of these games for since the first AC.
I'm not suggesting you adored the ending.

But, there's nothing here to defend. There's no point to miss. My clearly sarcastic summary still works in the context of the ending, which you've accurately pointed was "clearly rushed and not much effort was put into it.". But much like the ending itself, you've chosen not to enlighten me to the "point", I'm apparently missing.

My problem with this ending is that it was irresponsible writing. Especially given the fact that it's not like fans wouldn't have continued to buy any Assassin's Creed games had they kept putting them out.

ShugoAC
11-12-2012, 07:58 AM
Do you have some kind of a problem? I saw you get into a similar conversation with another person. I have my own set of complaints about the ending and I by no means think it is perfect. But i guess unless I go bat**** crazy over it or consider it the worst atrocity leveled on mankind people would take it for granted that I absolutely adored the ending. I can't be bothered to enlighten you because if you had taken the trouble of reading through the previous pages you'd seen it. But maybe you find it easier to just read the last couple of posts and have a go at it.

Oh and that story is nothing new. Almost everyone seems to know it. Developers would always be nervous with endings that are not your average rainbow and sunshine ending. On top of that the ending was clearly rushed and not much effort was put into it. So yes, if I was Ubisoft I'd be nervous.

Actually he's got a point.. when I first read your comment I thought it was pretty patronizingly rude too. Maybe it wasn't intended as such but it's easy to see how it could be taken that way.

And I have read the entire thread. Every post, including yours, before commenting initially.

Your argument that this isn't going to be the last game so there shouldn't be so many complaints / comparisons to other bad games/shows/books falls a little flat. If my favorite author wrote a terrible novel just to sell another book because he knew his fans would buy it, I would be just as upset.

Don't get me wrong, you're right everyone needs to take a gigantic deep breath and calm down, even myself, but that doesn't mean we're not allowed to be wholeheartedly disappointed in this latest installment. The writing was awful, nothing was explained and the ending pacing was rushed and half-assed. I, and most everyone else playing the game, has devoted over 10 full real life days into playing it plus over 250$ in cash to have the privilege of enjoying the story... Being miffed with a beloved brand when it doesn't live up to it's own awesome standards is somewhat to be expected. Especially when it doesn't live up to those standards by *large* margins of basic creative writing 101 classes.

And I read all your posts again so I know you aren't an Ubisoft apologist. Just don't post snarky comments and expect folks to roll over and not snark back.

pirate1802
11-12-2012, 08:22 AM
I should have taken into account that he is a new member, apologies for that. I was never suggesting that you should all shut up or anything. We should all let Ubisoft know that the ending was subpar and they could have done much better than what they did. Its only through such processes that things improve. If we all gobble up this ending as the best thing ever, they'll continue to put out such stuff. I just wish the backlash is/was in proportion to the failure, and properly directed at where the failure actually is.

scooper121s
11-12-2012, 09:29 AM
Does no one think desmond is not dead? they left it there so they could bring more suspence in the storyline, does no one remember the ending of halo three, commander chief was dead, yet he comes back for halo 4, so my guess is that Ubi's going to do something similar to that with subject seventeen, Desmond miles, and how can we hear the outside world (The hacker) if the Animus concept no-longer exists? Desmond lives and my theory is that Erudo is helping him stay that way, I say bravo for your ending ubisoft,

to all of you remember:
Nothing is true
Everything is permitted

pirate1802
11-12-2012, 10:13 AM
Does no one think desmond is not dead? they left it there so they could bring more suspence in the storyline, does no one remember the ending of halo three, commander chief was dead, yet he comes back for halo 4, so my guess is that Ubi's going to do something similar to that with subject seventeen, Desmond miles, and how can we hear the outside world (The hacker) if the Animus concept no-longer exists? Desmond lives and my theory is that Erudo is helping him stay that way, I say bravo for your ending ubisoft,

to all of you remember:
Nothing is true
Everything is permitted

I kinda feel the same way. Which is why I feel the ending was so lacking in emotion, because we haven't yet seen the last of Mr. Miles, he's alive in some form.. maybe like Clay?

zerocooll21
11-12-2012, 02:44 PM
...The game is flawless on the surface, every judge is going to score it high. But to some of us, emotionally committed to the story, it was a dumb blonde that looks super hot. We all were attracted and she would be a 10/10 on hot or not, but i wont put up with the crap she spews.

+1

NumberSix1967
11-12-2012, 05:32 PM
This...


Lots of good points here about why the story structure of AC3 is so shoddy. At the end of the day, the reason I hate it is because it makes the first 5 games feel like one giant prequel to the real central conflict of the series. It feels like it exists for the sole reason to be a plot twist without having any sort of satisfaction. Well-written plot twists are the ones that make you look back at the story and see all the hints and feel a satisfaction at putting it together. This plot twist feels like it exists for its own sake and does not make me look back at the story and feel satisfied when I see the foreshadowing. Sure, you can see a thing or two that makes you think they were planning this a game or two back, but it still feels so artificial. Good plot twists always have clues that you can't use to predict them, but when looking back with a changed perspective you see that they were clues. This plot twist just makes me feel like I've been lied to for 5 story chapters, and people do not like the feeling they've been lied to.

I was the person who said Mass Effect 3's ending was better because it had explosions. My point was simply that even though its story sucked, at least it had some action and emotional impact and showed you the results of the final choice. AC3's ending does not show you the results of your actions that the whole series has been leading up to. It simply shows you a news cast that discusses the aftermath as if it's a minor scientific curiosity. There's just absolutely no weight there. The presentation was so terrible.

I think one of the reason Brotherhood's ending sticks with me as so good was because it had great buildup. You finish Ezio's story, which was decently satisfying for me, and find the information you've been told is central to the chapter of the story at the beginning -- where Ezio hid his Apple. Then you get a cutscene where the characters figure out the last piece of their puzzle, and you wind up in Rome to retrieve the Apple. But you don't just go to another cutscene, you get to play as Desmond exploring the Colosseum while everything builds up to the final moment with more dialogue. Things continue to crescendo, with Desmond seeing visions of Ezio and you really feel that sense of connection between their stories. Then you meet Juno, which does come out of nowhere, but still connects to the story of the previous game. You get to see and hear her several times as the moment continues to build. Then you finally reach the Apple Chamber and get the final cutscene with the plot twist ending. Contrast that to AC3's ending, where you find the info you're looking for in the past, and then you just sit and watch the rest of the action unfold in the next 10-15 minutes. There's no buildup to anything, it all just happens.

And yes, they never said the AC series would end with AC3. You would have been naive to think so. I of all people fully expected the 2012 and Desmond stories to conclude, but have a new cliffhanger or hint of the next conflict to come. Everything the developers have said about this game was about how it was wrapping up the 2012 storyline, which is what the entire series has been about from day one. It's not like we're talking about the conclusion of a small side story in the franchise, we're talking about the core modern-day plot introduced in AC1 once the date of "12/21/2012" was thrown out there. Sometimes they'd talk about concluding Desmond's story, and sometimes they'd get coy and say they really couldn't say it was ending. But still, they have been saying the series was originally conceived as a trilogy and this game was obviously being built up to as a huge focal point of the series. Instead, it feels like just another random episode in the middle of a long series.

They did conclude the 2012 storyline like they promised, but it was with a wave of their hand. Before they could even conclude it, they introduced the real threat of Juno -- they couldn't even wait until after they'd concluded the first threat! And to really top it off, they also managed to completely neuter the original antagonists of the series, introduced in the first 5 minutes of the AC story and built up as an all-knowing, controlling enemy -- Abstergo. Remember the enemy who knew all these things that we didn't, and who controlled all the important businesses, politicians and technology in the world? Brotherhood told us that Abstergo had planned every move and engineered every response in their little chess game. Well, even if their plans had gone the way they wanted, their entire scheme would have failed (Desmond said Juno showed their satellite launch and fail). In addition, they are so bumbling and idiotic that they goaded the one person who had a weapon to stop them in the Apple to just walk right in their front door and ruin a scheme they'd been planning for decades. That takes real writing skills to end the major threat of a series with a magic button, introduce a new threat just before the clock strikes midnight, and make a laughing stock out of what had been presented (very well, in fact) as the main antagonist of the series from day one.

....and this...


We talked about this. The writers don't need a context for the time travel. They can easily explore whatever setting they want without super-advanced technology, simply by building up the Assassin Order as an expansive organization. The historical plotlines of Altair, Ezio, and Connor could work just as well without Desmond.

And Revelations was incredibly important. The purpose was to conclude the storylines of his respective ancestors and prep Desmond to step into the forefront of the conflict, evidenced by him saying "I am an assassin" and "I know what we need to do" at the end, pro-active statements (for a change). He is ready to step into the role of his ancestors, something not established in previous games.

This is why Assassin's Creed 3 fails more than the previous games; Desmond wasn't ready to step into the lead role, an idea mentioned multiple times. He sidesteps Vidic and Lucy in AC1 when they call him an assassin. In AC2, he mentions to Lucy how he's "no good at this". Yes, the modern day story was simply a framed narrative, but there were clear implications that the story was going to pick up in importance. This is why Connor's story is completely out of left field. At least in both Altiar's and Ezio's cases, exploring their stories allowed something new/important to be learned. They had main plot significance, which is why it worked there. All AC3 does is throw another magic door at the player and say "surprise! Another ancestor!". The reason why we are exploring memories in the previous four games is clear and built up. This is not the case with Connor. Desmond being placed on the backburner worked as a function of the narrative then. From a story-telling perspective, we were done with the historical backgrounds after Desmond confronted the reality of who he really is.



A framed narrative is not indicative that the modern day story is screwed over. There is a huge difference between what we are doing in AC1 vs. AC3 in terms of both tone and importance. AC1 introduces the conflict, the setting, premises, etc. Desmond for example can't really fall victim to the bleeding effect if they don't set up a plotline where he spends most of his time as his ancestors. Insert AC1 and 2. Connor's story however has no integration into Desmond's. There's no overarching plot significance, which the other 4 games have, either in moving the story forward or for character development.

As I said before, Ezio's apple already served as the key to get us into the grand temple, making Connor's plot significance non-existent. It would be like having Desmond succumb to the bleeding effect all over again in AC3, when the plot thread finished in AC:R.



Actually, she'd be regarded as a hack and a laughing stock, failing in basic rules of dramatic tension. No one ever said mind games are anything new, hence why I regard the ending as slightly better than Mass Effect's, which always focused on grounded story-telling. The mistake is in the assumption that a writer has to explicitly say "I won't open up more plot threads". Lies of omission are not dependent on explicit statements. Desmond was the main protagonist for five games, stopping the solar flare was the main conflict. If an author promises to resolve the central conflict, that alone should be more than enough that we shouldn't have to wait for them to say "But I didn't say there wouldn't be a bigger threat! behind it". It's nothing more than word games. Concluding Desmond's story/Solar flare plot in the same five minutes that they unleashed Juno prevented any sense of resolution to the Desmond character. It was rushed, plain and simple.



I mentioned this before: this is not a counter-argument. The thread title is not "why did Ubisoft screw over the modern day story", the thread title is "Why are people upset with the ending". The OP did not ask whether people considered that decision a good one. It is irrelevant why they did it, the key point was to show why it is a failure in story-telling.

If someone asks me what I think of AC:R's den defense, which was terrible, it wouldn't be a good idea to then mention "Well, no one cared about den defense anyway". That's not defending the game mechanic, it's a sidestep. Developers shouldn't be inserting/continuing plot elements no one cares about any more than gameplay elements people don't enjoy.

...is all correct. I would quite like a word from Ubisoft about what decisions they made when planning ACIII's creative direction and about how they felt the ending represented their previously laid out intentions. I should imagine many members of the development team have read about the gripes people have with the ending and are either in agreement or, well, not. Who knows what they chose to hold back/remove from this game in favour of placing it in a future title. The storytelling in general is quite poor, I feel. I had no connection to Connor and was resolutely disappointed with Desmond's ending. Without reason, there is no rhyme.

Comedxy
11-12-2012, 08:50 PM
Didn't log in for a long time and this ending pissed me off i have comment on it .We go in the animus to relive memories of Desmond's ancestors and deal with the present. So when Desmond gets the skills of his ancestors and knowledge he can deal with in the present. Desmond ends up dying in the end what was the point of building him up to be the next master assassin like his ancestors like in AC2 and in ACR I wouldn't have a problem if he wasn't built up and died. In the end of AC3 open my eyes Ubisoft will never make a game based in the present. I'm calling it the next assassin in the game will die as well because when you get a certain point that you don't need the animus and you can deal with it on your own THEY WILL KILL OFF THE CHARACTER. Thus extending the series . probably take a couple games to build up the new character then they will get killed off. rinse and repeat so go on and keep exploring your ancestors and see the past you wont get to fully utilize your skills in a full game in the present so what's the point. This WHOLE GAME REVOLVES AROUND THE PRESENT SO WHEN DO WE GET A FULL GAME IN THE PRESENT TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM IN THE PRESENT

Em-Man
11-12-2012, 09:47 PM
This WHOLE GAME REVOLVES AROUND THE PRESENT SO WHEN DO WE GET A FULL GAME IN THE PRESENT TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM IN THE PRESENT

Is it just me or did the American Revolution setting contribute little to nothing to the actual overarching plot? The setting felt so forced and irrelevant to everything that is AC. In AC1 we get to see the actual CRUSADE in action, the biggest templar conflict in history. The synergy between the present and the crusade setting was AMAZING in terms of importance. In AC2 they tried to show us and plant the idea of the assassin and templar conflict being a big part throughout history, more than just the actual crusade, and they spoon-fed us with overaching-plot content through glyphs.
In AC3 we get to know about... The location of a key. And that's pretty much it. This could be done in ANY setting, not just America. It felt so locked out of the important stuff. Really, I have no idea what their thought process were when they chose that setting. They failed to make it feel important.

But then again, maybe i'm just delusional.

redlbj
11-12-2012, 10:33 PM
This...



....and this...



...is all correct. I would quite like a word from Ubisoft about what decisions they made when planning ACIII's creative direction and about how they felt the ending represented their previously laid out intentions. I should imagine many members of the development team have read about the gripes people have with the ending and are either in agreement or, well, not. Who knows what they chose to hold back/remove from this game in favour of placing it in a future title. The storytelling in general is quite poor, I feel. I had no connection to Connor and was resolutely disappointed with Desmond's ending. Without reason, there is no rhyme.

+1 This. I joined the forum just to respond to this post. Ubisoft had SO much potential in the modern story, and they totally wasted it. You kill off one of the major villains (Vidic), with such little pay off, that it was frankly embarrassing. In addition, why on earth did they decide to include such a unique character like Cross and NOT use him to his full potential. Here we have our MAIN hero, Desmond Miles, vs. his twisted/mirror counterpart Cross. That alone could have been used to drive the story forward. Total waste of two great villains. In all honesty, I felt something was "off" with the modern story at the end of Revelations. It felt like Ubisoft was "bored" with the modern story line, and couldn't find a way to justify its existence anymore.

To me, the modern story line was the link that held the series together. Desmond was the MAIN character. I enjoyed the ancestor’s stories a lot, but Desmond was the main hero for me. Shame how they ended it. Not as bad as ME3, but by no means was this a good ending. But opinions may vary.

The only recent big name game that did their ending "justice" was Halo 4. Poignant, subtle and heart felt. This is how you end a major character. SPOILERS for those who don't want to see a major spoiler for Halo 4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faOMPia9uyI

twenty_glyphs
11-12-2012, 10:45 PM
Is it just me or did the American Revolution setting contribute little to nothing to the actual overarching plot? The setting felt so forced and irrelevant to everything that is AC. In AC1 we get to see the actual CRUSADE in action, the biggest templar conflict in history. The synergy between the present and the crusade setting was AMAZING in terms of importance. In AC2 they tried to show us and plant the idea of the assassin and templar conflict being a big part throughout history, more than just the actual crusade, and they spoon-fed us with overaching-plot content through glyphs.
In AC3 we get to know about... The location of a key. And that's pretty much it. This could be done in ANY setting, not just America. It felt so locked out of the important stuff. Really, I have no idea what their thought process were when they chose that setting. They failed to make it feel important.

But then again, maybe i'm just delusional.

This is exactly how I felt. The setting was completely wasted and so pointless. The physical setting wasn't as interesting as the Italian Renaissance, so I thought the main reason for going there was for the events and conspiracy theories that surround the Founding Fathers, Freemasons and even the Templars. There are lots of legends about the Templars fleeing Europe when they were persecuted in the 1300s and some landing in the New World at least a century before Columbus. All of that was just ignored, and it was the last big Templar conspiracy left from real life. I just don't even understand the complete waste of the potential this setting had to offer. Failing that, the actual physical setting was just so boring compared to the Renaissance and even to the Crusades.

Layytez
11-13-2012, 12:44 AM
I'm happy to see this many people angry. It shows that we are not overreacting. When are the developers doing a podcast so they can justify this bs..

zerocooll21
11-13-2012, 12:46 AM
They did say the revolution was just a back drop to a bigger story. However, I agree with both of you, I really didn't get the feeling I was involved in the war. It was more like I'm running through the forest, running through the forrest, hey look a battle, fight, running through the forest, hey show these guys how to shoot!

And yah why no freemason connection??

There has to be more to Connors story, we never saw G.W. have the apple or even know of its existence

Layytez
11-13-2012, 12:48 AM
They did say the revolution was just a back drop to a bigger story. However, I agree with both of you, I really didn't get the feeling I was involved in the war. It was more like I'm running through the forest, running through the forrest, hey look a battle, fight, running through the forest, hey show these guys how to shoot!

And yah why no freemason connection??

There has to be more to Connors story, we never saw G.W. have the apple or even know of its existence

They mentioned he had the apple after the end of the game. I bet they did this out of laziness.

zerocooll21
11-13-2012, 12:49 AM
really? when? what? I must have missed it. Care to give me a quick recap?

Layytez
11-13-2012, 12:50 AM
It was when you spoke to Shaun in the temple. I can't remember the exact words but that's where him and the apple are mentioned.

twenty_glyphs
11-13-2012, 12:58 AM
They did say the revolution was just a back drop to a bigger story. However, I agree with both of you, I really didn't get the feeling I was involved in the war. It was more like I'm running through the forest, running through the forrest, hey look a battle, fight, running through the forest, hey show these guys how to shoot!

And yah why no freemason connection??

There has to be more to Connors story, we never saw G.W. have the apple or even know of its existence

Yes, I completely expected the Revolution to just be the backdrop like they said, and like the Crusades and Renaissance were. Alex Hutchinson said many times that instead of going to places, they wanted to take you to events this time. But the Freemason/Founding Father/Templar Legends are part of the atmosphere of the setting, not the actual storyline of the war, so I expected them to be there.

I didn't want to be involved in the actual war so much as stumbling across it while Connor went about his own mission. But unlike Alta´r and Ezio, there just wasn't a central story taking place that you could latch onto. In AC1, it was to stop certain men from exploiting the war to attain their goal of controlling the region, and the Apple of Eden was heavily involved. In AC2, it was revenge as much as tracking down the reason for Ezio's family's murder and what the conspiracy was, which involved gaining an Apple to help get access to the Vatican Vault. At times Connor practically does join the Revolution, which was just odd. How would that help save his village, since he thought Charles Lee had burned it down to begin with and he was fighting for the Patriots? Why does Connor suddenly latch onto protecting George Washington in Sequence 8? He barely even met the man. The story just really suffers without a central goal to hold it together at least a little bit.

zerocooll21
11-13-2012, 01:29 AM
It was when you spoke to Shaun in the temple. I can't remember the exact words but that's where him and the apple are mentioned.

Ah, still need to finish those. thanks.


But unlike Alta´r and Ezio, there just wasn't a central story taking place that you could latch onto..

Thats what I was trying to get at. Not great with words :p

rego00123
11-13-2012, 02:00 AM
A couple things about the ending make no sense to me whatsoever.
1) After desmond dies? How are we back in the animus with connor? Shawn still talks through the animus to you like nothing happened. WTF?

play liberation on the vita. it pretty much implies that anyone can now enter into others genetic memories. the "pivots" also imply that someone has found out how to access them in AC:3

zerocooll21
11-13-2012, 02:59 AM
if so i guess they will toss out the modern day for the rest of connor. Then come back with it on AC:4. Anyone play the tyranny of GW yet?

pirate1802
11-13-2012, 03:00 AM
This WHOLE GAME REVOLVES AROUND THE PRESENT SO WHEN DO WE GET A FULL GAME IN THE PRESENT TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM IN THE PRESENT

Hopefully never..

scooper121s
11-13-2012, 10:03 AM
Who's G.W., george washington?

zerocooll21
11-13-2012, 01:38 PM
yes

thePhilCasper
11-13-2012, 06:00 PM
Because it was a crappy ending.

Do the writers want to kill off Desmond? Go ahead. But let's actually have a conclusion that serves as an emotional end for the character. Ezio got it. Altair got it. There's no build-up to Desmond's sacrifice. If you're going to kill the main character, you better make it emotional, something Assassin's Creed failed to do. Hell, Shaun and Rebecca don't even say anything. Desmond presses a button, falls over, and Juno gloats for a bit. Brotherhood had the most Desmond content post-Animus. AC3 should have had just as much, if not more.

Agreed. They should end whole modern story with artefacts and TWCB and then come with something fresh in 2014, perhaps. They didn┤t end Desmond┤s Story, only Desmond┤s Life. I┤m very upset... I┤m not upset because he died. I┤m upset because there was nothing explained and ended in ending. There should be no Juno taking control over world, but Desmond┤s Death and LAAAARGE AMOUNT OF ACTION AND EMOTION before his destiny takes him. My opinion.

mashroot
11-13-2012, 10:15 PM
Yes, I completely expected the Revolution to just be the backdrop like they said, and like the Crusades and Renaissance were. Alex Hutchinson said many times that instead of going to places, they wanted to take you to events this time. But the Freemason/Founding Father/Templar Legends are part of the atmosphere of the setting, not the actual storyline of the war, so I expected them to be there.

I didn't want to be involved in the actual war so much as stumbling across it while Connor went about his own mission. But unlike Alta´r and Ezio, there just wasn't a central story taking place that you could latch onto. In AC1, it was to stop certain men from exploiting the war to attain their goal of controlling the region, and the Apple of Eden was heavily involved. In AC2, it was revenge as much as tracking down the reason for Ezio's family's murder and what the conspiracy was, which involved gaining an Apple to help get access to the Vatican Vault. At times Connor practically does join the Revolution, which was just odd. How would that help save his village, since he thought Charles Lee had burned it down to begin with and he was fighting for the Patriots? Why does Connor suddenly latch onto protecting George Washington in Sequence 8? He barely even met the man. The story just really suffers without a central goal to hold it together at least a little bit.

Tell me about it! Yes, I totally agree with you guys that the writers dropped the ball on the American Revolution by focusing way too much on the school boy version of historical events instead of the conspiritorial version of historical events.