PDA

View Full Version : Is it me or is Connor a tool?



HisShadowX
11-14-2012, 02:48 AM
I feel like I am playing AC1 all over again at times it is really good but boring. I feel like the main character in booth seriously lack in both personality and conviction. To where Ezio we literally got to see him from Birth to Death he grows on us as a character. He doesn't act superior like AC1 and Ac3 main characters he is just someone who is out to avenge his family and gets caught up.

To where AC3 you do get caught up at times its like AC1 to where your character acts like a whiny tool. Ezio has a crap deal set to him and it was messed up but that man fought and won.

AC1 and AC3 your main characters just feel...boring. I believe why everyone loves Ezio is simply because he acts like the average joe and he does not act high and mighty. Just a man caught up in things.

RyokuMC
11-14-2012, 03:00 AM
I liked Connor because of their ignorance but still with a great competence (It's the same feeling I had while playing with John RDR)


Connor has love and respect for the lives of others (even if they are enemies). THAT is something that Altair and Ezio don't have

Like I say in my signature: I want more games with Connor to know better about him

TrueAssassin77
11-14-2012, 03:20 AM
Is not connor its you.

Look at your topic sentence.... you worded the questions... badly

HisShadowX
11-14-2012, 03:34 AM
I liked Connor because of their ignorance but still with a great competence (It's the same feeling I had while playing with John RDR)


Connor has love and respect for the lives of others (even if they are enemies). THAT is something that Altair and Ezio don't have

Like I say in my signature: I want more games with Connor to know better about him

AC3 developers just had a back and forth on Reddit which was supposed to be questions from the community with the reception of Connor and AC3 I doubt there will be many sequels to AC3 or Connor. Unless Ubisoft does a Bioware and ignores the majority of they're customers and you almost destroy your company.

pirate1802
11-14-2012, 03:52 AM
And how would you know what the "majority" thinks?

HisShadowX
11-14-2012, 03:55 AM
And how would you know what the "majority" thinks?

Looking at the majority of negative comments espically at the Q&A

Sidizen
11-14-2012, 03:57 AM
Connor is not a tool, Connor works for Justice, and not for revenge or, as for Altairs case, to follow the brotherhood. Connor is a boss, no one can deny it.

pirate1802
11-14-2012, 04:01 AM
Looking at the majority of negative comments espically at the Q&A

I didn't even know when this Q&A took place. I'm sure there are many like me. Over here, the opinion is kinda divided. Some people like him, some don't. I'm still not seeing how the "majority" hates Connor.

It's more a case of "I think the majority thinks just the way I think" syndrome..

abbitha7
11-14-2012, 04:05 AM
I like Connor when I'm not playing the main story.

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 04:23 AM
Looking at the majority of negative comments espically at the Q&A
Seems pretty split here, to me.

HisShadowX
11-14-2012, 04:43 AM
Connor is not a tool, Connor works for Justice, and not for revenge or, as for Altairs case, to follow the brotherhood. Connor is a boss, no one can deny it.


Yeah but it was nice to know people brought up the bug issues and they claimed they have a lot of bug fixes coming up.

HisShadowX
11-14-2012, 04:45 AM
Seems pretty split here, to me.

Depends. There was a fanboy attack on anyone who registered in Nov 2012 in fact senior members here labeled and made posts about the "Nov 2012" people and attacked them. I would say the not so friendly reception and then the not so friendly reception of the North American Mod here drove many people off.

I guess that mod is the Stanley Woo of Ubisoft

talon97turbo
11-14-2012, 04:56 AM
He seems to mono tone at times.. and some times he just seems like a jerk. Like with Paul Revere. He just acts like a jerk to him the whole game.

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 05:00 AM
He seems to mono tone at times.. and some times he just seems like a jerk. Like with Paul Revere. He just acts like a jerk to him the whole game.

There are also those newcomers who actually complained with constructive criticism. Most people made fun of them at first, but they joined in the conversation later. The ones you refer as "scared off" were generally the ones with intents to start flame wars. And I've seen how the mods behave on this board, and they are not even close to Stanley Woo.

kriegerdesgottes
11-14-2012, 05:01 AM
I don't think he's a tool. He's a little naive maybe in thinking that in standing for justice he can change the world but I think that make him more relatable and interesting. That is a story I personally would like to see expanded upon in a future game.

pirate1802
11-14-2012, 05:03 AM
Pardon me, but.. Who is this Stanley Woo you speak of?

WarlockDLX
11-14-2012, 05:06 AM
Connor is possibly the worst video game protagonist the world has ever seen in a major market game franchise like AC. He has no personality, no interesting culture (unless you find the primitive nature of 17th century Indians interesting) no style or flair in how he speaks or deals with people, hes a complete idiot as expressed by everyone he meets including his own father, he has no real heritage to the assassins brotherhood other than his relation to Haytham, and to top it all off... they had to give him TWO.. not one, but TWO of the most cliche' plot lines conceivably possible.. and that is 1) father vs son in an epic battle over tyranny, and 2) "they burned our village down so im going to kill them dead!". Im sorry, but if it weren't for the online of this game id have sold it 3 days after purchasing. Luckily that is a redeeming factor for the game.

WarlockDLX
11-14-2012, 05:12 AM
Connor is not a tool, Connor works for Justice, and not for revenge or, as for Altairs case, to follow the brotherhood. Connor is a boss, no one can deny it.

Connor doesnt work for revenge eh? I think you got it backwards. Connors entire mission revolved around getting even with Charles Lee for the murder of his mother and the destruction of his village. Altair was lead by his master in AC1 to do things that in the end turned out to be counter productive to his cause. Ezio was probably the most caring and selfless assassin the game has seen up to this point. He fought for the people in the name of the brotherhood. All his fights revolved around peace in his relative territory and freeing the people from negative influence from political figures and military regimes.

It seems to me some of the folks making these types of statements (and not just you) havent really payed attention to what they are playing. I, for one, love the stories in the previous AC games. This latest one blew ***...

talon97turbo
11-14-2012, 05:16 AM
Who is Stanly Woo? And is this a complement.. or against my words.. I am a little confused haha.

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 05:29 AM
Pardon me, but.. Who is this Stanley Woo you speak of?
When I used to post on BSN, complaining about the horrible framerate and out-of-synch audio of ME2 for PS3, Woo did not take kindly to nasty but constructive criticisms, at all. Saying something like Bioware has no obligation to fix the problems. So yeah, no mod on these forums even come close to such calibur of meaness.

Sickull
11-14-2012, 05:37 AM
I thought Connor was a great character and the moments when he out called Haytham and Sam Adams out on their faults were excellent. Look I loved Ezio but he wasn't as deep as some of you are making him out to be in reality Ezio was the Assassin's Creed version of James Bond or Nathan Drake he says something funny he bangs all the broads and occasionally he kills people not that there is anything wrong with that type pf character but it's time for something else.

Farlander1991
11-14-2012, 05:46 AM
Ezio was probably the most caring and selfless assassin the game has seen up to this point. He fought for the people in the name of the brotherhood. All his fights revolved around peace in his relative territory and freeing the people from negative influence from political figures and military regimes.

Yes, Ezio's fights indeed revolved around peace and freeing the people from negative influence from political figures and military regimes. Only you forgot the part where 1/3 of his life he didn't care about anything other than executing revenge and killing everybody who participated in the conspiracy that murdered his family. That was his main motivation, good things happening because of that were a side thing that didn't really matter for Ezio for a long time. And even after that, he still wasn't strong-willed enough to not care about executing revenge on Rodrigo (heck, if Rodrigo wouldn't defend himself, Ezio would kill him in cold blood). And the only reason why Ezio even went to Rome and began its liberation is because Cesare pissed him off and he went for revenge. Again. (although while in Rome he came to his senses).

EDIT: Removed some spoilery information. What is the spoiler tag in this forum and why does doesn't work?

ApexMandalorian
11-14-2012, 05:47 AM
Connor doesnt work for revenge eh? I think you got it backwards. Connors entire mission revolved around getting even with Charles Lee for the murder of his mother and the destruction of his village. Altair was lead by his master in AC1 to do things that in the end turned out to be counter productive to his cause. Ezio was probably the most caring and selfless assassin the game has seen up to this point. He fought for the people in the name of the brotherhood. All his fights revolved around peace in his relative territory and freeing the people from negative influence from political figures and military regimes.

It seems to me some of the folks making these types of statements (and not just you) havent really payed attention to what they are playing. I, for one, love the stories in the previous AC games. This latest one blew ***...

This is true. The problem is that the DEVS said that Connor fights for justice, not revenge. They also said that the game isn't anti-British. Both were lies, or they didn't understand the game they were releasing. Connor fights for revenge the whole time, same as Ezio. He holds Charles Lee responsible for the death of his mother, just like Ezio held Rodrigo Borgia responsible for the death of his family. Only difference is, Connor eventually finds out that Charles Lee is NOT responsible for his mother's death, but the colonists, whereas Rodrigo had Ezio's brothers and father executed. Connor also assumes that the Templars are on the side of the British. Then he finds out that the Templars are NOT on the side of the British but are on the side of the "Patriots", JUST LIKE CONNOR. But, nevermind that, Connor still hates the British and still wants to kill Charles Lee. What it boils down to is this: Connor likes the Patriot cause better, and Connor is pissed with Charles Lee because he was mean to him and pushed him up against a tree. At the end of the game, THAT is ALL Connor is killing people for. It really makes him look pathetic. He ends up being WRONG, his "cause"
POINTLESS, in the end. That's what turns me off to Connor. He's not a character who matures and is justified in killing the Templars over the course of the game. He just ends up being naive, angry, and immature over the course of the game. I mean, I guess you can say killing Templars because they are Templars is justification enough, but really it made Connor as a character just look stupid. It ended up not being a gray area where the Templars and the Assassins are similar, but different. It ended up making the Templars look wiser and the Assassins looking misguided. I think the game was really really good, except that that has more to do with a well-crafted overarching story, very-well written Templars, and Connor's animations.

And, Connor just didn't seem like a real Assassin, nor was there a real Brotherhood. I know it's addressed in the game ("we don't have the patience for creeds and stuff"), but I think the game needed that. And, in the end, beside the Templars not liking George Washington because of his military failures, the game should have presented a compelling argument for WHY the American Templars (Not Abstergo) deserved to die, regardless of their gray area and understandable goals. That's what the game failed to convey. In the end, you should see the gray area but still come away knowing why at the end of the day the Assassins are right and the Templars are wrong.

HisShadowX
11-14-2012, 06:02 AM
Pardon me, but.. Who is this Stanley Woo you speak of?

Stanley Woo worked in Q/A for Bioware as well as on the forums. For years he would viciously attack customers on the boards and insult them. He was infamously in the news for banning a user on the forums who owned a console version of Dragon Age II and the result was that he was banned from playing it when his EA Account logged him in. He responded on the forums (And later changed the post) that if you break the TOS you run the risk of not playing the games you bought. EA of course changed course.

He was later forced to quit according to his own blog by HR because they brought him in and according to his own blog because he was given a pep talk on no longer liking his job and becoming disgruntled. This led to him being let go famoualy with the 200 Bioware Austin team. Of course some other disgruntled Bioware worker before they jump ship allowed him to come back and work unpaid and he sits and insults customers.

He has become a meme on Youtube and has been in many gaming news articles.


Connor is possibly the worst video game protagonist the world has ever seen in a major market game franchise like AC. He has no personality, no interesting culture (unless you find the primitive nature of 17th century Indians interesting) no style or flair in how he speaks or deals with people, hes a complete idiot as expressed by everyone he meets including his own father, he has no real heritage to the assassins brotherhood other than his relation to Haytham, and to top it all off... they had to give him TWO.. not one, but TWO of the most cliche' plot lines conceivably possible.. and that is 1) father vs son in an epic battle over tyranny, and 2) "they burned our village down so im going to kill them dead!". Im sorry, but if it weren't for the online of this game id have sold it 3 days after purchasing. Luckily that is a redeeming factor for the game.

I am not posting any spoilers here but even towards the end his reason for going out into the world knowing what he knows and knew was all along incorrect it seems like he is hell bent on going after people who really did not hurt him.


I thought Connor was a great character and the moments when he out called Haytham and Sam Adams out on their faults were excellent. Look I loved Ezio but he wasn't as deep as some of you are making him out to be in reality Ezio was the Assassin's Creed version of James Bond or Nathan Drake he says something funny he bangs all the broads and occasionally he kills people not that there is anything wrong with that type pf character but it's time for something else.

I agree buddy but the point about a sequel and a new main character is essentially improving on the qualities. Though I respect your opinion I feel Connor had a lot of angst.


Connor doesnt work for revenge eh? I think you got it backwards. Connors entire mission revolved around getting even with Charles Lee for the murder of his mother and the destruction of his village. Altair was lead by his master in AC1 to do things that in the end turned out to be counter productive to his cause. Ezio was probably the most caring and selfless assassin the game has seen up to this point. He fought for the people in the name of the brotherhood. All his fights revolved around peace in his relative territory and freeing the people from negative influence from political figures and military regimes.

It seems to me some of the folks making these types of statements (and not just you) havent really payed attention to what they are playing. I, for one, love the stories in the previous AC games. This latest one blew ***...

Funny part about that and again no spoilers towards the end we find out his whole line of thinking was incorrect on who did what and when. Then he just goes off even though what he knew was not the case. Ezio was pretty selfless and the poor kid had it rough. The whole arc of Ezio and what happened to him was compelling and deep. Yes Revalations he seemed to calm down a lot and I think that is why the younger audience did not like that one because he was all grown up,

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 06:36 AM
This is true. The problem is that the DEVS said that Connor fights for justice, not revenge. They also said that the game isn't anti-British. Both were lies, or they didn't understand the game they were releasing. Connor fights for revenge the whole time, same as Ezio. He holds Charles Lee responsible for the death of his mother, just like Ezio held Rodrigo Borgia responsible for the death of his family. Only difference is, Connor eventually finds out that Charles Lee is NOT responsible for his mother's death, but the colonists, whereas Rodrigo had Ezio's brothers and father executed. Connor also assumes that the Templars are on the side of the British. Then he finds out that the Templars are NOT on the side of the British but are on the side of the "Patriots", JUST LIKE CONNOR. But, nevermind that, Connor still hates the British and still wants to kill Charles Lee. What it boils down to is this: Connor likes the Patriot cause better, and Connor is pissed with Charles Lee because he was mean to him and pushed him up against a tree. At the end of the game, THAT is ALL Connor is killing people for. It really makes him look pathetic. He ends up being WRONG, his "cause"

I did a spoilery review that touches on this.

http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2012/11/assassins-creed-3-spoiler-review.html

Basically, it mentions Connor is a deconstruction of Ezio. Whereas Ezio gets fake escapist storytelling where revenge solves your problems and everything works out because they were bad people, Connor goes on a roaring rampage of revenge against the Templars only to find out they're nuanced people with good and bad motivations. Even Thomas Hickey, the guy who tried to kill GW in real life, is portrayed as a man who may be living a more fulfilling life than Connor.

Connor fighting the Templars exposes the Assassins as a useless organization by the 17th (and certainly 21st) century. They exist only to fight Templars. Connor is a hero, though, NOT because he's an Assassin.

He's a hero because of his building of the Homestead and his work as a privateer.


And, Connor just didn't seem like a real Assassin, nor was there a real Brotherhood. I know it's addressed in the game ("we don't have the patience for creeds and stuff"), but I think the game needed that. And, in the end, beside the Templars not liking George Washington because of his military failures, the game should have presented a compelling argument for WHY the American Templars (Not Abstergo) deserved to die, regardless of their gray area and understandable goals. That's what the game failed to convey. In the end, you should see the gray area but still come away knowing why at the end of the day the Assassins are right and the Templars are wrong.

Uh dude, did you miss the point the game was about illustrating the Assassins weren't the good guys? Connor is a hero but the Assassins most definitely are not.

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 07:26 AM
I did a spoilery review that touches on this.

http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2012/11/assassins-creed-3-spoiler-review.html

Basically, it mentions Connor is a deconstruction of Ezio. Whereas Ezio gets fake escapist storytelling where revenge solves your problems and everything works out because they were bad people, Connor goes on a roaring rampage of revenge against the Templars only to find out they're nuanced people with good and bad motivations. Even Thomas Hickey, the guy who tried to kill GW in real life, is portrayed as a man who may be living a more fulfilling life than Connor.

Connor fighting the Templars exposes the Assassins as a useless organization by the 17th (and certainly 21st) century. They exist only to fight Templars. Connor is a hero, though, NOT because he's an Assassin.

He's a hero because of his building of the Homestead and his work as a privateer.



Uh dude, did you miss the point the game was about illustrating the Assassins weren't the good guys? Connor is a hero but the Assassins most definitely are not.

The one word that caught my attention from your review is"ambiguity." I'm not an overall analytical person, therefore being unable to express as to why I feel ACIII is an evolution for the series in terms of writing greatly frustrates me. At the very least, I did pick up on the lack of the Assassin Order in ACIII actually contributed to Connor's moral fiber.

WarlockDLX
11-14-2012, 07:35 AM
Stanley Woo worked in Q/A for Bioware as well as on the forums. For years he would viciously attack customers on the boards and insult them. He was infamously in the news for banning a user on the forums who owned a console version of Dragon Age II and the result was that he was banned from playing it when his EA Account logged him in. He responded on the forums (And later changed the post) that if you break the TOS you run the risk of not playing the games you bought. EA of course changed course.

He was later forced to quit according to his own blog by HR because they brought him in and according to his own blog because he was given a pep talk on no longer liking his job and becoming disgruntled. This led to him being let go famoualy with the 200 Bioware Austin team. Of course some other disgruntled Bioware worker before they jump ship allowed him to come back and work unpaid and he sits and insults customers.

He has become a meme on Youtube and has been in many gaming news articles.



I am not posting any spoilers here but even towards the end his reason for going out into the world knowing what he knows and knew was all along incorrect it seems like he is hell bent on going after people who really did not hurt him.



I agree buddy but the point about a sequel and a new main character is essentially improving on the qualities. Though I respect your opinion I feel Connor had a lot of angst.



Funny part about that and again no spoilers towards the end we find out his whole line of thinking was incorrect on who did what and when. Then he just goes off even though what he knew was not the case. Ezio was pretty selfless and the poor kid had it rough. The whole arc of Ezio and what happened to him was compelling and deep. Yes Revalations he seemed to calm down a lot and I think that is why the younger audience did not like that one because he was all grown up,

All that speaks on is testament as to how stupid connor is. the guy grew up under the focused leadership of an experienced member of the brotherhood and still couldnt pull his head out of his *** long enough to even TRY to view the big picture, much less understand it. His father, Achilles, and eventually even Charles Lee tried to explain his naivety to him but he just wouldnt listen. He marched into war for a cause only HE believed to be true with nothing more than the word of a few disreputable people along the way to back up his crusade.

As for the game being "anti british"... the game is anti everything. Lets not go taking all of what was seen in the game into heart as "fact" because a solid portion of it was theatrical. Was there a revolutionary war? Yes. Was GW involved and eventually sign the Dec of Independence? Yes. Thats about where the facts end, along with some dates and miscellaneous battles. The AC games have always been biased to things in their own way. You read the little info notes on all the people and places in the game and the developers clearly have negative thoughts about the founding of the United States, even going as far as to say (in their own special way) that the patriots were "traitors" against the British, as the British were here first. AC1 makes statements about the Bible and religion as being false and just hyped propaganda. The game is the culmination of a lot of thoughts and ideas tossed into one game to give us something entertaining to view. The problem is they dont go to enough length to stress which parts are fact or fiction. People should really go out and do some thorough reading on the revolutionary war and get some of history's facts straight before absorbing the game and its text as literal fact.

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 07:59 AM
As for the game being "anti british"... the game is anti everything. Lets not go taking all of what was seen in the game into heart as "fact" because a solid portion of it was theatrical. Was there a revolutionary war? Yes. Was GW involved and eventually sign the Dec of Independence? Yes. Thats about where the facts end, along with some dates and miscellaneous battles. The AC games have always been biased to things in their own way. You read the little info notes on all the people and places in the game and the developers clearly have negative thoughts about the founding of the United States, even going as far as to say (in their own special way) that the patriots were "traitors" against the British, as the British were here first. AC1 makes statements about the Bible and religion as being false and just hyped propaganda. The game is the culmination of a lot of thoughts and ideas tossed into one game to give us something entertaining to view. The problem is they dont go to enough length to stress which parts are fact or fiction. People should really go out and do some thorough reading on the revolutionary war and get some of history's facts straight before absorbing the game and its text as literal fact.

If "biased" means exposing unpopular facts of the Revolution we glamorize so much of, I'll take their bias storytelling any day. George Washington, a known anti-Native American, did order executions of allied Iriquois to acheive his own ends. It was believed that Native Americans (or people dressed like them) were responsible for dumping the tea. William Johnson saw the future where the colonists eventually turning against the Iriquois, and right he was. Thomas Hickey did face jail time for counterfeiting, who also made an attempt on Washington's life. These are just a few "facts" that I knew long before ACIII came around, and I'm really eager to dig up anything that might've been more obscure. As far as I can tell, this game did our history justice. No, it should not be a substitute to reading actual history, but the writing team stuck extremely close to what they have dug up. Washington being a bocce enthusiast is another obscure fact was an unexpected fun fact.

HisShadowX
11-14-2012, 08:30 AM
If "biased" means exposing unpopular facts of the Revolution we glamorize so much of, I'll take their bias storytelling any day. George Washington, a known anti-Native American, did order executions of allied Iriquois to acheive his own ends. It was believed that Native Americans (or people dressed like them) were responsible for dumping the tea. William Johnson saw the future where the colonists eventually turning against the Iriquois, and right he was. Thomas Hickey did face jail time for counterfeiting, who also made an attempt on Washington's life. These are just a few "facts" that I knew long before ACIII came around, and I'm really eager to dig up anything that might've been more obscure. As far as I can tell, this game did our history justice. No, it should not be a substitute to reading actual history, but the writing team stuck extremely close to what they have dug up. Washington being a bocce enthusiast is another obscure fact was an unexpected fun fact.

Interesting fact George Washingtion only became Commander and Chief because he attended a meeting dressed in a custom general's outfit. lol

I am pro American and as Republican as they go and I can tell you this game though the British is the main enemy it is very Anti American or makes Americans look very bad. If I were from England I would feel of course yeah this make us look bad. The only people who do not look bad are go figure the French in which Ubisoft tries very hard to look Saintly. Ubisoft is a French Company from France so go figure.

Also, I find it very funny that they make it seem like Native Tribes were Anti Slavery when the majority of tribes traded in slaves. It was common for Native Tribes to attack homesteaders kill them or take their scalp and then keep the girls and put them into slavery and when or if they were rescued often you would find them tattoo'd so the world would know the white woman was an Indian's slave.

Also many, many Africans were owned and raped by Indian Tribes. Even today the Cherokee nation's official response to Africans who have Cherokee blood not to allow them into the Cherokee nation.

WarlockDLX
11-14-2012, 08:58 AM
If "biased" means exposing unpopular facts of the Revolution we glamorize so much of, I'll take their bias storytelling any day. George Washington, a known anti-Native American, did order executions of allied Iriquois to acheive his own ends. It was believed that Native Americans (or people dressed like them) were responsible for dumping the tea. William Johnson saw the future where the colonists eventually turning against the Iriquois, and right he was. Thomas Hickey did face jail time for counterfeiting, who also made an attempt on Washington's life. These are just a few "facts" that I knew long before ACIII came around, and I'm really eager to dig up anything that might've been more obscure. As far as I can tell, this game did our history justice. No, it should not be a substitute to reading actual history, but the writing team stuck extremely close to what they have dug up. Washington being a bocce enthusiast is another obscure fact was an unexpected fun fact.

While its all just entertainment and I doubt the developers had any intention on passing their product off as a factual representation of every detail of the time period, ill just go ahead and say this anyways.. just for kicks... The best lies are those mingled with facts. Easy to make an assumption of intent or aspiration when dissecting bits and pieces of information that is on record. Ubisoft themselves make it known that history is written by the victors and men who are imperfect and have their own agendas. So all we know of history is very "loose" as to what could have actually happened. Take a look at the 9/11 situation. There are thousands of conspiracy theorists out there whipping up books and videos of what may have happened and why, but hundreds of years from now, the US governments edition of "the truth" will always be what people remember. Bin Laden ordered an attack on the world trade centers for his own agenda's, and we kicked his ***. End of story. So try to keep in mind both of these "truths"... Ubisoft took a lot of artistic license with the game and molded the story to fit the details of what was happening with the game, and #2: Even if they made a product that walked a 100% parallel line with written "fact" of our history, there is no way to know what really happened, what who did, and why they did it without having been there, and most importantly, been those people themselves.

And to be a little corny... ill go ahead and quote one of the assassins tenets... "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" ;)

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 09:03 AM
Interesting fact George Washingtion only became Commander and Chief because he attended a meeting dressed in a custom general's outfit. lol

I am pro American and as Republican as they go and I can tell you this game though the British is the main enemy it is very Anti American or makes Americans look very bad. If I were from England I would feel of course yeah this make us look bad. The only people who do not look bad are go figure the French in which Ubisoft tries very hard to look Saintly. Ubisoft is a French Company from France so go figure.

Also, I find it very funny that they make it seem like Native Tribes were Anti Slavery when the majority of tribes traded in slaves. It was common for Native Tribes to attack homesteaders kill them or take their scalp and then keep the girls and put them into slavery and when or if they were rescued often you would find them tattoo'd so the world would know the white woman was an Indian's slave.

Also many, many Africans were owned and raped by Indian Tribes. Even today the Cherokee nation's official response to Africans who have Cherokee blood not to allow them into the Cherokee nation.
I'm not saying this game is anti-American, just that they portrayed the founding of America was not without its questionable moments. If you listened to people on the streets, some would rather come under British rule for their own protection. The people then have little clue of what the situation with the Empire was like; only propaganda of the first shot heard around the world fueled their rebellion.

As for the Native Americans, I know of tribes that own slaves, but I don't think Mohawks at the the time really own any slaves as it was usually the other way around.

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 09:20 AM
While its all just entertainment and I doubt the developers had any intention on passing their product off as a factual representation of every detail of the time period, ill just go ahead and say this anyways.. just for kicks... The best lies are those mingled with facts. Easy to make an assumption of intent or aspiration when dissecting bits and pieces of information that is on record. Ubisoft themselves make it known that history is written by the victors and men who are imperfect and have their own agendas. So all we know of history is very "loose" as to what could have actually happened. Take a look at the 9/11 situation. There are thousands of conspiracy theorists out there whipping up books and videos of what may have happened and why, but hundreds of years from now, the US governments edition of "the truth" will always be what people remember. Bin Laden ordered an attack on the world trade centers for his own agenda's, and we kicked his ***. End of story. So try to keep in mind both of these "truths"... Ubisoft took a lot of artistic license with the game and molded the story to fit the details of what was happening with the game, and #2: Even if they made a product that walked a 100% parallel line with written "fact" of our history, there is no way to know what really happened, what who did, and why they did it without having been there, and most importantly, been those people themselves.

And to be a little corny... ill go ahead and quote one of the assassins tenets... "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" ;)
I do realize that anything written down as fact probably can't be proved as such. But to your 9/11 example on conspiracies - My sole compliment for ACIII is that they stuck closer to your idea of what people remember at the time. They could've gone overboard with Freemason conspiracy theories, which I always disliked in historical fiction. Instead, they inserted the Templar vs. the Assassin's (non real world conspiracy) much further into the background than previous installments, the facts as presented in ACIII might've still happened even without the two groups involvement.

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 09:28 AM
Funny thing, Achilles keeps trying to pull Conner's head out of his *** but I actually think Conner wins all of their arguments. Achilles' arguments are nonsensical and he, on some level, knows it. He says, "Kill the Templars, Don't tell Washington, Follow the Way We've Always Done Things, Don't be idealistic." Achilles is partially right but there's the thing, there's no POINT to doing anything Achilles' way either. Achilles kills Templars because the Assassins have always killed Templars.

Connor wants to kill Templars because he wants to make the world a better place.

In that respect, Connor is a MUCH better Assassin.

He's just wrong because the Templars aren't that much worse than the prevailing English and American governments of the time. Also, while Shaun is Pro-British, Desmond is pro-Revolution.

There's a good bit of subtlety to Connor and Achilles' fight. Achilles has lost the will to fight because he doesn't believe in ANYTHING anymore.

Connor believes in too much.

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 09:36 AM
The one word that caught my attention from your review is"ambiguity." I'm not an overall analytical person, therefore being unable to express as to why I feel ACIII is an evolution for the series in terms of writing greatly frustrates me. At the very least, I did pick up on the lack of the Assassin Order in ACIII actually contributed to Connor's moral fiber.

Yeah, thanks. I think a big theme of Connor vs. Achilles vs. Haytham is idealism vs. doing your job vs. ruthlessness.

The Templars and Assassins are all idealists to some extent (with the exception of Hickley). Which means they have more in common than people might think. The thing is they've been fighting each other since literally before Christ and possibly up to 80,000 years. If you think about the game, Charles Lee and Haytham are amongst the only people in the world who would give Native Americans a fair shake as men of their time. Probably slaves too. The others are the Assassins.

So the fact both sides fight and prevent either from doing anything constructive is just....sad.

Only the fact the Templars are still sort of evil makes it any better.

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 09:43 AM
Funny thing, Achilles keeps trying to pull Conner's head out of his *** but I actually think Conner wins all of their arguments. Achilles' arguments are nonsensical and he, on some level, knows it. He says, "Kill the Templars, Don't tell Washington, Follow the Way We've Always Done Things, Don't be idealistic." Achilles is partially right but there's the thing, there's no POINT to doing anything Achilles' way either. Achilles kills Templars because the Assassins have always killed Templars.

Connor wants to kill Templars because he wants to make the world a better place.

In that respect, Connor is a MUCH better Assassin.

He's just wrong because the Templars aren't that much worse than the prevailing English and American governments of the time. Also, while Shaun is Pro-British, Desmond is pro-Revolution.

There's a good bit of subtlety to Connor and Achilles' fight. Achilles has lost the will to fight because he doesn't believe in ANYTHING anymore.

Connor believes in too much.

What you have just posted got me thinking - We have yet to hear the modern story from the perspective of the Templars. What if the Templars continued to reform since we last saw of them in the Revolutionary war to the present day? What if the Assassins have done nothing but stayed true to their dogmatic views since its conception, the Templars are actually the better entity in 2012? Obviously, the Templar order in ACIII was presented with far better moral fiber than the Borgias.

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 10:29 AM
What you have just posted got me thinking - We have yet to hear the modern story from the perspective of the Templars. What if the Templars continued to reform since we last saw of them in the Revolutionary war to the present day? What if the Assassins have done nothing but stayed true to their dogmatic views since its conception, the Templars are actually the better entity in 2012? Obviously, the Templar order in ACIII was presented with far better moral fiber than the Borgias.

My personal theory is Abstergo is pure unadulterated evil.

The Templars, however, aren't solely Abstergo.

Ez_187
11-14-2012, 11:56 AM
Ezio is actually my least favourite doesn't mean I don't like him after Brotherhood he really grew on me *** Creed II Ezio was whatever in my opinion... he felt like a tool how you say.

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 12:41 PM
Ezio is actually my least favourite doesn't mean I don't like him after Brotherhood he really grew on me *** Creed II Ezio was whatever in my opinion... he felt like a tool how you say.

I like Ezio but I think he overstayed his welcome after being the life of the party for two games. Revelations had a lot of good ideas but Ezio barely really needed to be there and the simplifying of the Ottoman politics bothered me. Conner is a more controversial character, though, because we rarely get his opinion on things and we never get to see the whole of arguments. Conner hates the Templars, we get that, but I was curious about a lot of his opinions on different things from being a sea captain to what he wanted out of life other than being an Assassin. I also wondered what Achilles hoped to accomplish other than killing Templars.

But to answer the original poster, yes, Connor is a tool.

A Hatchet.

:)

hyatari
11-14-2012, 01:37 PM
So all we know of history is very "loose" as to what could have actually happened. Take a look at the 9/11 situation. There are thousands of conspiracy theorists out there whipping up books and videos of what may have happened and why, but hundreds of years from now, the US governments edition of "the truth" will always be what people remember. Bin Laden ordered an attack on the world trade centers for his own agenda's, and we kicked his ***. End of story.

Take the tin foil hat off, kid.

1000s of baseless conspiracies =//= history

Have you actually studied history at school? Ever heard of primary/secondary sources etc? You're simply clueless and have no knowledge of what you speak of. Please, let adults discuss this.

Ubi-MoshiMoshi
11-14-2012, 02:17 PM
Guys, please be civil.

LoyalACFan
11-14-2012, 04:04 PM
He holds Charles Lee responsible for the death of his mother, just like Ezio held Rodrigo Borgia responsible for the death of his family. Only difference is, Connor eventually finds out that Charles Lee is NOT responsible for his mother's death, but the colonists, whereas Rodrigo had Ezio's brothers and father executed. Connor also assumes that the Templars are on the side of the British. Then he finds out that the Templars are NOT on the side of the British but are on the side of the "Patriots", JUST LIKE CONNOR. But, nevermind that, Connor still hates the British and still wants to kill Charles Lee. What it boils down to is this: Connor likes the Patriot cause better, and Connor is pissed with Charles Lee because he was mean to him and pushed him up against a tree. At the end of the game, THAT is ALL Connor is killing people for. It really makes him look pathetic. He ends up being WRONG.

Yes... Connor is wrong for much of the game, and that's part of what made things interesting. He assumes (logically) that the Templar agents who interrogated him about his people were responsible for burning his village, so he becomes an advocate and defender of George Washington, who promises to fight for freedom and equality for everyone. However, he eventually realizes that the Washington was responsible for the village's destruction in the first place. Lee uses this information to turn the Mohawk against Connor by telling them that he sided with a man who wanted them wiped out. And the reality is, Connor knew he was telling the truth. However, that makes it no less painful that he was forced to murder his best friend; he had plenty of justification for hating Lee for that. Though, by the time he actually caught him, the bloodlust was gone; disillusioned with the Revolutionary (and Assassin/Templar) War, he realized that he and Charles were simply enemies of circumstance. He never states it outright, but Charles' death scene should be proof enough that the personal enmity between the two was gone.

machetefight
11-14-2012, 04:14 PM
Bugs are preventing me from completing the game (stop game breaker for me). I haven't even started the first mission of sequence six but am up to it and seriously Connor is boring. His voice doesn't even match his appearance. I might bit a bit biased since I love Ezio (except of revelations) :P but to me he just fights coz he thinks it's the right thing to do, mostly without purpose. Yes I know I haven't finished the game - I want to, trust me I do I would have a long time ago if it wasn't for these stupid bugs - but it's like Connor barely has a personality and it's hard to relate to him or even feel compassion/sympathy for him

luckyto
11-14-2012, 04:40 PM
He is a tool. He was used by TWCB.

He is used by Washington and the Colonials.

He tries to be independent, and I feel, he eventually breaks free of those bonds. I felt as if Connor ends up finding his own path and lighting his own way. He makes his own New World.

TrueAssassin77
11-14-2012, 04:58 PM
There are some intelligent ppl on this thread.Truely understanding ppl.
Those are the guys supporting connor

Thinking connors a tool means you only analysed what you wanted to. Or you just simply horrible
at character analysis. Sorry to be blunt. There is mo bad guy in AC3. The templars simply have different ideals than tye assassins.
that's how it shoulda been in previous games. The devs got it right this time.

ProdiGurl
11-14-2012, 05:05 PM
The only thing toolish about Connor is his Tomahawk :rolleyes: :cool:

Mr_Shade
11-14-2012, 05:08 PM
And.. this thread has spoilers galore...


Guys, did you not read the forum rules on spoilers?


Moving to hints and tips forum...

luckyto
11-14-2012, 05:08 PM
TWCB used Connor for their own ends. Or really, Minerva used him. That makes him a tool.

I think that Connor eventually found his own path. As the game progressed and by the end, he had forged his own world -- a world in the image of his ideals. So at the end, he wasn't a tool. But he was used quite often. It's part of the story.

Altair was a tool as well, until the very end of AC1. Al Mualim manipulated him the whole time - until Altair matured and became the wiser.

InfectedNation
11-14-2012, 05:26 PM
Guys, please be civil.
Hate to be off-topic... but you're the first person I've seen on here that lives near to me. Cool.

vivaxardas
11-14-2012, 06:11 PM
There are some intelligent ppl on this thread.Truely understanding ppl.
Those are the guys supporting connor

Thinking connors a tool means you only analysed what you wanted to. Or you just simply horrible
at character analysis. Sorry to be blunt. There is mo bad guy in AC3. The templars simply have different ideals than tye assassins.
that's how it shoulda been in previous games. The devs got it right this time.

As I remember correctly, here in the US we do not go around killing people just because they have ideas different from ours. It is kinda what our revolution and a fight for freedom were all about. So I doubt that when in AC3 we kill some group of people just because we disagree with their views on social order - it means to get it right about the assassins (unless you hate the assassins). By my lights Connor is simply on a hate crime spree.

About being a tool... Play or watch Benedict Arnold missions on youtube. It was just plain weird that Connor is such a pushover. There is simply no reason to present him this way, the same character and event could have been presented so much better.

And yes, it seems Connor kills Lee just for kicking his *** when he was a kid. If I had followed his example, I would have filled out a medium-size cemetery by now. That is why normal people have "let it go" policy about some insignificant crap like this.

Flying-Tempest
11-14-2012, 08:16 PM
The voice actor needs to be fired, its the voice actor that invigorates the character.

Roger Craig Smith did an unbelievable job with Ezio as a teen and all the way up to him in his old age.

Bring him back, Roger is a man of all acents.

And yes I agree with all the posts before me- Connor is a know it all and he annoyed me for much for the game, and yes he is a tool.

Please bring us a new protagonist for 2013!

InfectedNation
11-14-2012, 10:45 PM
Will everybody STOP COMPARING CONNOR TO EZIO. HE IS DEAD. THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANOTHER CHARACTER WHO'S WRITTEN TO BE LIKE EZIO.

EMBRACE CONNOR OR I WILL KILL YOU.

zhengyingli
11-14-2012, 10:52 PM
Will everybody STOP COMPARING CONNOR TO EZIO. HE IS DEAD. THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANOTHER CHARACTER WHO'S WRITTEN TO BE LIKE EZIO.

EMBRACE CONNOR OR I WILL KILL YOU.

Hahaha. A joke or not, this post reflects what has been swimming in my head since the game was announced. I REALLY had to work hard to filter my raw opinion.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-14-2012, 11:46 PM
This is true. The problem is that the DEVS said that Connor fights for justice, not revenge. They also said that the game isn't anti-British. Both were lies, or they didn't understand the game they were releasing. Connor fights for revenge the whole time, same as Ezio. He holds Charles Lee responsible for the death of his mother, just like Ezio held Rodrigo Borgia responsible for the death of his family. Only difference is, Connor eventually finds out that Charles Lee is NOT responsible for his mother's death, but the colonists, whereas Rodrigo had Ezio's brothers and father executed. Connor also assumes that the Templars are on the side of the British. Then he finds out that the Templars are NOT on the side of the British but are on the side of the "Patriots", JUST LIKE CONNOR. But, nevermind that, Connor still hates the British and still wants to kill Charles Lee. What it boils down to is this: Connor likes the Patriot cause better, and Connor is pissed with Charles Lee because he was mean to him and pushed him up against a tree. At the end of the game, THAT is ALL Connor is killing people for. It really makes him look pathetic. He ends up being WRONG, his "cause"
Sure. After all, Charles Lee & co totally didn't want to control everything themselves, as always, that's why they were neither really behind the Crown or the Patriots. Charles Lee also totally didn't deceive the people Ratonhnhaké:ton's village into a trap to get them killed by Continental Army, including his best friend whom he additionally turned against Ratonhnhaké:ton. CLEARLY Johnson was buying the land of the village to protect it, after all, the Templars said so. They're very trustworthy and reliable! And as their actions showed, they totally tried to protect the village, not get everyone in it killed. Juno totally didn't predict it and show it to Ratonhnhaké:ton when he was a teen and when she said that he needs to fight them to protect the Temple and his people.

Yup yup, saint, trustworthy Templars are abused by evil awful Ratonhnhaké:ton.

Did you people pay any attention to the story? This is just getting dumb. The reasons you guys are coming up with to hate on him are ridiculous

HisShadowX
11-14-2012, 11:53 PM
I like Ezio but I think he overstayed his welcome after being the life of the party for two games. Revelations had a lot of good ideas but Ezio barely really needed to be there and the simplifying of the Ottoman politics bothered me. Conner is a more controversial character, though, because we rarely get his opinion on things and we never get to see the whole of arguments. Conner hates the Templars, we get that, but I was curious about a lot of his opinions on different things from being a sea captain to what he wanted out of life other than being an Assassin. I also wondered what Achilles hoped to accomplish other than killing Templars.

But to answer the original poster, yes, Connor is a tool.

A Hatchet.

:)

The fact the Ottoman's were the good guys really bothers me because it seems to downplay the Greek and Roman Genocide that Turkey still refuses to apologize for.

I think it's funny but for the first time in the series because of the "hero" Connor makes the Templars the good guys.

WarlockDLX
11-14-2012, 11:57 PM
Take the tin foil hat off, kid.

1000s of baseless conspiracies =//= history

Have you actually studied history at school? Ever heard of primary/secondary sources etc? You're simply clueless and have no knowledge of what you speak of. Please, let adults discuss this.

Id ask you to pull your head out of your @ss but from what I have learned socializing with people over my years, I just dont think thats possible with people like you. So good luck finding new ways to cram it up there further :)

zhengyingli
11-15-2012, 12:34 AM
Id ask you to pull your head out of your @ss but from what I have learned socializing with people over my years, I just dont think thats possible with people like you. So good luck finding new ways to cram it up there further :)

Don't even bother with him. Just when I thought he and I agree on something, he starts slinging mud.

BabyAssassin19
11-15-2012, 01:19 AM
Connor comes across as moody and always scowling to me, he seemed pretty awkward interacting with others. He seemed a bit 1 dimensional to me with only one facial expression and one mood. He had a lot of guts, motivation and determination though

blacklimoband
11-15-2012, 02:35 AM
Looking at the majority of negative comments espically at the Q&A

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.... It's always the vocal minority, not the majority, that post on forums and Q&A's, because people would rather ***** about something than praise it... it's just human nature.

In fact, you'll probably find that the majority couldn't give a rat's bollocks either way :) Only those that feel passionately about something (either positive or negative) are going to bother saying yay or nay, as humans are fundamentally lazy.

ApexMandalorian
11-15-2012, 02:49 AM
Sure. After all, Charles Lee & co totally didn't want to control everything themselves, as always, that's why they were neither really behind the Crown or the Patriots. Charles Lee also totally didn't deceive the people Ratonhnhaké:ton's village into a trap to get them killed by Continental Army, including his best friend whom he additionally turned against Ratonhnhaké:ton. CLEARLY Johnson was buying the land of the village to protect it, after all, the Templars said so. They're very trustworthy and reliable! And as their actions showed, they totally tried to protect the village, not get everyone in it killed. Juno totally didn't predict it and show it to Ratonhnhaké:ton when he was a teen and when she said that he needs to fight them to protect the Temple and his people.

Yup yup, saint, trustworthy Templars are abused by evil awful Ratonhnhaké:ton.

Did you people pay any attention to the story? This is just getting dumb. The reasons you guys are coming up with to hate on him are ridiculous

No, the Templars DIDN'T want to control everything. The expressed goal of the Templars, as seen through the TEMPLAR eyes, was to find and secure the "Precursor" site, the land. Did you miss where Ubisoft said they were making the Assassin/Templar lines a gray area, blurring the lines between them? You see that in what primarily Haytham, Pitcairn, Johnson, and Church say to Connor. They aren't lying to the players. Ubisoft had them say what they said because they truely DID blur the lines between the Templars and Assassins. Ubisoft didn't write them to be lying to Connor. Ubisoft wrote them to clearly express the Templar views to Connor. It is YOU who are too blind to see this. In blurring the lines between them, in making the conflict a gray area, they ended up making Connor wrong and unjustified. Yes, Johnson was trying to buy the land to "protect" it, really to protect for the Templars, not to protect the people. YES, their actions showed that they wanted the land. YES, the game DID show that they DIDN'T burn the village. WASHINGTON admits to doing so. YES, Haytham really DOES admit that the Templars are NOT on the side of the British but the COLONISTS. Yes, Charles Lee takes advantage of the Mohawk hate for the colonists, but YES, in REAL HISTORY, the MOHAWK sided with the BRITISH! JUNO was playing EVERYONE the WHOLE TIME. She was the true LIAR in this story. NO, Connor ISN'T EVIL. But he CERTAINLY is misguided and naive. Connor's friend turned against him because Connor was more focused on helping the PATRIOTS than he was on helping his own people. Oh, and by the way, Connor didn't have to KILL his friend either. He could have beat him up and talked to him.

No, Connor's not a terrible or evil character. He's just not the perfect character you all make him out to be. And he certainly wasn't portrayed well in this story. You Connor fanatics are blinded by your love of this Native American Assassin. Oh, and by the way, the CLOSEST the Templars wanted to come to being in control was by having Charles Lee be the Commander-In-Chief of the Continental Army. Why? Because they saw Washington as incompetent, and they saw him as such because Washington lost most of his battles. Oh, and that's real history too, in case you didn't know that either.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-15-2012, 03:12 AM
No, the Templars DIDN'T want to control everything. The expressed goal of the Templars, as seen through the TEMPLAR eyes, was to find and secure the "Precursor" site, the land. Did you miss where Ubisoft said they were making the Assassin/Templar lines a gray area, blurring the lines between them? You see that in what primarily Haytham, Pitcairn, Johnson, and Church say to Connor. They aren't lying to the players. Ubisoft had them say what they said because they truely DID blur the lines between the Templars and Assassins. Ubisoft didn't write them to be lying to Connor. Ubisoft wrote them to clearly express the Templar views to Connor. It is YOU who are too blind to see this. In blurring the lines between them, in making the conflict a gray area, they ended up making Connor wrong and unjustified. Yes, Johnson was trying to buy the land to "protect" it, really to protect for the Templars, not to protect the people. YES, their actions showed that they wanted the land. YES, the game DID show that they DIDN'T burn the village. WASHINGTON admits to doing so. YES, Haytham really DOES admit that the Templars are NOT on the side of the British but the COLONISTS. Yes, Charles Lee takes advantage of the Mohawk hate for the colonists, but YES, in REAL HISTORY, the MOHAWK sided with the BRITISH! JUNO was playing EVERYONE the WHOLE TIME. She was the true LIAR in this story. NO, Connor ISN'T EVIL. But he CERTAINLY is misguided and naive. Connor's friend turned against him because Connor was more focused on helping the PATRIOTS than he was on helping his own people. Oh, and by the way, Connor didn't have to KILL his friend either. He could have beat him up and talked to him.

No, Connor's not a terrible or evil character. He's just not the perfect character you all make him out to be. And he certainly wasn't portrayed well in this story. You Connor fanatics are blinded by your love of this Native American Assassin. Oh, and by the way, the CLOSEST the Templars wanted to come to being in control was by having Charles Lee be the Commander-In-Chief of the Continental Army. Why? Because they saw Washington as incompetent, and they saw him as such because Washington lost most of his battles. Oh, and that's real history too, in case you didn't know that either.
Using Caps Lock a lot doesn't make your opinion more important ya know. And I'm not one who makes him a perfect character. You on the other hand try to make him look like the bad guy while holy Templars are protectors of everyone haha. Nothing you've said changes what Lee & co did to him and his people. I stated in-game facts, it doesn't matter who the Mohawk sided with or whether Juno was playing everyone. Lee & co tried to harm Ratonhnhaké:ton and his people multiple times and no one forced them to do it.


Oh, and by the way, Connor didn't have to KILL his friend either. He could have beat him up and talked to him.Check what happens when you fail the quick time event. That's right, you die. He defended himself, you think he could've just beat him in a position he was? Kanen'tó:kon was holding him to the ground and having a knife right in his face. He's bigger and stronger than Ratonhnhaké:ton, he had to defend himself anyway there was. See? You even try to make him look even worse, as if he killed his best friend on purpose and as if it was his fault that Lee told lies. Again, ridiculous

vivaxardas
11-15-2012, 03:22 AM
Well, you obviously can believe whatever you want. Only it's a fact in a game that Connor was a ****ty protector of his tribe, because Washington, a guy Connor worked for, had them all exiled.

Em-Man
11-15-2012, 03:30 AM
Opinions, opinions, opinions...
And let me tell you my opinion, Altair and Connor has far more personality than Ezio.

Not being a funny and goofy casanova avarage joe like Ezio doesn't mean people don't have personality. it's just less obvious personality, aka deeper personality.
Of course you see Connors and Altairs personality lacking, because you think that being funny = having personality.

Jexx21
11-15-2012, 03:32 AM
Yes... Connor is wrong for much of the game, and that's part of what made things interesting. He assumes (logically) that the Templar agents who interrogated him about his people were responsible for burning his village, so he becomes an advocate and defender of George Washington, who promises to fight for freedom and equality for everyone. However, he eventually realizes that the Washington was responsible for the village's destruction in the first place. Lee uses this information to turn the Mohawk against Connor by telling them that he sided with a man who wanted them wiped out. And the reality is, Connor knew he was telling the truth. However, that makes it no less painful that he was forced to murder his best friend; he had plenty of justification for hating Lee for that. Though, by the time he actually caught him, the bloodlust was gone; disillusioned with the Revolutionary (and Assassin/Templar) War, he realized that he and Charles were simply enemies of circumstance. He never states it outright, but Charles' death scene should be proof enough that the personal enmity between the two was gone.

Thank's for spoiling that for me.

EDIT: Ugh.. I opened this thread way before it was moved to hints and tips.

zhengyingli
11-15-2012, 03:39 AM
Of course you see Connors and Altairs personality lacking, because you think that being funny = having personality.

Youtube reviewers and their comment sections in general are pretty criminal in terms of condemning a character for lacking a sense of humor. They didn't stop at comparing to Ezio. Nathan Drake or the entire Mass Effect cast's usage in comparisons with Connor is rampant. Besides misusing the world "emo," they pretty much ripped him a new virtual *******.Think about it, everybody on the Normandy crew have a sense of humor! How unnatural is that? (I'm a ME fan, by the way.) At least this forum has produce some legitimate reasons for disliking our new Assassin.

vivaxardas
11-15-2012, 03:44 AM
Opinions, opinions, opinions...
And let you tell me my opinion, Altair and Connor has far more personality than Ezio.

Not being a funny and goofy casanova avarage joe like Ezio doesn't mean people have personality. it's just less obvious personality, aka deeper personality.
Of course you see Connors and Altairs personality lacking, because you think that being funny = having personality.


I don't really care how much personality Connor has. I simply do not like him, with all his personality whatever size it may be. Imagine that you meet a girl (or a boy), who behaves as if (s)he has a weight of the entire world on her (his) shoulders, who does not really listen to anybody's opinions, who believes (s)he is always right, does not smile, and always has a problem. Would you want to hang out with such a person? For me, no freaking way, and I do not care that a size of her (his) personality is similar to the entire universe, and a depth of her (his) character is such that only a shrink can excavate it during 10 year-long therapy.

yoshiyukily
11-15-2012, 04:49 AM
I don't understand how this thread will improve my experience playing the game.

mashroot
11-15-2012, 04:49 AM
The squeaky wheel gets the oil.... It's always the vocal minority, not the majority, that post on forums and Q&A's, because people would rather ***** about something than praise it... it's just human nature.

In fact, you'll probably find that the majority couldn't give a rat's bollocks either way :) Only those that feel passionately about something (either positive or negative) are going to bother saying yay or nay, as humans are fundamentally lazy.

Wow! You are cynical... I personally believe that the unspoken majority of people that play ACIII do care, but they have more important things on their minds than a fictional character in a video game, and merely lack the time to waste on a forum. That said, I have praised ACIII, but when I give a "negative" opinion about something, I am really trying to give constructive criticism, hoping that it will help UBI create a better product in the future.

ApexMandalorian
11-15-2012, 05:39 AM
I don't understand how this thread will improve my experience playing the game.

It's a discussion. It's not meant to satisfy your every need, or ANY of your needs or wants for that matter.

WarlockDLX
11-15-2012, 05:50 AM
Opinions, opinions, opinions...
And let me tell you my opinion, Altair and Connor has far more personality than Ezio.

Not being a funny and goofy casanova avarage joe like Ezio doesn't mean people don't have personality. it's just less obvious personality, aka deeper personality.
Of course you see Connors and Altairs personality lacking, because you think that being funny = having personality.

Personality could be described as depth of character. Where is his depth? Who is he besides a pissed off indian running around doing everyone elses bidding while trying to exact revenge on the templar group that he believed was responsible for the woes of his village. Many indians of that time had issues resulting in the loss of their families and villages, including the people of his own village.. what makes him any different from any of the others?

Ezio had style and flair in how he dealt with the world. His personality was highlighted by his relationships both friendly, and intimate. As an example, his letters to his sister added to that depth, and showed he cared about something other than his own agenda. His feelings for the few women in his life gave him a love interest that further deepened his character. Connor runs around making enemies everywhere he turned.. in fact, the few friends he DID make were those within his little "empire" at the homestead, and if you count Achilles in the mix.. his relationship with him was shaky at best. Always fighting and disagreeing about their views and goals. The guy was ambiguous... anyone could have played his part and gotten the job done, and I believe any other choice in character idea would have had more substance. He just lacks in every department. A "terminator" drone of a personality.

There is no way all who play the game will agree to the fact that connor is a weak character.. period.. and as such, not all the people coming here posting will agree either. But when it comes down to the depth of a characters personality, we surpass opinion and move on to fact. Id love for someone to come out with some character points about connor that give him a sizable measure of personality to compete with all the other protagonists out there, including the ones AC has seen this far. Not saying it would change peoples opinions, but it would be a good start. Better than just "yes he does have personality" lol

TrueAssassin77
11-15-2012, 05:02 PM
Personality could be described as depth of character. Where is his depth? Who is he besides a pissed off indian running around doing everyone elses bidding while trying to exact revenge on the templar group that he believed was responsible for the woes of his village. Many indians of that time had issues resulting in the loss of their families and villages, including the people of his own village.. what makes him any different from any of the others?

Ezio had style and flair in how he dealt with the world. His personality was highlighted by his relationships both friendly, and intimate. As an example, his letters to his sister added to that depth, and showed he cared about something other than his own agenda. His feelings for the few women in his life gave him a love interest that further deepened his character. Connor runs around making enemies everywhere he turned.. in fact, the few friends he DID make were those within his little "empire" at the homestead, and if you count Achilles in the mix.. his relationship with him was shaky at best. Always fighting and disagreeing about their views and goals. The guy was ambiguous... anyone could have played his part and gotten the job done, and I believe any other choice in character idea would have had more substance. He just lacks in every department. A "terminator" drone of a personality.

There is no way all who play the game will agree to the fact that connor is a weak character.. period.. and as such, not all the people coming here posting will agree either. But when it comes down to the depth of a characters personality, we surpass opinion and move on to fact. Id love for someone to come out with some character points about connor that give him a sizable measure of personality to compete with all the other protagonists out there, including the ones AC has seen this far. Not saying it would change peoples opinions, but it would be a good start. Better than just "yes he does have personality" lol

ezio is james bond.......

Ezio is tony stark, Connor is batman

TrueAssassin77
11-15-2012, 05:09 PM
Personality could be described as depth of character. Where is his depth? Who is he besides a pissed off indian running around doing everyone elses bidding while trying to exact revenge on the templar group that he believed was responsible for the woes of his village. Many indians of that time had issues resulting in the loss of their families and villages, including the people of his own village.. what makes him any different from any of the others?

Ezio had style and flair in how he dealt with the world. His personality was highlighted by his relationships both friendly, and intimate. As an example, his letters to his sister added to that depth, and showed he cared about something other than his own agenda. His feelings for the few women in his life gave him a love interest that further deepened his character. Connor runs around making enemies everywhere he turned.. in fact, the few friends he DID make were those within his little "empire" at the homestead, and if you count Achilles in the mix.. his relationship with him was shaky at best. Always fighting and disagreeing about their views and goals. The guy was ambiguous... anyone could have played his part and gotten the job done, and I believe any other choice in character idea would have had more substance. He just lacks in every department. A "terminator" drone of a personality.

There is no way all who play the game will agree to the fact that connor is a weak character.. period.. and as such, not all the people coming here posting will agree either. But when it comes down to the depth of a characters personality, we surpass opinion and move on to fact. Id love for someone to come out with some character points about connor that give him a sizable measure of personality to compete with all the other protagonists out there, including the ones AC has seen this far. Not saying it would change peoples opinions, but it would be a good start. Better than just "yes he does have personality" lol

btw. its unfair to use all three of ezio's games to enforce that ezio has more depth than connor... while connor has one only(2/3 of one)

it'd be fair if you only used AC2 ezio against AC3 connor...

ApexMandalorian
11-15-2012, 05:22 PM
btw. its unfair to use all three of ezio's games to enforce that ezio has more depth than connor... while connor has one only(2/3 of one)

it'd be fair if you only used AC2 ezio against AC3 connor...

Connor is Anakin Skywalker without the love interest in the role of Luke. Haytham is bond-esque, Darth Vader character but with an prequel Obi-wan kind of attitude. Ezio is "the most interesting man in the world" lol. I like AC2 Ezio better than AC3 Connor.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-15-2012, 05:38 PM
Connor is Anakin Skywalker without the love interest in the role of Luke. Haytham is bond-esque, Darth Vader character but with an prequel Obi-wan kind of attitude. Ezio is "the most interesting man in the world" lol. I like AC2 Ezio better than AC3 Connor.Anakin Skywalker? Killing innocent children, murdering all Jedi, choking his closests people unattacked? What's next?

Ezio the most interesting man in the world? hahahahahahahahahahhaa

TrueAssassin77
11-15-2012, 05:52 PM
The point is, using examples from ACR is not fair. Using examples from ACB is not fair.

If you judge depth based solely on AC2 and AC3, you will truely see the depth of each hero base on that period of there lives...

Thus making a more fair comparison of depth

IlDiv0
11-15-2012, 06:23 PM
ezio is james bond.......

Ezio is tony stark, Connor is batman

If Ezio is anyone, he's most likely the Antonio Banderas version of Zorro. In terms of personality and approach, they are remarkably similar.

Em-Man
11-15-2012, 08:16 PM
Id love for someone to come out with some character points about connor that give him a sizable measure of personality to compete with all the other protagonists out there, including the ones AC has seen this far.
Connor showed naivety and gullibility that later led to awareness, he showed that he could take responsibility for his naivety. He questioned the necessity of the Templar conflict. If I would describe Connor with one character point that differs from the rest of the Assassins, I would say his level of vulnerability. That's why I like to say that he is pretty bad as an assassin, but alright as a character.

Altair showed a very reserved and aloof type of personality. Some people may find this boring, but I find it interesting. He was arrogant and brought dishonor to his creed, he then became loyal and learned the deeper philosophical meaning of "nothing is true, everything is permitted". He showed that he could question his own creed and brotherhood, he showed a great philosophical mindset and strong leadership qualities. The character point I would give him is wiseness. He felt like a true Master Assassin, unlike Ezio and Connor.

And in terms of Ezio, you described him well so I won't go into him.

With that said, I never liked Connor either. I was also one of the few that disliked Ezio pre-revelations. But I do think that they all have more "personality" than people may think, and they are all decent characters. But I would never give Connor nor pre-revelations Ezio the title of Master Assassin.

BUT REMEMBER ONE THING GUYS - Character development isn't everything! One thing I really liked about Altair is the fact that we never really got to know him that well. This is not because the writers did a lazy job at making a likable character, but because we are in the ANIMUS! We are jumping right into someones life, and character development kills the sense of thrill, excitement and mystery that you get from experiencing a life of an unknown person.
That is why I ADORE the intro to Altair and Haytham, and that is why I absolutely HATE the intro to Ezio and Connor. There is no thrill in jumping into someones childhood, but there is a lot of thrill in jumping into an assassin that is in the middle of a big mission.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-15-2012, 08:39 PM
But I would never give Connor nor pre-revelations Ezio the title of Master Assassin.
I don't see how is it a bad thing. If all the protagonists were teh bestest Master Assassins ever, it would feel boring as hell and I wasn't a fan of railroading Ezio and Altair in ACR into essentially identical 'wise old super mentors'. We should be seeing all kinds of Assassins, better, worse, more connected to the order, less connected to the order, having different views on the order, seeing the order's role in their life differently etc. If you have multiple protagonists in your franchise, use it to its full potential instead of creating character clones with different coat of paint.

xboxauditore
11-15-2012, 08:56 PM
I'm currently on the fence about Connor, I like the fact that he retains his Humanity and questions morally questionable things like lying and letting lots of people die in conflict. Makes him more realistic.

On the other hand, His desire for revenge and habit to jump straight into something constantly bothers me.

ATM I really like Connor, But Ezio will always be my favourite, Maybe when I finish the Game I'll have a Full opinion on Ratonhnhake:ton.

Charles_Phipps
11-15-2012, 10:40 PM
Connor showed naivety and gullibility that later led to awareness, he showed that he could take responsibility for his naivety. He questioned the necessity of the Templar conflict. If I would describe Connor with one character point that differs from the rest of the Assassins, I would say his level of vulnerability. That's why I like to say that he is pretty bad as an assassin, but alright as a character.

I think Connor's big issue is things are a lot more COMPLEX than they were in Ezio and Altair's time. Ezio has the Templars on one side and the Assassins on the other. Altair turns against his master as soon as he finds out he's a Templar. Connor has the issue of the Patriots, Loyalists, his tribe, Achilles, the Assassins, and his father all asking for his undivided loyalty.


Altair showed a very reserved and aloof type of personality. Some people may find this boring, but I find it interesting. He was arrogant and brought dishonor to his creed, he then became loyal and learned the deeper philosophical meaning of "nothing is true, everything is permitted". He showed that he could question his own creed and brotherhood, he showed a great philosophical mindset and strong leadership qualities. The character point I would give him is wiseness. He felt like a true Master Assassin, unlike Ezio and Connor.


Altair lost a lot of respect for me when he spent literally decades looking into the Apple. I also felt a lot of his beliefs in the Second Game illustrated he was still an arrogant so and so who was dismissive of other people and their beliefs. I think Ezio and Connor both earned their titles of Master Assassin because Ezio learned the TRUE Assassin's power comes not from the Order itself but from the people. Connor knew that from the very beginning, he's just in a situation where there's no easy answer. I will say that Connor also has ample room to continue his story.

He's only 23.


With that said, I never liked Connor either. I was also one of the few that disliked Ezio pre-revelations. But I do think that they all have more "personality" than people may think, and they are all decent characters. But I would never give Connor nor pre-revelations Ezio the title of Master Assassin.

I like Connor but I think he's very frustrating because I don't think he's able to articulate how he feels about a lot of things. It's kind of funny and sad but I imagine Connor would be a lot more eloquent in his native Mohawk.

Really, though, his opinion is: "I hate being jerked around by everyone and his brother."

Bashilir
11-16-2012, 01:42 AM
Connor doesnt work for revenge eh? I think you got it backwards. Connors entire mission revolved around getting even with Charles Lee for the murder of his mother and the destruction of his village. Altair was lead by his master in AC1 to do things that in the end turned out to be counter productive to his cause. Ezio was probably the most caring and selfless assassin the game has seen up to this point. He fought for the people in the name of the brotherhood. All his fights revolved around peace in his relative territory and freeing the people from negative influence from political figures and military regimes.

It seems to me some of the folks making these types of statements (and not just you) havent really payed attention to what they are playing. I, for one, love the stories in the previous AC games. This latest one blew ***...
That is so incorrect. Did you play AC2? The whole game was about killing the men who were involved in the killing of his family. Brotherhood? That was, yet again, revenge. His villa gets attacked and wants to take down the people responsible. That's far from "selfless" and "caring". It seems you haven't been paying attention. Plus, Connor kills them because his village is number one and kills the men(who are templars) who could cause something or, because they're templars. I loved all the previous ones too and I also loved this one. So next time, don't tell people they haven't payed attention when you, yourself haven't been.

ApexMandalorian
11-16-2012, 02:04 AM
Anakin Skywalker? Killing innocent children, murdering all Jedi, choking his closests people unattacked? What's next?

Ezio the most interesting man in the world? hahahahahahahahahahhaa

Anakin Skywalker's attitude, angry alot, hurt, wounded deep down (especially after he loses his mother), as if a part of him didn't grow up because of the void caused by his mother's absence. In his roe in the story, he's a Luke Skywalker. He grows up removed from his heritage (for Luke, the Jedi. For Connor, the Assassins). He is taught and trained by Achilles, who is the old hermit living along that used to be active in the Order (Like Obi-wan/Yoda, who were once but are no longer active Jedi, like Achilles is no longer an active Assassin). He joins a cause that for the most part has little to do with his heritage (For Luke, that's the rebellion, which primarily is political and has little to do with the Jedi-Sith conflict. For Connor, the Revolution, which has little to do with the Assassin-Templar conflict). Eventually, his focus returns to that of his heritage and his conflict, his mentor reminding him that their enemy must be destroyed (For Yoda, that's "Destroy the Sith we must.", Luke must kill Vader. For Connor, that is Achilles telling Connor that he must kill his father, and for both Luke and Connor, that must come first over their desire to turn their fathers to the "light" side). And both Vader and Haytham have a kind of reconciling with their sons at their deaths. THIS is how Connor is like Luke with Anakin's attitude. And how ACIII is like Star Wars. And, Ezio basically describes himself as the most interesting man in Revelations.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-16-2012, 03:59 AM
Anakin Skywalker's attitude, angry alot, hurt, wounded deep down (especially after he loses his mother), as if a part of him didn't grow up because of the void caused by his mother's absence. In his roe in the story, he's a Luke Skywalker. He grows up removed from his heritage (for Luke, the Jedi. For Connor, the Assassins). He is taught and trained by Achilles, who is the old hermit living along that used to be active in the Order (Like Obi-wan/Yoda, who were once but are no longer active Jedi, like Achilles is no longer an active Assassin). He joins a cause that for the most part has little to do with his heritage (For Luke, that's the rebellion, which primarily is political and has little to do with the Jedi-Sith conflict. For Connor, the Revolution, which has little to do with the Assassin-Templar conflict). Eventually, his focus returns to that of his heritage and his conflict, his mentor reminding him that their enemy must be destroyed (For Yoda, that's "Destroy the Sith we must.", Luke must kill Vader. For Connor, that is Achilles telling Connor that he must kill his father, and for both Luke and Connor, that must come first over their desire to turn their fathers to the "light" side). And both Vader and Haytham have a kind of reconciling with their sons at their deaths. THIS is how Connor is like Luke with Anakin's attitude. And how ACIII is like Star Wars. And, Ezio basically describes himself as the most interesting man in Revelations.
The prime reason Ratonhnhaké:ton joins the Assassins is because Juno told him to do it in order to save his village. His people always come first and he constantly brings them up when dealing and their safety & well being when dealing with other characters. Luke did nothing for Tatooine nor cared for it. Anakin only cared about coming back for his mother. Neither cares for the Tatooine heritage. Having an old mentor happens in like 38721459634 different games, novels or movies. And there's no reconciling between Haytham and Ratonhnhaké:ton at the end, talking softly "I'm sorta proud of you" changes nothing in that Haytham wants to kill him and thinks he should've killed him long time ago. Haytham has no regrets and never goes back to 'the light side of the Force' like Anakin did. Your comparisons are just way off the mark. Not to mention that you're trying to make a comparison between Ratonhnhaké:ton and two different characters by combining them into one lol.

The one thing that is similar is the mentor (which is nothing new at all in fiction) and that Luke was getting emotional with Vader, as Ratonhnhaké:ton gets with Haytham and they tried to make them good again blah blah. The end is completely different though, not to even mention all the details.

WarlockDLX
11-16-2012, 07:04 AM
btw. its unfair to use all three of ezio's games to enforce that ezio has more depth than connor... while connor has one only(2/3 of one)

it'd be fair if you only used AC2 ezio against AC3 connor...

Not necessarily... the way I see it, AC1 was a bit of a flop. The overly repetitious gameplay style and lack of a believable character made the game very weak. What made the franchise flourish? The IDEA! People loved the idea of the game and despite its many flaws, they played it and loved it and waited for the future of the franchise to improve on it, which they did. However, AC2 was just the mere beginnings of this improvement. The direction Ubisoft took going forward from AC1 has continuously become more and more intriguing with more emphasis on colorful characters and riveting story lines...... until now...... AC3 I fear takes an enormous leap backward in every direction save for a few engine related areas (which could arguably be a step backward as well, seeing as how the games framerate leaves MUCH to be desired, as well as a few other hitches in the final product) and things like the character movement animations. The character, story, historical period choice, voice acting, etc... all stunk to high heaven compared to previous titles.

Whats the kicker here? I think this is just going to boost Ubisofts efforts to improve for the next game. Hopefully connor takes a flying leap off a totem pole and they introduce a new character into the mix, and put some real effort into the story this time with lots of detail and sub-plots to unravel. I love games that offer a deep story, and I was thoroughly disappointed with what AC3 had to offer in those terms. Connor was just a piece of that entire chunk of disappointment. He was part of the story and what lacked therein, but the whole thing just sucked IMO. I was bored the entire game :nonchalance: I can play AC Brotherhood again, now, after all these years and not be that bored. Seriously.

WarlockDLX
11-16-2012, 07:10 AM
That is so incorrect. Did you play AC2? The whole game was about killing the men who were involved in the killing of his family. Brotherhood? That was, yet again, revenge. His villa gets attacked and wants to take down the people responsible. That's far from "selfless" and "caring". It seems you haven't been paying attention. Plus, Connor kills them because his village is number one and kills the men(who are templars) who could cause something or, because they're templars. I loved all the previous ones too and I also loved this one. So next time, don't tell people they haven't payed attention when you, yourself haven't been.

ACB was not a mission of revenge. Borgia sacked his town and he defended it, afterwards he sought to kill him to prevent his native land from being over run by his military forces. There is always a bit of revenge in these games.. looking back to AC1, what would you call Altairs last mission to execute his master? Some could argue that there was protective instinct over his brotherhood there, or some other motivation.. but I still feel the motivation was vengeful as well. He lead him astray and had him murder people for his own twisted reasons. Altair wanted revenge for that. In ACR, Altair killed the new leader of the clan because he killed Altairs son (among other things). So revenge has always played a part in the games, but Ezio was the least motivated by it and had so much more going all the time. Maybe not in AC2, but the game was still pretty limited at that point. AC has evolved too much since AC2 to use it as a comparison.

So yea.. back to the part about paying attention ;)

d3luge
11-24-2012, 10:55 PM
Connor has more depth than meets the eye, you just need to look deeper into him and what has happened to him