View Full Version : Why Treat Desmond Like That?

12-08-2012, 06:31 PM
I for the most part Enjoyed ACIII, Regardless of some of the anti-climatic shortcomings. My Favorite character in the entire series was in Fact Desmond. I understand that's not a very popular opinion so I Don't Mind When people Bash him for being dull. I enjoyed The (Very) Short Time we played as him in the modern world though i thought there could be a bit more seeing as how five games were spent building him into something of a Master Assassin. Never mind the fact that he was written out of the story to bring in a new protagonist (hopefully a female this time) My main gripe is the lack of a Desmond Skin for Connor. Both Brotherhood and Revelations had this feature, it made up for the lack of Desmond gameplay for me. I was expecting it to be the last Animus Hack, pretty disappointed by that..

I Liked the ideas brought about by the end of the game, it was just executed poorly. Way Too Quickly, i understand why the other games ended quickly after similar moments, but this was ridiculous because it was the end of the main protagonists portion of the story, wth. I'm really hoping ubisoft takes a step in the right direction with a female protagonist with an interesting modern day personality. As well as making new and interesting parts of History Their Playground.

12-08-2012, 10:02 PM
Desmond was my favourite character as well, he should have had a lot more gameplay. However, nobody is satisfied with the ending, whether you liked him or not, it was terrible.

12-09-2012, 09:07 PM
Desmond was my favourite character as well, he should have had a lot more gameplay. However, nobody is satisfied with the ending, whether you liked him or not, it was terrible.

I really liked the ending... One day, you'll understand me... Just wait for the future AC games and look for my forum replies on this matter.

12-10-2012, 07:35 AM
Desmond was my favourite character as well, he should have had a lot more gameplay. However, nobody is satisfied with the ending, whether you liked him or not, it was terrible.

Many are actually, just because they don't litter the interwebz with their complaints you shouldn't assume they don't exist.

12-10-2012, 07:51 AM
I was fine with the ending although his sacrifice probably should have had a little more weight to it. That scene felt a little like the ending of The Departed.

12-10-2012, 10:53 AM
I'm not sure why everyone is focusing on Desmond , with all due respect to the fans of course, this may sound unempathetic but who would you feel more emotionally tied to , the death of Ash or the Death of Pikachu ? Get the picture ?

he is a backbone story that's all there is to it. Cross's death was very vague as well though he had a serious of comic books literally running after his own tale, but why didn't Ubisoft focus on them because they are backbone protagonists / antagonists

12-10-2012, 12:35 PM
I too was puzzled with the whole ending. One thing is that he has to die. That could have been pulled off in a descent manner.
But nothing in the AC3 justifies Desmond at all.. Yes. He has to train to become a master assassin. Equal to his great ancestors.

For what exactly ?? go into abstergo and kill off some random luny guy with a gun ? Who was he ? What happened to him ? What even happened to Subject 16 ?

Aparently UbiSoft dont feel like answering those questions. Certainly not in AC3. It just keeps loading up questions only to kill off Desmond like a petty pawn. The thing is.. Desmonds destiny wasnt to be a pawn. It was to be more or less The Chosen.

In animus the big finale was not even killing your father. It was killing Charles Lee. In a very quick and anoying chase not even grand in any way.
At least in AC2 you get to fight a real boss. The pope to be. Its a climatic part of the story.. There was absolutely NO climatic about the ending for Connor "the brat".
And Desmond. You get to do what.. 2 missions with him ? thats really it ? One is finding your dad who gotten himself kidnapped. That wasnt exactly exiting. I would have thought he at least were in with the templars or somthing. The part at the stadium was.. well.. Somthing that had to be done..

In AC2.5 at least you had those big caves that were to be explorered. You actually had templars to fight. How many actual templars do you fight and work against as Desmond or Connor in AC3 ??
Uhmm.. your dad and thats pretty much it (though also the abstergo cannonfodder when saving daddy)
There were simply SO much errandboy and ZERO templar secrets.

If they are making a AC4.. they REALLY better bring back desmond somhow ( give him a tour of a coma or somthing then bring him back to do a proper ending)

12-10-2012, 12:46 PM
^Disagreed on the Connor "the brat"s ending. I thought it was absolutely beautiful. Heartbreaking, but beautiful. Boss battles are overrated anyway, not every game needs to have one to have a great ending. For me "the" moment in the Connor ending was when he slowly pushed the knife into Lee after sharing a last drink in the Last Drink Tavern :P The thing is, there is no YAY moment at Connor's end like it was in AC2. In the end Connor is a defeated, broken man who has failed his people. And that is how the story was meant to be. I liked it very much.

Agreed on Desmond "the pawn"s ending though. But then again, they can't put in too much modern-day sections without turning it into a Splinter Cell clone. Modern Day settings have been done to death, which is why AC devs limit them in their games.

Disagreed on bringing back Desmond too. Dead horse is dead, better make a new character from grounds up and treat him/her better, than bring back a dead guy just to give him a proper ending.

And I counted 7 Templar targets that Connor killed, excluding the contracts; no problems there. Thats certainly more than what we killed in ACB or ACR.

No Templar secrets? We knew about the inner works, beliefs and ethics of the Templar order in this game than all other games combined.