PDA

View Full Version : What would make Connor a better character?



Torvaldesq
12-15-2012, 02:38 AM
(SPOILERS AHEAD FOR THOSE NOT FINISHED WITH THE GAME)

I've mentioned my criticisms of Connor in other threads, and don't really feel the need to re-state all of it. So leaving that aside, I'm operating under an assumption that there will be more single-player DLC to come out even after the Tyranny of Washington. (I mean, these Season Passes for DLC sounded like they were being implemented because they plan on creating a good deal more content). I'm sure a sequel of some sorts is in the works (whether it will be a large game of the size of similar size to AC 3, the way Brotherhood was to AC 2, or a smaller handheld sequel the way Bloodlines was for AC 1, I don't know). I also don't know if Connor will be used again for a sequel, but if he is, I'd rather be in a position where I like the character more rather than less. Not everything I dislike about how they handled the character is unfixable, so I thought why not make some suggestions for what I would like to see done with Connor that would make him a better character.


Suggestion One: DLC with heavy Iroquois Confederacy involvement

Connor is supposed to motivated by his tribe.Yet despite all your trips to the frontier, you do surprisingly little with them. You can have one or two optional conversations with your friend and the clan mother, but the conversations are frustrating in their tendency to only briefly touch on important issues which would be very deserving of a lot of attention. Your friend (in one of these optional conversations) mentions how other tribes in the Iroquois confederacy are siding with the British. You insist that they should not take up arms and that you are handling things. It's almost stupefying how casually the issue is brushed aside, and made doubly irritating when Connor shows surprise as Templars tell him that the colonists will be in conflict with his people (because somehow he thinks the colonists have no quarrel with his people).

There were natives that sided with the Patriots. Most didn't, but the ones that did certainly had reasons for what they did. Connor needs some DLC involving this. I remember after the Johnson mission, when you saw various tribal leaders gathered, I thought, "Great, finally, they're going to introduce some leaders among the Iroquois who will help solidify the perspectives of those leading parties outside the main conflict between the Patriots and British, when the revolution begins." But it never happened. Connor shows a lot of resolve that the Patriots cause will help his people in the end (not something that would be purely templar based, since Templars are on both sides of the Revolution). We need some DLC to make Connor's position seem like it was arrived at logically, for some good reasons, and heavier involvement with tribes debating the issue would help. Not to mention that it would be a good excuse to increase the player's emotional connection to his village and people - given all of Connor's travels through the frontier, you'd expect him to visit the tribe more often. Finally, it's worth pointing out that it wasn't just other tribes in the Iroquois confederacy, but the Mohawk tribe itself also sided with the British. Now, your village specifically tries to stay out of it, but it would help Connor just look less oblivious to things if he had a scene or two showing that he's actually given some thought to what that could mean.


Suggestion Two: DLC that gives a stronger relationship to Washington from an earlier point

The developers talked in proud tones about how their lead character in AC 3 would have a close friendship with Washington. But it never really materializes. He knows your name because you stopped an assassination attempt against him, and he gives you a few errands to run. That's about it. I do look forward to the Tyranny of Washington DLC, but I would like something to give a stronger relationship to the Washington of the main game. This would help address the problem with Connor's faith in the Patriots cause as being protective of his people as well (how the British decide to tax their colonists is not something that immediately jumps to mind as crucial to the welfare of native americans). It would make a lot more sense if he had more interaction with Patriot leaders and those leaders knew that HIS reasons for aiding them were directly tied with the welfare of the Mohawks. A sense that your personal friendships will help protect your people would make Connor seem more logical. Washington's actions are still very defensible - he's fighting a war, and the Mohawk's have largely sided against his side - but it would be more painful and feel like more of a broken trust if your relationship was deeper.

Connor gets in a big argument with Achilles over revealing the truth about the Assassins and Templars to Washington. Yet we NEVER GET THE PAYOFF of Connor telling Washington this stuff and seeing how Washington reacts or what actions he thinks appropriate with the knowledge. That's an excellent place to start. Show us what happened there. Give us a sense of the fallout. Maybe some of this will be addressed with the Tyranny of Washington (maybe part of the DLC takes place in the "real" world and part is a vision of an alternate world?). But whatever the case, it's something that would help the character a lot, because as things are his statements in support of the Patriots and assumptions that the Patriots' cause is good for his people make him look not just idealistic (which is what they seem to be going for) but also like a dunce (which should not be what they're going for, given the fact he's supposed to be well-educated by a Master Assassin on the ways of the world).



Suggestion Three: Stronger ties to the Assassin's Creed

This is what the franchise is named after. But boy does Connor feel disconnected from it. We never hear, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." I don't think we ever even hear the three initial rules of the creed (Don't kill an innocent, Hide in plain sight, Don't compromise the Brotherhood - not that Connor needs to be told not to kill an innocent, but it'd be nice to see a shout-out). Of course there was no ceremony for him becoming an Assassin, and that's fine, but Connor's reasons for BEING an Assassin never feel like they graduate from, "Because Juno turned me into a fire bird and told me to be one" to "Because I actually see why this Brotherhood is good for humanity and why the Templars are truly on the wrong side." Altair's understanding of the "freedom" the Assassins stood for was aided by the fact that he SAW Al'Mualim actually take free will away from his people. HIs former mentor turned Masyaf's men and women into a chanting mob of hypnotized fanatics. Ezio had extensive experience with the Apple and learned of this level of control too, and he knew the Templars sought out more power along those lines to take people's free will away from them and control them in a fundamentally intrusive way.

Connor never has that experience, which makes his rallying cry of, "I fight for freedom" when arguing with his father about why he supports the Patriots feel really weak. His father retorts that everyone will define "freedom" in different ways, and they'll keep on fighting. It's a good line (kudos to the writer that wrote it), but it has the sad effect of making Connor look pretty intellectually disarmed and obstinate despite lacking a good comeback. The Assassins and Templars almost feel superfluous at this point - like they're not sure exactly what they're fighting for themselves, so they're just going to borrow causes from political moments at hand. Connor needs a DLC giving him a better connection to the Creed and a better foundation in why he should oppose the Templars. Optimally we'd get to see more of Achilles take on it. I'm not asking for us to just get a scene of Achilles lecturing Connor during his "training." It doesn't need to take place during his training. But we should see something prior in time to when he fights his father.


Now, none of these suggestions should imply that I only want lots of dialogue and lecturing. I understand that fun gameplay motivates things. These suggestions are all things I think can be accomplished within the context of missions: Battle set pieces, espionage, covert assassinations. There are lots of battles I know many people could point to for the war and say, "We could and should get a mission there!" That's all fine. But I'm not offering suggestions on those parts because I'm sure there are just simply a huge number of places and battles Connor could take part in. There's no shortage of such possibilities. To me, the question worth asking is what can they focus on adding to the character while doing those other things. And those listed suggestions are what I'd like to see.

I get that they want Connor to feel idealistic and trusting, but too often they missed their mark in the game and just made him feel oblivious and dense. Given the education he should be assumed to have received under Achilles tutelage, I'm sure that's not what they wanted. More awareness of the situation with the Iroquois and the Mohawks would help, more reasons for trusting in the Patriots (primarily through a deeper relationship with Washington) would help fuel and explain his loyalty in the face of things that ought to have made him much more likely to support the British (particularly after the attack on your tribe). A deeper connection to the purpose of the Assassins for humanity (not just in guarding a relic of a dead civilization because a projection of Juno told you to), and a sense that Washington understands and supports that purpose (you know, because you metaphorically ripped Achilles to shreds over the fact that you were going to bring Washington in on everything) would give much greater justification to why your immediate reaction after stopping an attack on your village is to AID Washington's forces by helping Lafayette.

When Connor comes up against situations where this is pertinent in AC 3, his silence or failure to address obvious issues wouldn't look bad if we had the knowledge that he actually wrestled with this stuff elsewhere and came to a conclusion that makes sense given what he's seen. We're kind of lacking that, so Connor ends up just floating around from event to event, seeming like an errand boy for big historical names with barely anything resembling a meaningful relationship with them. For all my problems with the character, though, there's a lot that can be fixed with DLC. A sequel, though it can always develop a character, is much less likely to make the character feel well handled in the previous game because the story will be focused on the future rather than the past. Now, that doesn't mean a sequel won't ever show something new from a character's earlier past. Ezio had missions with Christina in Brotherhood going back to the timeframe of AC 2, but there it felt more like a bonus rather than something fleshing out gaps people easily identified. I don't know when the next big console game will come out. Some people talk about a year turn-around period, but I'd assume we'll get 2-3 more quality DLC's for single player after the Tyranny of Washington. I'm hopeful that, more than just adding some new action adventure, those DLC's also rehabilitate issues Connor has as a character.

r4inm4n1991
12-15-2012, 02:45 AM
I havent read all you wrote....
But ill answer your question: Connor is a very good character.

Assassin_M
12-15-2012, 03:07 AM
Suggestion 1: Agreed

Suggestion 2: Connor never reveals the Assassin-Templar conflict to GW. He quarrels with Achilles over telling him or not. Connor decides against it in the end. GW is kept in the dark about things. Also, regarding his faith in the Patriot cause. That does not really have to materialize in physical relationships or Interaction. Just listen to the way he talks about them. "men and women who fight for a cause bigger than themselves" True, it could`v been stronger with Physical Interaction, but I felt the betrayal. It was powerful through his thoughts about the Patriots. He was told and shown, but his belief for what the Patriots fought for was strong most of the time. You need to take into account some of Connor`s monologues during the start of every sequence. He has doubts and concerns, but he sincerely thought they`d protect his people.

Suggestion 3: Agreed.

I do not think these MAKE a better character. Maybe they do to you, but not for me. All these suggestions are larger explorations of different narratives for Connor to grow. I think Connor`s Character was great in AC III. He`s my favorite Assassin right now..

Zrvan
12-15-2012, 04:16 AM
I can't connect with Connor because I don't understand or empathize with him and his conflicts or struggles.

It can be reasonably argued that Connor and Ezio's early lives are very similar -- both were young men who had their families slaughtered by Templar shenanigans, and who came to the Assassins because of a desire for revenge -- but the devil's in the details. Connor was the 'last hope' of the Assassins in NA -- he was 'the chosen one' in a sort of way. I can't project onto that -- I don't feel I'm the chosen one ever, in my life. Can't be that proud. Ezio, on the other hand, still had some family to care for after the slaughter, and so gains immediate depth -- he must balance being plunged headlong into a new life with new responsibilities as his family's pater familias with still being a dutiful son/brother and now also a student of some very arcane studies. I can project onto that -- it relates to my own personal life (having to decide on and get initiated into a career while being far away from my family -- college!).

We're told THAT Connor cares about people, but we're not shown it. The impression I get from the 'wedding' mission chasing Miriam through the trees is that Connor is doing it with the look of a man who can't roll his eyes back up into his head far enough. With Ezio, OTOH, we can see how he relates to his family in the tutorial, and don't need to be 'taught' that he's a human being.

He comes off as petulant and not in control of his own fate. I can't put my finger on any one point, but I don't ever remember Connor being proactive, just reactive to everything. Again, not like me. I like to get out there and do stuff.

There's also no one really around him. He doesn't reflect. There's Achilles, who stays in the homestead, and haytham for a bit (easiest to remember part of the game), but Connor isn't really a part of a group. He doesn't interact with anyone. Even Altair got more face time that Connor.

Improving Connor would have to be done delicately without a retcon, IMHO.

He needs a supporting cast that share his struggles. The homesteaders are not sufficient. He needs a Leonardo, a Machiavelli, a Sofia. If we see him being a human, we might be more inclined to think he's human. As I recall, Isaac Clarke went through such a transformation to his benefit in Dead Space 2.

Legendz54
12-15-2012, 06:05 AM
I think in the next game they should give Connor a love interest, It would be a great expansion on his character and would bring out a whole new side to him.

Torvaldesq
12-15-2012, 06:06 AM
Suggestion 2: Connor never reveals the Assassin-Templar conflict to GW. He quarrels with Achilles over telling him or not. Connor decides against it in the end. GW is kept in the dark about things. Also, regarding his faith in the Patriot cause. That does not really have to materialize in physical relationships or Interaction. Just listen to the way he talks about them. "men and women who fight for a cause bigger than themselves" True, it could`v been stronger with Physical Interaction, but I felt the betrayal. It was powerful through his thoughts about the Patriots. He was told and shown, but his belief for what the Patriots fought for was strong most of the time. You need to take into account some of Connor`s monologues during the start of every sequence. He has doubts and concerns, but he sincerely thought they`d protect his people.


I didn't say that the problem was that I didn't think Connor cared about the Patriot cause. His voice is fine for saying they're fighting for something bigger than themselves. The problem is in the logic of the character's faith. There is little in the game to make him so devoted to it (especially considering the Templars aren't particularly pro-British and given the really clear conflict of interest between the colonists and the Iroquois tribes). And I've listened to the monologues before. As I've said in other threads, the monologues are pretty weak developmental tools for the character. They're poorly reflected in his actions and decisions later, and almost only serve to highlight lapses in the storytelling by only briefly and weakly touching on critical issues to everything he does.

Also, regarding him telling GW the truth, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. We don't know WHAT he told Washington. He arrives in Valley Forge, and Washington immediately starts talking to him like interacting with Connor has become somewhat natural and expected. There's been some minor lapse in time. Washington having been told the truth would be one of the few reasons Washington might have a deeper connection with Connor and Connor might gain more trust of Washington. (Shared knowledge and insights providing some fuel for it).

Probably he didn't tell Washington the way things have been presented, because Washington never shows awareness of the Templars when you talk about Charles Lee. I was hoping that would just be because Washington maybe had doubts about what Connor had told him and, with others around during those conversations, he wouldn't betray his trust by talking about it. But if he indeed said nothing, it just kind of weakens the plot with him further. One of the few strong moments Connor had as a character was his tongue-lashing of Achilles and the showing of determination that Washington should know. It's a little lame to think that Connor got there and then got distracted because Washington told him some supplies were missing and that whole Achilles blow up was a bit wasted (him coming to a realization that Achilles is right would be a weak resolution to insert there, seeing as how nothing that happened would logically prove Achilles point and force a change of mind).

Anyhow, I'm not convinced either way as to what he told Washington or didn't tell him. It feels very malleable at this point. In either case though, I'd still want DLC to create a stronger relationship with Washington - and if Connor doesn't tell him and comes to the realization Achilles is right, then I'd want to see a good reason justifying his character switching so hard from "He must know" to the point of dressing down Achilles to, "He shouldn't know." - It is possible that the Tyranny of Washington may do that to some extent (I could see how that DLC might be premised on the real world Connor seeing a potential dark future if he brings Washington in on this stuff and exposes him potentially to arcane technologies - then again, maybe it will have zero connection to the real story and be completely non-canonical to the point where it's not even a vision, just a total parallel universe story).

Assassin_M
12-15-2012, 06:59 AM
I didn't say that the problem was that I didn't think Connor cared about the Patriot cause. His voice is fine for saying they're fighting for something bigger than themselves. The problem is in the logic of the character's faith. There is little in the game to make him so devoted to it (especially considering the Templars aren't particularly pro-British and given the really clear conflict of interest between the colonists and the Iroquois tribes). And I've listened to the monologues before. As I've said in other threads, the monologues are pretty weak developmental tools for the character. They're poorly reflected in his actions and decisions later, and almost only serve to highlight lapses in the storytelling by only briefly and weakly touching on critical issues to everything he does.

Also, regarding him telling GW the truth, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. We don't know WHAT he told Washington. He arrives in Valley Forge, and Washington immediately starts talking to him like interacting with Connor has become somewhat natural and expected. There's been some minor lapse in time. Washington having been told the truth would be one of the few reasons Washington might have a deeper connection with Connor and Connor might gain more trust of Washington. (Shared knowledge and insights providing some fuel for it).

Probably he didn't tell Washington the way things have been presented, because Washington never shows awareness of the Templars when you talk about Charles Lee. I was hoping that would just be because Washington maybe had doubts about what Connor had told him and, with others around during those conversations, he wouldn't betray his trust by talking about it. But if he indeed said nothing, it just kind of weakens the plot with him further. One of the few strong moments Connor had as a character was his tongue-lashing of Achilles and the showing of determination that Washington should know. It's a little lame to think that Connor got there and then got distracted because Washington told him some supplies were missing and that whole Achilles blow up was a bit wasted (him coming to a realization that Achilles is right would be a weak resolution to insert there, seeing as how nothing that happened would logically prove Achilles point and force a change of mind).

Anyhow, I'm not convinced either way as to what he told Washington or didn't tell him. It feels very malleable at this point. In either case though, I'd still want DLC to create a stronger relationship with Washington - and if Connor doesn't tell him and comes to the realization Achilles is right, then I'd want to see a good reason justifying his character switching so hard from "He must know" to the point of dressing down Achilles to, "He shouldn't know." - It is possible that the Tyranny of Washington may do that to some extent (I could see how that DLC might be premised on the real world Connor seeing a potential dark future if he brings Washington in on this stuff and exposes him potentially to arcane technologies - then again, maybe it will have zero connection to the real story and be completely non-canonical to the point where it's not even a vision, just a total parallel universe story).
It`s actually fact that Connor told GW nothing about the Assassin-Templar Conflict. GW asks Connor why he will help in finding Benjamin Church and Connor vaguely says "Does it matter ?" Enough of that then..

So Why is it that important to strengthen the relationship between the 2 ? Why GW specifically ? How does that make Connor a better Character ? I`m genuinely curious to where you want to take this, because I MAY end up agreeing with you like in suggestions 1 and 3.

Bullet747
12-15-2012, 07:15 AM
I kind of liked that Connor's barely on anyones side but his tribe. I would like to see him become more educated and world weary as his story continues while maintaining his ingrained skepticism. That's an essential trait of his.

Assassin_M
12-15-2012, 07:20 AM
I kind of liked that Connor's barely on anyones side but his tribe. I would like to see him become more educated and world weary as his story continues while maintaining his ingrained skepticism. That's an essential trait of his.
Exactly and this is why I`m asking.

Connor believes in the Patriot fight, but is Cynical to the people leading it. it`s expressed through his Monologues and Interactions.

Bullet747
12-15-2012, 08:06 AM
I think in the next game they should give Connor a love interest, It would be a great expansion on his character and would bring out a whole new side to him. I'm not sure. Connor's clearly not the romantic type. I think if there is a love interest he would probably, at least initially, be apposed to the idea.

avk111
12-15-2012, 08:35 AM
Uh I tried so hard to see how Connor Is actually detached from the patriots fight however specifically speaking yesterday came accross Benedict Arnold mission for the first time, Im just kind of effing on how could he be helping Washington find out the spy among the patriots army if it has nothing to do with the whole assassins Templars struggle just shows me Connor does subjectively Cavour the patriots cause taking out the assassins Templars control battle

BATISTABUS
12-15-2012, 10:38 AM
(1)It can be reasonably argued that Connor and Ezio's early lives are very similar -- both were young men who had their families slaughtered by Templar shenanigans, and who came to the Assassins because of a desire for revenge -- but the devil's in the details.

(2)Connor was the 'last hope' of the Assassins in NA -- he was 'the chosen one' in a sort of way. I can't project onto that -- I don't feel I'm the chosen one ever, in my life. Can't be that proud. Ezio, on the other hand, still had some family to care for after the slaughter, and so gains immediate depth -- he must balance being plunged headlong into a new life with new responsibilities as his family's pater familias with still being a dutiful son/brother and now also a student of some very arcane studies. I can project onto that -- it relates to my own personal life (having to decide on and get initiated into a career while being far away from my family -- college!).

(3)We're told THAT Connor cares about people, but we're not shown it. The impression I get from the 'wedding' mission chasing Miriam through the trees is that Connor is doing it with the look of a man who can't roll his eyes back up into his head far enough. With Ezio, OTOH, we can see how he relates to his family in the tutorial, and don't need to be 'taught' that he's a human being.

(4)He comes off as petulant and not in control of his own fate. I can't put my finger on any one point, but I don't ever remember Connor being proactive, just reactive to everything. Again, not like me. I like to get out there and do stuff.

(5)There's also no one really around him. He doesn't reflect. There's Achilles, who stays in the homestead, and haytham for a bit (easiest to remember part of the game), but Connor isn't really a part of a group. He doesn't interact with anyone. Even Altair got more face time that Connor.

(6)He needs a supporting cast that share his struggles. The homesteaders are not sufficient. He needs a Leonardo, a Machiavelli, a Sofia. If we see him being a human, we might be more inclined to think he's human. As I recall, Isaac Clarke went through such a transformation to his benefit in Dead Space 2.

(1)Ezio's family was murdered when he was 17 and a much more developed human being. His development as a result would've been much different than Ezio's, and this is something that reveals itself in Connor's childish nature.

(2)Connor was the "Chosen One" in that he had a number of duties and people depending on. These were huge burdens, not "gifts" as you seem to imply. He was asked by a "spiritual" force to accomplish a task, which he did, and then he took on the responsibility of protecting his people. He succeeded in one and failed in the other. Also, I'm not sure the college analogy is entirely comparable, but to each his own.

(3)Really? Because I did not get that at all. Connor is genuinely interested in helping out his friends...if you honestly felt like he was annoyed at having to chase her down, you clearly let your unwarranted judgement of the character cloud your judgement. We are shown multiple times he is doing this out of his pure desire to help his neighbors, and although he's not as personable and charming as Ezio, you can tell he's happy to do it. Also, with Connor constantly talking about how his people come first, how can you even suggest that he doesn't care about others? Ezio getting feathers for his young brother is obviously going to have a different emotional impact than Connor helping his friend get a wife.

(4)Is anyone really in control of their fate? Connor tries to be, but most of it either fails or doesn't work out the way he hopes it to. Ezio on the other hand handily accomplishes everything he sets out to do. Some people have it easier in life than others. I'm glad you're in control of your fate, but some of us aren't as fortunate.

(5)I'm not really sure what you're trying to get across here, so I'll just focus on reflection. Connor does reflect internally, but I suppose he could benefit from having more monologues like Ezio did in Revelations (which is honestly the most reflection we got out of him, and the most interesting parts are about his love-life). Altair constantly questioned his mentor, but that's because he started realizing he may have been manipulated. Achilles never tried to deceive Connor.

(6)The supporting cast of AC3 was much better than anyone Ezio had. Leonardo was cute, cool, and funny, but didn't have much substance besides that. The relationship with Machiavelli was ironic and interesting (Machiavelli is supposedly this great philosopher but constantly has his ideas challenged and changed by a fighter), but also didn't leave much of an emotional impact. The relationships between Altair and Al Mualim/Malik/Abbas were fantastic because these characters were constantly at odds with each other in high-stakes emotional situations. Same with Connor and Achilles/Kanentokon/Haytham/Washington. Ezio's relationship with Sofia was great, but even that we didn't get until a third game. AC3 was not the time nor place for Connor to develop a relationship like that.


Uh I tried so hard to see how Connor Is actually detached from the patriots fight however specifically speaking yesterday came accross Benedict Arnold mission for the first time, Im just kind of effing on how could he be helping Washington find out the spy among the patriots army if it has nothing to do with the whole assassins Templars struggle just shows me Connor does subjectively Cavour the patriots cause taking out the assassins Templars control battle

Anyone who suggest Connor is neutral is mistaken. He wants the patriots to win; he believes in what they speak of, and he believes that their dominance will be more beneficial for his people than rule under the crown. He parts from the Sons of Liberty in the way he feels things should be accomplished; I presume he dislikes their relative inaction (/means of doing things) and arrogance more than anything else.

avk111
12-15-2012, 11:20 AM
Anyone who suggest Connor is neutral is mistaken. He wants the patriots to win; he believes in what they speak of, and he believes that their dominance will be more beneficial for his people than rule under the crown. He parts from the Sons of Liberty in the way he feels things should be accomplished; I presume he dislikes their relative inaction (/means of doing things) and arrogance more than anything else.

but doesn't his belief change specifically after the Broken trust sequence ?..

BATISTABUS
12-15-2012, 11:24 AM
but doesn't his belief change specifically after the Broken trust sequence ?..
No. While he certainly resents what happened, he blames Washington instead of blaming the whole Revolution. Even so, he understands that leaders need to make tough decisions that don't always work out, which is something he certainly has experience with.

Sushiglutton
12-15-2012, 11:58 AM
For me a lot has to do with the lifeless voiceacting. Voice lacks expression. It doesn't sound tough, but soft in some weird way. Recording voice for a game of this size must be a super challenging job. Personally I think Watts came up a bit short this time. Hopefully he can figure it out and come back stronger for the sequel :).

BATISTABUS
12-15-2012, 12:34 PM
For me a lot has to do with the lifeless voiceacting. Voice lacks expression. It doesn't sound tough, but soft in some weird way. Recording voice for a game of this size must be a super challenging job. Personally I think Watts came up a bit short this time. Hopefully he can figure it out and come back stronger for the sequel :).
I just don't agree. I think the voice acting sounded a little awkward in side missions for everyone, but I suspect that's more related to the manner in which they were recorded. For those lines, it seems like the actors were called in individually, and the directors could've done a better job to make the lines sound more natural. For the main story bits, I thought Watts did a fantastic job in both face-cap and voice-acting. Besides that, any "lack of expression" (I would assume) is more related to subtlety or Connor being a non-Native English speaker. Even so, for the emotional scenes, there is no mistaking Watts' talent.

If you want to hear an example of lifeless voice-acting in AC, listen to AC1's Altair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs66GJp2L7M

VitaminsXYZ
12-15-2012, 01:24 PM
For me a lot has to do with the lifeless voiceacting. Voice lacks expression. It doesn't sound tough, but soft in some weird way. Recording voice for a game of this size must be a super challenging job. Personally I think Watts came up a bit short this time. Hopefully he can figure it out and come back stronger for the sequel :).

Actually, if you listen to the recent podcast he did, he mentions that he intentionally made Connor sound more "slowed down" and "direct." (Starts at around 16:58).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1KeUWEVa4
The bit before that is pretty interesting, too, starting at around 14:55 where he talks about how he drew inspiration from "Magua," a native character in the "Last of the Mohicans." Magua also spoke very directly without needing to convey too much emotion. (And plus, hearing Connor's voice saying, "When Magua finds him, Magua will eat his heart" was pretty hilarious.)

I'd recommend listening through the entire podcast, or at least most of it. (There are timestamps in the description to help navigate through it.) It really offers some better insight into Connor's character.

Sushiglutton
12-15-2012, 01:38 PM
Interesting, I guess it's just me who didn't get it then. To me Connor just sounded a bit remote and like Noah was reading from a paper. If the Mohawks do talk like that, then obv noone can blame Noah for his work.

And yeah no matter what Altair was way worse lol.

Baked_Cookies
12-15-2012, 04:17 PM
I agree with what Assassin_M said a few posts back. These suggestions although good are more towards narratives rather than Connor personally. But I like where you went with your post and I feel the same as I need something a little more to get me to be into Connor a little more. Even if it is just more narratives and minor things to do with him that shows more than just 50% of his story. Like you said theres really nothing that he does with his native people and theres nothing there to show what he went through with them which does make it seem a little harder to feel attached to his story besides the fact his mother died when he was a kid. So we see his side of his story fighting for his tribe but we never see him do anything with his tribe at all. I think a little more Native American aspects should have been dealt with in this game from Connors point of view with his tribe

Torvaldesq
12-15-2012, 06:42 PM
I agree with what Assassin_M said a few posts back. These suggestions although good are more towards narratives rather than Connor personally. But I like where you went with your post and I feel the same as I need something a little more to get me to be into Connor a little more. Even if it is just more narratives and minor things to do with him that shows more than just 50% of his story. Like you said theres really nothing that he does with his native people and theres nothing there to show what he went through with them which does make it seem a little harder to feel attached to his story besides the fact his mother died when he was a kid. So we see his side of his story fighting for his tribe but we never see him do anything with his tribe at all. I think a little more Native American aspects should have been dealt with in this game from Connors point of view with his tribe

The way I see it, the narrative problem creates a character problem. He brought up the second suggestion as something that was more about story than character for Washington. But the problem, to me, is that the character's actions do not have the foundations in the plot they ought to, which makes the writing for the character feel subservient to the gameplay mission at hand. Now, obviously the writing is always subservient to the gameplay in these games, but good writing would mask that - it would make you feel like Connor very naturally arrived at his decisions and actions because of what came before, not because of what the game wants you to do next.

Connor's stalwart faith in the Revolution and its cause never feels like it was naturally arrived at. It feels pressed upon the character because the missions are all written from the Patriot side.He says numerous times that helping the Patriots is the way for him to help his people - but that logical jump never feels well founded. WHY does Connor think that? What would make him really believe that was true? It feels like a very cheap effort by the writers to make it seem all the sadder when he sees what happened at the end of the game, but mostly it just makes him come across as unrealistically stupid.

I mean, if we look at the real history here, the Mohawks were VERY aware of their conflicts with the colonists. They mostly joined the British because of it. That's what happened in our real world's history. I would expect a fictional character like Connor, someone with both contacts and upbringing among a Mohawk village who is ALSO treated to a super secret education from the Assassins to show awareness of this and to have a stronger foundation for why he believes helping the Revolution will ultimately benefit HIS people. I see a stronger relationship with Washington as one way to meet that goal while also providing a narrative boost that I think the writers originally were shooting for but somehow never got to.

I mean look, let's say YOU are Connor and the colonies have just declared their independence (which Connor is there for the signing of by a few of the big names). The document mentions King George III letting the "merciless Inidian savages" wreck the colonists. How confident are you that their cause is your people's cause? Unless I've got some serious friendships with the top guys and insights into long-term effects the top guys hope to achieve regarding your people, I would not feel confident at all. And most Native Americans clearly did NOT come to the conclusion that the colonists' cause was good for them. So why should Connor? To me, the narrative fault is a character fault. Not a good flaw that makes him more believable, but a reason and logic flaw that makes it too apparent this guy is being written to serve the game's needs regardless of how much he lacks foundation for his thought process. It can be fixed though. I mean, this stuff is the kind of thing that could be fixed with one good, solid conversation about it if placed in the right time period (to me, that time period should be between Connor blasting Achilles and Valley Forge).

ziljn
12-15-2012, 10:29 PM
What would have made him a better character would have been some character development beyond his teenage years in sequence 5. Numerous times in sequence 5, teenage Connor is referred to as naive or "green", but that never seems to change throughout the story. There's no real growth. As the story unfolds and the plot develops, and as time passes, Connor never seems to develop beyond a naive, impetuous teenager. Despite this, he is entrusted with leading battles and rubbing elbows with all the major players of the Revolution at all the major events, and it's just not believable. His dialogue lacks any emotional range, it's either an emotionless monotone or angry, which doesn't help any either.

If there's another installment of Connor, and I'm rather hoping there isn't, especially if we find ourselves in the French Revolution, as nothing would be more frustrating to me than playing simple Connor in something as nuanced and multi-faceted as the FR, he needs to greatly develop. He needs to mature.

xboxauditore
12-15-2012, 10:55 PM
Two Tomahawks would make Ratohnhake:ton better.

ziljn
12-15-2012, 11:05 PM
Oh, and to Torvaldesq, I love your posts. Well reasoned and articulate... always something worth reading.

Deadlysyns666
12-15-2012, 11:07 PM
What would have made him a better character would have been some character development beyond his teenage years in sequence 5. Numerous times in sequence 5, teenage Connor is referred to as naive or "green", but that never seems to change throughout the story. There's no real growth. As the story unfolds and the plot develops, and as time passes, Connor never seems to develop beyond a naive, impetuous teenager. Despite this, he is entrusted with leading battles and rubbing elbows with all the major players of the Revolution at all the major events, and it's just not believable. His dialogue lacks any emotional range, it's either an emotionless monotone or angry, which doesn't help any either.

If there's another installment of Connor, and I'm rather hoping there isn't, especially if we find ourselves in the French Revolution, as nothing would be more frustrating to me than playing simple Connor in something as nuanced and multi-faceted as the FR, he needs to greatly develop. He needs to mature.
Because the leaders were allys of the Assassin's it wouldn't matter if Connor was 17 the leaders know what Assassin's can do so they rely on him so yeah i don't know if you paid Attention or not but yeah also Connor does Develop by the end its just not that easy to see because the game didn't span so many years i am sure he will grow now that his original task is done

ziljn
12-16-2012, 03:12 AM
Because the leaders were allys of the Assassin's it wouldn't matter if Connor was 17 the leaders know what Assassin's can do so they rely on him so yeah i don't know if you paid Attention or not but yeah also Connor does Develop by the end its just not that easy to see because the game didn't span so many years i am sure he will grow now that his original task is done

Eh... more like the Forrest Gump of the Revolution.

Assassin_M
12-16-2012, 04:23 AM
The way I see it, the narrative problem creates a character problem. He brought up the second suggestion as something that was more about story than character for Washington. But the problem, to me, is that the character's actions do not have the foundations in the plot they ought to, which makes the writing for the character feel subservient to the gameplay mission at hand. Now, obviously the writing is always subservient to the gameplay in these games, but good writing would mask that - it would make you feel like Connor very naturally arrived at his decisions and actions because of what came before, not because of what the game wants you to do next.

Connor's stalwart faith in the Revolution and its cause never feels like it was naturally arrived at. It feels pressed upon the character because the missions are all written from the Patriot side.He says numerous times that helping the Patriots is the way for him to help his people - but that logical jump never feels well founded. WHY does Connor think that? What would make him really believe that was true? It feels like a very cheap effort by the writers to make it seem all the sadder when he sees what happened at the end of the game, but mostly it just makes him come across as unrealistically stupid.

I mean, if we look at the real history here, the Mohawks were VERY aware of their conflicts with the colonists. They mostly joined the British because of it. That's what happened in our real world's history. I would expect a fictional character like Connor, someone with both contacts and upbringing among a Mohawk village who is ALSO treated to a super secret education from the Assassins to show awareness of this and to have a stronger foundation for why he believes helping the Revolution will ultimately benefit HIS people. I see a stronger relationship with Washington as one way to meet that goal while also providing a narrative boost that I think the writers originally were shooting for but somehow never got to.

I mean look, let's say YOU are Connor and the colonies have just declared their independence (which Connor is there for the signing of by a few of the big names). The document mentions King George III letting the "merciless Inidian savages" wreck the colonists. How confident are you that their cause is your people's cause? Unless I've got some serious friendships with the top guys and insights into long-term effects the top guys hope to achieve regarding your people, I would not feel confident at all. And most Native Americans clearly did NOT come to the conclusion that the colonists' cause was good for them. So why should Connor? To me, the narrative fault is a character fault. Not a good flaw that makes him more believable, but a reason and logic flaw that makes it too apparent this guy is being written to serve the game's needs regardless of how much he lacks foundation for his thought process. It can be fixed though. I mean, this stuff is the kind of thing that could be fixed with one good, solid conversation about it if placed in the right time period (to me, that time period should be between Connor blasting Achilles and Valley Forge).
I still don't see how Washington fits in this whole thing. Connor starts out as VERY Cynical to the Patriot Cause. The only Patriot he actually befriends is Adams and yet he still demands answers from him, because by that point he still has doubts. If you payed attention to the Conversations between him and Adams, you`d notice why Connor grew more fond of the Patriot Cause. Talk about Surrey and how Adams freed the slave. Adams` words of freedom and equality for all, Washington`s mirror speeches. It all plays out well as I see it.

Like I said, It`s the words of Adams and Washington that provide Connor with the Faith in the patriot cause, but he is Cynical towards the People. He was; however, willing to give them a chance that perhaps they might be saying the truth about their intentions. Adams shows it during the conversation about Surrey and Washington says it during his speeches.

But I still do not know. WHY Washington ???

ProdiGurl
12-16-2012, 11:26 AM
Zrvan: >>We're told THAT Connor cares about people, but we're not shown it. <<

? I can't agree with that at all to Sequence 10. He's constantly fighting for people and their causes and reprimanding others for their poor treatment of them.

YuurHeen
12-16-2012, 12:37 PM
The thing is that Connor is just like the whole ac3. it is different than previous. The thing about change is that some people who liked something before now dont like it while others still like it.
I can see that Connor has some old fans and some new fans that will defend him against any criticism. Me on the other hand already knew I wouldn't like him because I think people who live like the natives did are boring. that is my opinion but I am not going to make up arguments why Connor is a bad character because clearly he wasn't.

Than again I would say this also holds for haytham. some people hated that character but a lot of people like him. I would say it is the best Templar character to date. I enjoyed that part of the game a lot more than the rest of ac3.

bad luck for me that the change from ac2 to ac3 did not do any good for me but I'll just wait for ac4 instead of trolling the forum and giving arguments why ac3 is a bad game. excepts for the bugs and lag it clearly isn't.

shobhit7777777
12-16-2012, 12:45 PM
A mullet

Torvaldesq
12-16-2012, 04:51 PM
I still don't see how Washington fits in this whole thing. Connor starts out as VERY Cynical to the Patriot Cause. The only Patriot he actually befriends is Adams and yet he still demands answers from him, because by that point he still has doubts. If you payed attention to the Conversations between him and Adams, you`d notice why Connor grew more fond of the Patriot Cause. Talk about Surrey and how Adams freed the slave. Adams` words of freedom and equality for all, Washington`s mirror speeches. It all plays out well as I see it.

Like I said, It`s the words of Adams and Washington that provide Connor with the Faith in the patriot cause, but he is Cynical towards the People. He was; however, willing to give them a chance that perhaps they might be saying the truth about their intentions. Adams shows it during the conversation about Surrey and Washington says it during his speeches.

But I still do not know. WHY Washington ???

Neither of those provides what I mentioned. The conversation with Adams accomplishes nothing in showing us why Connor should link the welfare of his people so solidly with the success of the Revolutionaries (a mention of Adams being personally against slavery certainly doesn't and shouldn't do it - it's worth remembering that Britain had more public opinion against slavery than the colonies did, and unsurprisingly they outlawed it at an earlier date in the early 19th century than America).

I'm not saying the Revolutionaries don't have a cause. They certainly do, and the game actually does a good job of making you understand why they wanted to declare independence and what patterns of British rule they wanted to stop. But Connor's reasoning throughout the game is linked to protecting HIS people. That link is extremely weak. And as for Washington - I've explained that already. He is the best candidate for giving Connor faith in the Revolution being good for his people, being the commander and chief of the continental forces, extremely influential with all the leaders of the colonies, and having some kind of relationship with Connor already (though as it is, it's very poorly defined). Washington's speeches, as they are in the game, should not make Connor go to the lengths he does for the Revolution with the idea that it will help his people. Sam Adams would be the only other candidate, but he was far less important once the Revolution was underway compared to his role in the lead-up to it.

Torvaldesq
12-16-2012, 05:05 PM
Oh, and to Torvaldesq, I love your posts. Well reasoned and articulate... always something worth reading.

Thanks Zilijn. I like your post too. I really felt like Connor's personality just got short-circuited from being a teenager onwards. The role he plays with big names of the Revolution just never feels believable. It might have felt more believable if they showed Achilles having a stronger pre-established relationship with more people, and those people were in on the reality of the Brotherhood (the way that say, Machiavelli was an Assassin in AC 2, so the writers could have more fun with him). But the only one who comes close is Sam Adams (whose relationship with Achilles is left woefully undetailed), and his role is very reduced once the Revolution gets underway. It's almost like the main-story of the game feels about as sensical as the naval missions. That is, in the naval missions, you're just told to get on a boat and suddenly you know how to be a captain and you've got this loyal crew. The naval missions were fun gameplay, but story-wise I always just kind of rolled my eyes at how they shoehorn Connor into the role. It doesn't feel much different when you're told to go tell lines of men to "Fire" their weapons at the British, or when they want you to take command of artillery at Monmouth.

Assassin_M
12-16-2012, 08:14 PM
Neither of those provides what I mentioned. The conversation with Adams accomplishes nothing in showing us why Connor should link the welfare of his people so solidly with the success of the Revolutionaries (a mention of Adams being personally against slavery certainly doesn't and shouldn't do it - it's worth remembering that Britain had more public opinion against slavery than the colonies did, and unsurprisingly they outlawed it at an earlier date in the early 19th century than America).

I'm not saying the Revolutionaries don't have a cause. They certainly do, and the game actually does a good job of making you understand why they wanted to declare independence and what patterns of British rule they wanted to stop. But Connor's reasoning throughout the game is linked to protecting HIS people. That link is extremely weak. And as for Washington - I've explained that already. He is the best candidate for giving Connor faith in the Revolution being good for his people, being the commander and chief of the continental forces, extremely influential with all the leaders of the colonies, and having some kind of relationship with Connor already (though as it is, it's very poorly defined). Washington's speeches, as they are in the game, should not make Connor go to the lengths he does for the Revolution with the idea that it will help his people. Sam Adams would be the only other candidate, but he was far less important once the Revolution was underway compared to his role in the lead-up to it.
Ah so now it`s just a matter of opinion. What YOU think would make him better for YOU. now that I have a better idea, I strongly disagree with it.

Thank you for making things clearer..

AjinkyaParuleka
12-16-2012, 08:26 PM
Connor is already a good character,give him more time,he's still 26/27 and not a wise old man like Ezio.

Torvaldesq
12-17-2012, 01:53 AM
Ah so now it`s just a matter of opinion. What YOU think would make him better for YOU. now that I have a better idea, I strongly disagree with it.

Thank you for making things clearer..

Criticism can be said to be a matter of opinion (not that it matters), but at the same time opinions can have better or worse foundations than others, making use of standards viewed as objectively reasonable or objectively unreasonable - otherwise no one would ever discuss the merits (or lack of merits) in any story and no one could ever improve their story-telling towards their general audience.

What is it with you and this "it's just an opinion" talk? You ought to be embarrassed to be dragging that out again. I've seen you say it over and over when people criticize something you like or praise something you dislike in response to their arguments. It's like some awkward mantra that you think makes you look well reasoned or something. It's a pointless phrase that doesn't lift up or bring down what anyone says. "What YOU think would make him better for YOU." Well done Sherlock. The person who created a suggestion thread on improving a character has the opinion that their suggestions would improve the character. Great detective work.

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 02:00 AM
Criticism can be said to be a matter of opinion (not that it matters), but at the same time opinions can have better or worse foundations than others, making use of standards viewed as objectively reasonable or objectively unreasonable - otherwise no one would ever discuss the merits (or lack of merits) in any story and no one could ever improve their story-telling towards their general audience.

What is it with you and this "it's just an opinion" talk? You ought to be embarrassed to be dragging that out again. I've seen you say it over and over when people criticize something you like or praise something you dislike in response to their arguments. It's like some awkward mantra that you think makes you look well reasoned or something. It's a pointless phrase that doesn't lift up or bring down what anyone says. "What YOU think would make him better for YOU." Well done Sherlock. The person who created a suggestion thread on improving a character has the opinion that their suggestions would improve the character. Great detective work.
Hmm bad day ?
I did not perceive your suggestions as opinion at first, because I found some of them to include Legitimate faults in the story, but with your second suggestion regarding Washington, it became clearer that you did not like how a certain part was shown or presented in the story to which I now perceive as just opinion that I can simply disagree with and not continue to argue aimlessly or unjustifiably point out flaws in your Opinion (Because it`s wrong)

Nothing for me to be embarrassed about here, really, but I appreciate the Civility..I apologize if I offended you..

rileypoole1234
12-17-2012, 02:45 AM
Just noticed this thread.

I completely agree with #3. The way it was in AC3, Connor didn't have to be an Assassin. He wasn't part of any organisation at all, he was a lone warrior. He felt disbanded from the Assassin order. In fact, in AC3, there didn't even seem to be an Assassin order. There was no evidence of it, there was no initiation, there was nothing besides Connor and Achilles. I would have loved to see more of the actual Assassin order. I think AC3 definitely lacked in that department.

Hidden Legaciez
12-17-2012, 06:50 AM
i wish he got married

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 06:57 AM
i wish he got married
He probably did

pirate1802
12-17-2012, 07:00 AM
I wish Dobby gets to have a crack at him in the next game. :D

Torvaldesq
12-17-2012, 07:02 AM
Hmm bad day ?
I did not perceive your suggestions as opinion at first, because I found some of them to include Legitimate faults in the story, but with your second suggestion regarding Washington, it became clearer that you did not like how a certain part was shown or presented in the story to which I now perceive as just opinion that I can simply disagree with and not continue to argue aimlessly or unjustifiably point out flaws in your Opinion (Because it`s wrong)

Nothing for me to be embarrassed about here, really, but I appreciate the Civility..I apologize if I offended you..

It doesn't take a bad day to point out how utterly ridiculous your comments and poor attempts at arguing are. Though I suspect I struck a chord with you. Listen to yourself for a second. That is one of the most mangled statements I think I've read on here. So you did not perceive them as opinions because they were "legitimate faults" in the story, but now it's become clear to you that I did not like something, so that makes it into something you perceive as opinion. Wonderful. How on Earth you could have missed that I didn't like something is beyond anyone's logic. I actually think you didn't miss it, you're just using some really inane reasoning to link the word "opinion" with anything you disagree with as "illegitimate," which shows both a failure to understand both the words "opinion" and "legitimate."

That's fine that you disagree. Giving reasons for why you disagree is fine. But a comment like, "Oh, now I see that this is your opinion! That changes my mind, now I disagree!" - Regardless of how fun it is to poke fun at it, it's really a weird quirk you should try to avoid.

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 07:03 AM
I wish Dobby gets to have a crack at him in the next game. :D
I hate Dobbie >_>..

I don't feel like any of the female characters we`v seen in AC III would provide good growth for Connor as a man..

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 07:04 AM
It doesn't take a bad day to point out how utterly ridiculous your comments and poor attempts at arguing are. Though I suspect I struck a chord with you. Listen to yourself for a second. That is one of the most mangled statements I think I've read on here. So you did not perceive them as opinions because they were "legitimate faults" in the story, but now it's become clear to you that I did not like something, so that makes it into something you perceive as opinion. Wonderful. How on Earth you could have missed that I didn't like something is beyond anyone's logic. I actually think you didn't miss it, you're just using some really inane reasoning to link the word "opinion" with anything you disagree with as "illegitimate," which shows both a failure to understand both the words "opinion" and "legitimate."

That's fine that you disagree. Giving reasons for why you disagree is fine. But a comment like, "Oh, now I see that this is your opinion! That changes my mind, now I disagree!" - Regardless of how fun it is to poke fun at it, it's really a weird quirk you should try to avoid.
Good luck with your life..

Sorry I ever actually started this..

What do I know ?? I`m an Idiot compared to your Genius....

Although I think that I was the one who "struck a chord", not you...

Carry on, Please

Torvaldesq
12-17-2012, 07:23 AM
Just noticed this thread.

I completely agree with #3. The way it was in AC3, Connor didn't have to be an Assassin. He wasn't part of any organisation at all, he was a lone warrior. He felt disbanded from the Assassin order. In fact, in AC3, there didn't even seem to be an Assassin order. There was no evidence of it, there was no initiation, there was nothing besides Connor and Achilles. I would have loved to see more of the actual Assassin order. I think AC3 definitely lacked in that department.

Yeah, the disconnect is very strong. It impacts the Templars a bit too in the post-Haytham years of the game. Haytham engineers the Boston Massacre, but ALSO planned to have Pitcairn prevent a rebellion by taking Sam Adams and Hancock at Lexington. The Templars neither support the crown nor the Patriots, but their actions seem to have the ultimate short-term goal of getting Charles Lee in charge of the continental army (which had extremely weak beginnings, so it seems a big step down in terms of Templar goals). How much control does that give the Templars? The Templars were set apart by their search for pieces of eden to control the population, but Haytham has given orders to men not to search for the precursor site for the time being. Aside from being generally already at war with the Assassins, there's not a lot for Connor to grab onto as inspiration for his fight against the Templars.

Let's say somebody picked up AC 3 as their first Assassin's Creed game. What about Connor's story would make them go, "Oh yes, the Assassins are the good guys." I think someone new to the series would be pretty confused about what each organization stood for. The most they'd get is, "Um, the Assassins talk about freedom a bit more and the Templars talk about order bringing about peace." I can believe that Connor would have well thought out beliefs regarding the whole Assassin / Templar conflict and what each group is trying to achieve and stands for, but it seems like something they left as a very large gap in the game.

(That's in relation to the period-piece of history we get with Connor - in Desmond's time it's a little easier to identify them as obvious villains, mostly because the Assassins are actually trying to save the world while the Templars are trying to kill them to take an Apple so they can launch a satellite to give mental commands to the population).

Torvaldesq
12-17-2012, 07:38 AM
Good luck with your life..

Sorry I ever actually started this..

What do I know ?? I`m an Idiot compared to your Genius....

Although I think that I was the one who "struck a chord", not you...

Carry on, Please

It takes something personally offensive to strike a chord with me. Though I have no count on it, it seems like this is about the tenth time I've seen you use the comment about something being an "opinion" because you think it undermines something you disagree with. You don't need to strike a chord with someone to get a reply on a forum. You make a post, a reply on what you say is not something that should come across as unexpected.

Somehow I don't think you're sincere when you say "good luck with your life," but I'm glad you can admit I'm a genius.

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 07:45 AM
It takes something personally offensive to strike a chord with me. Though I have no count on it, it seems like this is about the tenth time I've seen you use the comment about something being an "opinion" because you think it undermines something you disagree with. You don't need to strike a chord with someone to get a reply on a forum. You make a post, a reply on what you say is not something that should come across as unexpected.

Somehow I don't think you're sincere when you say "good luck with your life," but I'm glad you can admit I'm a genius.
I don't really care what strikes a chord with you. It`s you who thinks that me calling something an Opinion somehow degrades it, but that`s not how I meant it, really. If that`s how you see it, then that`s frankly your problem.

Not my fault you did not understand my post regarding your view on Washington, but then again, you`re a genius. I don't expect you to understand an inferior mind.

And oh No I`m very sincere. seeing your past posts and this
but I'm glad you can admit I'm a genius. I sincerely wish you good luck with your life...

You`re such a genius. truly a remarkable person

pirate1802
12-17-2012, 08:00 AM
I thought what Haytham wanted was for the colonies to be free but without a full-scale war. That is why he engineered the massacre yet wanted ceasefire through Pitcairn.

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 08:00 AM
I thought what Haytham wanted was for the colonies to be free but without a full-scale war. That is why he engineered the massacre yet wanted ceasefire through Pitcairn.
Are you challenging his Genius ? Are you mad ?

pirate1802
12-17-2012, 08:02 AM
Are you challenging his Genius ? Are you mad ?

None. I'm just a simpleminded pleb giving my views on the matter. :D

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 08:08 AM
None. I'm just a simpleminded pleb giving my views on the matter. :D
Ah Like me then ? I hope you fare better than I...

His Genius is beyond anything I`v ever seen...

Ez_187
12-17-2012, 08:28 AM
Well Connor became my favourite Assassin from how Ubisoft made him if they continue the direction they're taking him i'll be happy


Your Opinion is Meaningless INFIDEL! :o

pirate1802
12-17-2012, 08:45 AM
Well Connor became my favourite Assassin from how Ubisoft made him if they continue the direction they're taking him i'll be happy

My opinion in a nutshell. What would make Connor better? Hundred people will give a hundred different answers. I hope Corey May only goes with what he and only he thinks is the best direction.

TOMatXL
12-17-2012, 12:14 PM
You got some intriguing propositions there ... but I'll keep my answer straightforward and simple:

What would make Connor a better character?

They should have made him female!

Death_Aflame
12-17-2012, 01:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CRv0tLqqNk

PANiC_ATTACKER
12-17-2012, 02:49 PM
a personality transplant

Torvaldesq
12-17-2012, 05:59 PM
I don't really care what strikes a chord with you. It`s you who thinks that me calling something an Opinion somehow degrades it, but that`s not how I meant it, really. If that`s how you see it, then that`s frankly your problem.

Not my fault you did not understand my post regarding your view on Washington, but then again, you`re a genius. I don't expect you to understand an inferior mind.

And oh No I`m very sincere. seeing your past posts and this I sincerely wish you good luck with your life...

You`re such a genius. truly a remarkable person


Boy, you really hate being called out on your poor arguing style. That is exactly how you've used the word "opinion." It's like you see it as a short-circuit to dealing with issues where your side might look the least supported (hoping that people will see opinions as something that can't be argued, while "facts" can be, as if opinions aren't usually based on facts). Not that I think you successfully degrade anything with the use of the word, but the way you use the word shows that you think that (or did - I'm glad to see you're running away from that now, though you're a little too proud too admit it's because you were called out on it). Will it stick? Who knows. Maybe you'll be back to your old ways in other threads.

I guess to save your pride you can write out a statement like, "not my fault you did not understand my post regarding your view," - though nothing you wrote was complicated, you just wrote down a mangled train of thought. Also, engaging in sycophantic sarcasm does make you seem a little hurt over this. I know it probably seems terribly clever, but it's the kind of "too clever by half" behavior young children use because they think it shows off how witty they are in arguing with an adult. You're too old for that.

Torvaldesq
12-17-2012, 06:28 PM
I thought what Haytham wanted was for the colonies to be free but without a full-scale war. That is why he engineered the massacre yet wanted ceasefire through Pitcairn.

I'm not saying that's not something Haytham wants at an early point, the continental army only exists later for him to try to angle Charles Lee in charge of it. Pitcairn wanted peace. Haytham criticizes Connor for starting a war. The short-term goal for the Templars of the time period would normally be control though, so you would expect that Charles Lee in charge of the continental army is one expression of a plan that was generally about gaining a big seat of power in autonomous colonies.

Why would autonomy be desired? You'd have a better chance normally at taking stronger control with everyone under one authority than with several different sovereign states (let alone several sovereign states that are, at that moment in history, especially taken with ideas of democratic republics rather than monarchy). What would make someone think that the Boston Massacre was a good idea for gaining autonomy without war? What would make them think that Pitcairn marching on towns to take their munitions and "Sons of Liberty" leaders into custody would make Britain MORE likely to let the colonies go without a fight, when the whole point for the British soldiers is disarming a population and intimidating its leaders to gain more control for Britain?

I'm not saying the logic for the characters is unworkable. I think it can work. But as it is, it just comes across very haphazard. Like they very much wanted Connor to be at the Boston Massacre, and they decided that because the Templars are villains, so they should be on the other side starting the event. It's as if the writers stopped their inquisition there as to what exactly this gains for the Templar cause. In order to justify it, the player needs to do some internal gap filling, and it makes them seem less directed and less intimidating.

If the goal is to have autonomy without war, their actions would make more sense if we could see a part of the plan coming together in Britain. (For instance, say that the Templars in Britain plan to influence parliament to seek an arrangement of more autonomy but not total sovereignty - the problem, though, is that it's difficult for the writers to work with this, because historically Britain's parliament at the time was all about squelching autonomy and reenforcing strong British rule, those who argued against it were in the minority). Whatever Templar plan was in the works to direct the British reaction - it would have to fail. Why would it fail? The Assassins? How good does that make the Assassins look if they're aiding British reactions that fostered war? Or does it just fail because the Templars, without Assassin opposition, just couldn't pull it together? There's probably a way that it could be written to deal with all this stuff and make the Templars seem stronger antagonists. But it would definitely take some effort to pull it all together.

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 08:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CRv0tLqqNk
dafuq ? xD

Assassin_M
12-17-2012, 08:53 PM
Boy, you really hate being called out on your poor arguing style. That is exactly how you've used the word "opinion." It's like you see it as a short-circuit to dealing with issues where your side might look the least supported (hoping that people will see opinions as something that can't be argued, while "facts" can be, as if opinions aren't usually based on facts). Not that I think you successfully degrade anything with the use of the word, but the way you use the word shows that you think that (or did - I'm glad to see you're running away from that now, though you're a little too proud too admit it's because you were called out on it). Will it stick? Who knows. Maybe you'll be back to your old ways in other threads.

I guess to save your pride you can write out a statement like, "not my fault you did not understand my post regarding your view," - though nothing you wrote was complicated, you just wrote down a mangled train of thought. Also, engaging in sycophantic sarcasm does make you seem a little hurt over this. I know it probably seems terribly clever, but it's the kind of "too clever by half" behavior young children use because they think it shows off how witty they are in arguing with an adult. You're too old for that.
Yes Yes, You`re absolutely right. i`m so hurt and am crying right now over how a random person that i`ll probably never meet "called me out" on my despicable ways of argument. *sob* *sob* I`m so hurt and you`re apparently a Psychic, because you know a lot of what I intended. You`re so Awesome. When I grow up I want to be just like you..

TheHumanTowel
12-17-2012, 09:47 PM
Whatever people's complaints about Connor's character during the game I think his character is heading in a promising direction at the end of the game. People had problems with Connor being brash and arrogant and foolish in his trusting of the patriots. Well at the end of the game Connor has certainly learned a lesson in humility after he was betrayed by the colonists and he failed in his promise to his people. He was very idealistic and naive during the game but he's definitely become disillusioned with the patriot cause. All this coupled with the death of Connor's mentor Achilles and his desire to live up to his example I think set the stage for postive development in future games.

Gynn Baderact
12-17-2012, 10:33 PM
Why he no have parachute?