PDA

View Full Version : Lucy's backstory



Spider_Sith9
04-28-2013, 11:46 PM
When was it revealed that she studied Cognitive Neuroscience? I didn't find out till Initiates.

Rugterwyper32
04-28-2013, 11:51 PM
It was revealed in the original, during one of the conversations you could have with her between sequences. She told you about how she ended up in Abstergo.

Spider_Sith9
04-29-2013, 12:23 AM
It was revealed in the original, during one of the conversations you could have with her between sequences. She told you about how she ended up in Abstergo.
I remember that conversation. She just refers to it as "They said it was pseudoscience." so how did people deduce that it was that particular doctrine I guess is my question.

Spider_Sith9
04-30-2013, 11:34 AM
No one else?

Spider_Sith9
06-07-2013, 04:59 AM
bump plz, I want to know where she specified it.

itsamea-mario
06-07-2013, 05:37 AM
Well, she never mentions exactly what she studied, but we know that she studied something that made her perfect to work with the animus, which would imply something to do with the brain and shtuff, but obviously no one knew exactly what she studied then, and no one really cared. they still don't.

warner4692
06-07-2013, 06:56 AM
I doubt you'll find out,

Ubisoft haven't put even have as much thought or care into that side of the storyline since ACII.

Much less into Lucy, as a character. After three games, they decided to rehash the Al Mualim plot twist.

Guess they were afraid her presence as a character would affect their Metascores.

Assassin_M
06-07-2013, 07:03 AM
My name is warner and i`ll take any chance in any thread to bash ANYTHING post-AC II, even if that has nothing to do with the topic, i`ll also reply to the idiot typing this quote to sound all cool
more or less...

counting down

LoyalACFan
06-07-2013, 07:04 AM
Guess they were afraid her presence as a character would affect their Metascores.

What? They killed her off because Kristen Bell only signed on for three games, and then they decided to make five. AC3 was supposed to be her last game, but then Brotherhood came out and ****ed everything up.

warner4692
06-07-2013, 07:51 AM
What? They killed her off because Kristen Bell only signed on for three games, and then they decided to make five. AC3 was supposed to be her last game, but then Brotherhood came out and ****ed everything up.

Hmm...

That kind of sounds like a speculation. Where did you find out about that?

Even if it IS true, they could easily have gotten a different voice. No reason to kill her off.

No good reason, anyway.

Scystab
06-07-2013, 08:00 AM
Uh, I rather see that they end a character rather than change his/her voice actor. The actor is the one who gives the character's essence. Changing the voice actor chancges the character

Assassin_M
06-07-2013, 08:00 AM
What? They killed her off because Kristen Bell only signed on for three games, and then they decided to make five. AC3 was supposed to be her last game, but then Brotherhood came out and ****ed everything up.
aaaand maybe they did plan to kill her in AC III?? (Which became ACB instead)

warner4692
06-07-2013, 08:25 AM
Uh, I rather see that they end a character rather than change his/her voice actor. The actor is the one who gives the character's essence. Changing the voice actor chancges the character

I don't think she really only signed on for three games, is the point. Nor do I think that she asked for more money than Ubisoft could/would pay. Those sound like the types of things fans come up with to help them wrap their heads around something. It's never been stated anywhere officially, at least.

Nor do I think it was always in their plans to do so, or else they wouldn't have spent all that time building her up. (Unless they really DO have themselves convinced that that's good story writing).

It's been openly stated by Ubisoft before (Alex Hutchinson, I do believe; or Corey May) that she was killed purely out of ruthless calculus - the writers decided that they "didn't need her anymore", and so they killed her off.

Which is stupid. If they were worried Lucy was taking up unnecessary space, give her things to do. Don't just kill her. And don't do it for some half-cooked plot reasons.

Not that that's a good way to view plot writing, anyway. You'd think story writers as a whole would learn: it's not about what we "need" and "don't need". We never "needed" Shaun or Rebecca at all... but they're great characters, all the same.

William was never a good idea, though. Too predictable, from the moment the first "William M" email appeared in ACB. And the "father and son" drama was too cliche, from the moment he and Desmond exchanged weird looks with each other at the end of ACR.

It's about what's GOOD. Building up a character and then throwing them out is never good.

LoyalACFan
06-07-2013, 09:23 AM
I don't think she really only signed on for three games, is the point. Nor do I think that she asked for more money than Ubisoft could/would pay. Those sound like the types of things fans come up with to help them wrap their heads around something. It's never been stated anywhere officially, at least.

Nor do I think it was always in their plans to do so, or else they wouldn't have spent all that time building her up. (Unless they really DO have themselves convinced that that's good story writing).

It's been openly stated by Ubisoft before (Alex Hutchinson, I do believe; or Corey May) that she was killed purely out of ruthless calculus - the writers decided that they "didn't need her anymore", and so they killed her off.

Which is stupid. If they were worried Lucy was taking up unnecessary space, give her things to do. Don't just kill her. And don't do it for some half-cooked plot reasons.

Not that that's a good way to view plot writing, anyway. You'd think story writers as a whole would learn: it's not about what we "need" and "don't need". We never "needed" Shaun or Rebecca at all... but they're great characters, all the same.

William was never a good idea, though. Too predictable, from the moment the first "William M" email appeared in ACB. And the "father and son" drama was too cliche, from the moment he and Desmond exchanged weird looks with each other at the end of ACR.

It's about what's GOOD. Building up a character and then throwing them out is never good.

You're absolutely right, I have no official statement that says she only signed on for three. I could be wrong, or she could have asked for a lot more money when they said they needed her for more games than she originally agreed to. However, the line they fed us about writing her off because they didn't need her anymore is complete bullcrap.

Assassin's Creed was planned as a trilogy; ACB was never even supposed to happen. It began out of a desire to continue Ezio's story and give us Rome (which was supposed to be in AC2 but wasn't finished in time). So they're telling us that, during the development of what was essentially a spin-off game, they decided "you know what, this complex double-agent character we've been building up from the very first game to be a major player in the finale isn't really important anymore; let's kill her off without explaining why, then tell the players she was a traitor in a lame DLC for next year's game (which, at that point wasn't even planned yet)"? Come on Ubi, we're not that stupid. Lucy's death was not a decision made on artistic grounds; there was some behind-the-scenes obstacle that prevented her from continuing on to the next installment. And Kristen Bell is most likely that obstacle. She's by far the biggest star of the AC voice cast, so hiring her on for more games that weren't in her initial contract would have cost a pretty penny. and that's even if she agreed to do them. So they killed her off in a (admittedly jaw-dropping) plot twist and replaced her with the painfully bland and cliche William + Desmond father-son drama, which ultimately fell flat on its face in the end.

Assassin_M
06-07-2013, 09:35 AM
and replaced her with the painfully bland and cliche William + Desmond father-son drama, which ultimately fell flat on its face in the end.
don`t know if i`d have preferred the equally bland and cliche romance between Lucy and Desmond any better..although, there was a theory circuling around during ACR (before TLA) explaining that Juno could not afford Desmond being side lined by Lucy due to the predetermined path of his Union with a supposed she (i`m unconvinced that her name was "eve" too stupid) so Lucy simply HAD to be removed...

I liked that theory

Spider_Sith9
06-07-2013, 05:36 PM
Personally, I think they should've gotten Tara Strong as Lucy. But they wanted that authentic feel that an actor is in the game so they scrapped the character.

But thanks for confirming my things. :)

warner4692
06-07-2013, 07:55 PM
You're absolutely right, I have no official statement that says she only signed on for three. I could be wrong, or she could have asked for a lot more money when they said they needed her for more games than she originally agreed to. However, the line they fed us about writing her off because they didn't need her anymore is complete bullcrap.

Assassin's Creed was planned as a trilogy; ACB was never even supposed to happen. It began out of a desire to continue Ezio's story and give us Rome (which was supposed to be in AC2 but wasn't finished in time). So they're telling us that, during the development of what was essentially a spin-off game, they decided "you know what, this complex double-agent character we've been building up from the very first game to be a major player in the finale isn't really important anymore; let's kill her off without explaining why, then tell the players she was a traitor in a lame DLC for next year's game (which, at that point wasn't even planned yet)"? Come on Ubi, we're not that stupid. Lucy's death was not a decision made on artistic grounds; there was some behind-the-scenes obstacle that prevented her from continuing on to the next installment. And Kristen Bell is most likely that obstacle. She's by far the biggest star of the AC voice cast, so hiring her on for more games that weren't in her initial contract would have cost a pretty penny. and that's even if she agreed to do them. So they killed her off in a (admittedly jaw-dropping) plot twist and replaced her with the painfully bland and cliche William + Desmond father-son drama, which ultimately fell flat on its face in the end.

The ACB ending feels like something they kind of threw together because they were trying to create a mindscrew like the one at the end of ACII. In Ubisoft's defense, it threw some people for a loop. But I don't think anyone seriously believed she was actually going to die. What would be the POINT?

If they wanted to take her out of the formula (which is dumb; she was the most interesting of the modern cast), simply having her recovering in a hospital from ACR onward would have sufficed fine. Just like how having Desmond actually save the world from the sun and then go off to parts unknown would have done fine for taking him out of the picture, as well.

But it's not just the modern story - characters are frequently killed for no reason. Maria, Cristina, pretty much all of ACR's cast... Soon, they'll probably kill Shaun, Rebecca, and William off.

And you're right: Kristen Bell definitely had to be the most expensive cast member. Likely, there was SOMETHING there. I have no idea what, but still...

And that DLC WAS pretty bad. Not only was the "Lucy's a Templar" an insult to our intelligence, but it was also added to the injury of killing her off to begin with. And then, of course, there was that whole botched-up story for Subject Sixtee- oh, wait, I'm sorry... I forgot. "Clay Kackzmarek".

I mean, I know the modern plot isn't the primary reason people play this series, but there's no denying that it IS (or was, at that point) an important part of the series. So Ubisoft are just as obligated to deliver quality content on that end, too.

Which I'm having a hard time believing will happen in ACIV. This whole "first person Abstergo employee" approach is a cop out so they don't have to write characters or scenarios for the plot outside of the Animus.

They're not even trying anymore. Which is sad, because not only did the modern story used to be a prominent source of unique mystery and intrigue, it set AC apart from most typical, M-rated killing games on the markets, these days. And that First Civilization thing had sooo much potential.

As did the characters themselves, of course. Regardless of what anyone might say, I liked Desmond, Lucy, Shaun, etc. Even with the father/son nonsense (and now the almost-as-predictable "Juno's evil"), the characters all could have been extremely excellent in the series' coming installments.

Lord only knows what's going to become of it NOW.

SixKeys
06-07-2013, 08:48 PM
Hmm...

That kind of sounds like a speculation. Where did you find out about that?

Even if it IS true, they could easily have gotten a different voice. No reason to kill her off.

No good reason, anyway.

There's another reason why they couldn't have just replaced Lucy's voice actress: they used Kristen Bell's likeness when they designed her character model. Continuing to use her likeness after her role in the series was over would mean having to pay her royalties. Notice how in ACR's The Lost Archive they cleverly avoided ever showing Lucy's face, even when we saw Vidic talking to her.

montagemik
06-07-2013, 08:48 PM
don`t know if i`d have preferred the equally bland and cliche romance between Lucy and Desmond any better..although, there was a theory circuling around during ACR (before TLA) explaining that Juno could not afford Desmond being side lined by Lucy due to the predetermined path of his Union with a supposed she (i`m unconvinced that her name was "eve" too stupid) so Lucy simply HAD to be removed...

I liked that theory


Lucy potentially becoming a distraction for Desmond / Or being mistrusted by Juno for other reasons was honestly my first reaction to Desmond's 'possession kill' on Lucy - believe it or not.
Whether or not the whole Double agent - templar scenario was planned by the time of AC-B/AC-R or not - I honestly found the 'good cop' / 'bad cop' structure between Vidic & Lucy in AC1 & AC-2 a little obvious.
If Lucy was being as carefully watched by Abstergo as she claimed & Desmond as important to Abstergo as we were told - Then their escape seemed 'far' too Easy & convenient to be genuine for me.
So i'd have to say - Lucy was going to turn out as a traitor or obstacle in the way from the very beginning. It's just the series took longer than originally planned, so things changed.

SixKeys
06-07-2013, 08:53 PM
Lucy potentially becoming a distraction for Desmond / Or being mistrusted by Juno for other reasons was honestly my first reaction to Desmond's 'possession kill' on Lucy - believe it or not.
Whether or not the whole Double agent - templar scenario was planned by the time of AC-B/AC-R or not - I honestly found the 'good cop' / 'bad cop' structure between Vidic & Lucy in AC1 & AC-2 a little obvious.
If Lucy was being as carefully watched by Abstergo as she claimed & Desmond as important to Abstergo as we were told - Then their escape seemed 'far' too Easy & convenient to be genuine for me.
So i'd have to say - Lucy was going to turn out as a traitor or obstacle in the way from the very beginning. It's just the series took longer than originally planned, so things changed.

According to Jeff Yohalem (writer of TLA), Patrice Desilets came up with the idea of Lucy being a traitor about halfway into the production of AC2. So it wasn't there right from the beginning. Personally I'm not sure I even buy that it was planned before ACB, but if you're going to go by the devs' words, then if Lucy seemed 'fake' to you in AC1, you're just inserting later interpretations of her character into it.

montagemik
06-07-2013, 09:13 PM
According to Jeff Yohalem (writer of TLA), Patrice Desilets came up with the idea of Lucy being a traitor about halfway into the production of AC2. So it wasn't there right from the beginning. Personally I'm not sure I even buy that it was planned before ACB, but if you're going to go by the devs' words, then if Lucy seemed 'fake' to you in AC1, you're just inserting later interpretations of her character into it.

I Did really well to insert later interpretations of her character into AC-1 years before AC-2 released then . ;)
Maybe it was just cliche script/scenario in AC-1 , 'Cooperate willingly until i can get you out of here'(honest) = Lucy or 'become a sedated vegetable against your will' = Vidic.

SixKeys
06-07-2013, 09:29 PM
I Did really well to insert later interpretations of her character into AC-1 years before AC-2 released then . ;)
Maybe it was just cliche script/scenario in AC-1 , 'Cooperate willingly until i can get you out of here'(honest) = Lucy or 'become a sedated vegetable against your will' = Vidic.

Yup. Honestly, sometimes I think people give a little too much credit to AC's writing. Fans tend to look really deeply into stuff that devs never even meant to be story-related (like the red footprints at the Villa in ACB) and come up with these elaborate theories on how everything was cleverly planned from the very start. AC1's setup was cliché, but if you consider that the story started out as a trilogy, it makes perfect sense. Part one was about Desmond getting captured and finding an ally at Abstergo, part 2 was about him training to become the ultimate assassin and part 3 would have been about the assassins storming Abstergo, killing the evil Templars and Desmond and Lucy probably getting together in the end. Even if Patrice came up with the idea of Lucy being a traitor during AC2's production, it was probably because he already knew Ubi had plans to make Brotherhood. So they had to find a way to stretch out a relatively simple plot and weave it into something more complex that would leave people wanting more.

Ureh
06-08-2013, 04:26 AM
Is my memory playing tricks on me? I seem to remember a short sequence in Project Legacy about Lucy and Vidic. But now I can't anything about it anywhere! :O

In short: Lucy was providing her research to Abstergo, Vidic ordered his peons to "kill" her, and then he intervenes and pretends to be her savior. Therefore she felt indebted to him.

warner4692
06-08-2013, 01:43 PM
There's another reason why they couldn't have just replaced Lucy's voice actress: they used Kristen Bell's likeness when they designed her character model. Continuing to use her likeness after her role in the series was over would mean having to pay her royalties. Notice how in ACR's The Lost Archive they cleverly avoided ever showing Lucy's face, even when we saw Vidic talking to her.

Tough luck for Ubisoft, then! Shouldn't have created a character, spent three games attaching people to her, and then thrown her out like that.


Lucy potentially becoming a distraction for Desmond / Or being mistrusted by Juno for other reasons was honestly my first reaction to Desmond's 'possession kill' on Lucy - believe it or not.
Whether or not the whole Double agent - templar scenario was planned by the time of AC-B/AC-R or not - I honestly found the 'good cop' / 'bad cop' structure between Vidic & Lucy in AC1 & AC-2 a little obvious.
If Lucy was being as carefully watched by Abstergo as she claimed & Desmond as important to Abstergo as we were told - Then their escape seemed 'far' too Easy & convenient to be genuine for me.
So i'd have to say - Lucy was going to turn out as a traitor or obstacle in the way from the very beginning. It's just the series took longer than originally planned, so things changed.

I chalked the easy escape up to the following two things.

1) Modern story has limited time...
2) ...and (or) it's just a video game's representation of an escape.

Or some combination of the two. Although, there WAS some lost potential there, as well.

I'll always remember that escape fondly. It was why I finally decided to give the series a try.


According to Jeff Yohalem (writer of TLA), Patrice Desilets came up with the idea of Lucy being a traitor about halfway into the production of AC2. So it wasn't there right from the beginning. Personally I'm not sure I even buy that it was planned before ACB, but if you're going to go by the devs' words, then if Lucy seemed 'fake' to you in AC1, you're just inserting later interpretations of her character into it.

I'm not sure I buy it, either. I think when they decided they wanted to get rid of the character, they just looked back on their earlier work and realized making her a "traitor" was the easiest way to do it.

They could always say the emails she received from William M were really "Vidic", after all.

Could always say the "escape was too easy".

Things like that.

But if they really DID decide that back that far... all it really shows is the story writting took a down turn earlier than it at first seemed.

Especially if Patrice did it. I never realized before now, but I sort of attributed the bad new direction subconsciously to the new writers. Not that they've done much to help out, but still...

They couldn't even be bothered to mention Lucy in more than, I think, two conversations in ACIII. Or do it with any emotion.

Not that I really expected that after Shaun and Rebecca's reactions to it in ACR, but I hoped. *shrugs* No crime in that...

And their big way of "revealing" how Desmond and the others discovered her "betrayal" was by handwaving it away with Desmond's "oh, no, dude, I TOTALLY had a vision and saw Lucy was gonna betray us... No, seriously!"

I wonder if they were trying to make Desmond's portions dip in quality. To make it easier on them when they decided to get rid of HIM.

'Cause you can't tell me that if they really planned ACIII's ending for the whole five, six years that absolutely nobody recognized and stood up somewhere in that period of time and said, "Um, guys...? We have a slight problem with the ending... Primarily that it sucks."

Hans684
06-08-2013, 08:49 PM
Tough luck for Ubisoft, then! Shouldn't have created a character, spent three games attaching people to her, and then thrown her out like that.



I chalked the easy escape up to the following two things.

1) Modern story has limited time...
2) ...and (or) it's just a video game's representation of an escape.

Or some combination of the two. Although, there WAS some lost potential there, as well.

I'll always remember that escape fondly. It was why I finally decided to give the series a try.



I'm not sure I buy it, either. I think when they decided they wanted to get rid of the character, they just looked back on their earlier work and realized making her a "traitor" was the easiest way to do it.

They could always say the emails she received from William M were really "Vidic", after all.

Could always say the "escape was too easy".

Things like that.

But if they really DID decide that back that far... all it really shows is the story writting took a down turn earlier than it at first seemed.

Especially if Patrice did it. I never realized before now, but I sort of attributed the bad new direction subconsciously to the new writers. Not that they've done much to help out, but still...

They couldn't even be bothered to mention Lucy in more than, I think, two conversations in ACIII. Or do it with any emotion.

Not that I really expected that after Shaun and Rebecca's reactions to it in ACR, but I hoped. *shrugs* No crime in that...

And their big way of "revealing" how Desmond and the others discovered her "betrayal" was by handwaving it away with Desmond's "oh, no, dude, I TOTALLY had a vision and saw Lucy was gonna betray us... No, seriously!"

I wonder if they were trying to make Desmond's portions dip in quality. To make it easier on them when they decided to get rid of HIM.

'Cause you can't tell me that if they really planned ACIII's ending for the whole five, six years that absolutely nobody recognized and stood up somewhere in that period of time and said, "Um, guys...? We have a slight problem with the ending... Primarily that it sucks."

1) No history is never ending.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin's_Creed%3A_Initiates

The E-mails where from Vidic. Look at: September 26. 2012, October 4 & 9 2012.

Those who came before can see the future by useing the nexus of time as explained in ACR & AC3 endings where they show the past and the future(how the Fist Civ went under & what would happen if Desmond did not sarcefice himself to save the world. When Desmond tuotched(bad English) the apple Juno showed a vision of what Lucy would do if he did not kill here. The vision was that Lucy killed Desmond, Shaun & Rebecca. The she went to Vidic and the rocket lunched but the prodject failed. Then the world went under. Another happy ending becouse the fans want there favorites to live instead of thinking about the story.

warner4692
06-09-2013, 01:30 PM
1) No history is never ending.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin's_Creed%3A_Initiates

The E-mails where from Vidic. Look at: September 26. 2012, October 4 & 9 2012.

Those who came before can see the future by useing the nexus of time as explained in ACR & AC3 endings where they show the past and the future(how the Fist Civ went under & what would happen if Desmond did not sarcefice himself to save the world. When Desmond tuotched(bad English) the apple Juno showed a vision of what Lucy would do if he did not kill here. The vision was that Lucy killed Desmond, Shaun & Rebecca. The she went to Vidic and the rocket lunched but the prodject failed. Then the world went under. Another happy ending becouse the fans want there favorites to live instead of thinking about the story.

1) I was talking about the limited amount of time Ubisoft had in each game to use for the modern storyline.

2) I was being sarcastic. I know the emails were from Vidic, but I doubt they were going to be in Ubisoft's original plans. They probably just changed it later on when they decided they wanted to get rid of the character, and needed a convenient excuse.

3) I know what happened in the God-awful game, dude.

But, you ARE aware that Ubisoft write the story, are you not?

That means that Ubisoft didn't have to write it the way that they did.

I'm not blaming Desmond (who is a fictional video game character) for killing Lucy.

Or Lucy (who is also a fictional video game character) for turning traitor.

I'm blaming the writers (who are real people) for screwing it up so badly. And so obviously.

Also worth mentioning, that vision was cheaply done. If Ubi were going to do this, they could have at least put some genuine, honest effort into it.

But sadly, they did not.

Hans684
06-09-2013, 03:17 PM
1) I was talking about the limited amount of time Ubisoft had in each game to use for the modern storyline.

2) I was being sarcastic. I know the emails were from Vidic, but I doubt they were going to be in Ubisoft's original plans. They probably just changed it later on when they decided they wanted to get rid of the character, and needed a convenient excuse.

3) I know what happened in the God-awful game, dude.


But, you ARE aware that Ubisoft write the story, are you not?

That means that Ubisoft didn't have to write it the way that they did.

I'm not blaming Desmond (who is a fictional video game character) for killing Lucy.

Or Lucy (who is also a fictional video game character) for turning traitor.

I'm blaming the writers (who are real people) for screwing it up so badly. And so obviously.

Also worth mentioning, that vision was cheaply done. If Ubi were going to do this, they could have at least put some genuine, honest effort into it.

But sadly, they did not.

1) Understandble.

2) Sorry, I have a bad sarcasm detector. However do any of us know the original story? No. Do Ubisoft & Patrice Déstiler(one of The Creators) know the original story? Yes. Do whe know if the way everything so far is the original story? No. Do we know if some of it was parts of the original story? No. We know nothing, Ubisoft and the creators & writhers does. "They probably just changed it later on when they decided they wanted to get rid of the character, and needed a convenient excuse." That is possible but do YOU have anything to support that claim with is just speculation that YOU think they probably did.

3) Option, dude.

I'm aware that Ubisoft & theire writhers ARE making the story. ARE you?

What? You want a happy ever after love story in AC. A bit of a long shot, is it not?

"I'm not blaming Desmond (who is a fictional video game character) for killing Lucy.

Or Lucy (who is also a fictional video game character) for turning traitor."

Good for Desmond & Lucy then.

"I'm blaming the writers (who are real people) for screwing it up so badly. And so obviously.

Also worth mentioning, that vision was cheaply done. If Ubi were going to do this, they could have at least put some genuine, honest effort into it.

But sadly, they did not."

Option.

Also how would you have done it then? Tell me, i love fairy tails.