PDA

View Full Version : Something I thought of that made me like Connor's ending more[spoilers for TLoU]



LoyalACFan
07-05-2013, 01:53 AM
In the wake of The Last of Us, I've been pondering morally ambiguous endings lately. As the only new game I've bought in the last year other than TLOU, AC3 crossed my mind. And after reevaluating Charles Lee's assassination, I've decided I like it much better when viewed as Connor taking a step even further than the father he vilified rather than a fulfillment of his duty.

It kind of reminds me of The Godfather Pt. II in a way... (if any of you poor souls have never seen it, don't read this paragraph) where we saw Vito become a powerful mob boss while retaining his sense of honor, whereas a generation later, Michael, once the naive kid who insisted he'd never enter his father's business, becomes even more powerful yet wonders in the finale whether he's gone too far after whacking Fredo. In this respect, Haytham is Vito and Connor is Michael.

As we all know, the Templars wiped out almost the entire Assassin Brotherhood, but Haytham spared Achilles as he no longer posed a real threat. Contrast that with Connor, who singlehandedly destroyed the whole Templar Order, and even when Lee was deposed, disgraced, and powerless, he hunted him down like a dog and stabbed him in the heart. In this light, I'm glad they chose to remove Connor's soliloquy in the end; I like to think he didn't quite feel like celebrating what he had done. I'm still not completely satisfied with the way it was presented, but it does make a more compelling ending than just "lol, I killed all ze Templrz!"

Assassin_M
07-05-2013, 01:57 AM
just add spoilers, I know you didn't say anything about TLoU, but just in case, because there will be implications and nods to the ending, i`m sure

I-Like-Pie45
07-05-2013, 01:59 AM
This makes me wish that they had gone with the 'Connor turning corrupted' ending for ToKW instead of the 'Connor resisting temptation' ending.

LoyalACFan
07-05-2013, 02:12 AM
just add spoilers, I know you didn't say anything about TLoU, but just in case, because there will be implications and nods to the ending, i`m sure

Done. you're probably right.

Jexx21
07-05-2013, 02:59 AM
But Charles could of recovered, and he would of tried to get back at Connor.

I mean, Connor seemed to have recovered pretty quickly.

SixKeys
07-05-2013, 03:11 AM
This is pretty much how I see AC3's ending. Not in the sense that Connor has lost his morality or anything, just that he seems to have no other reason for hunting Charles than his own bitterness. He knew Charles wasn't responsible for the destruction of his village. Ultimately Charles wasn't even that bad as a Templar compared to the others, whom we clearly saw committing atrocities (killing natives etc.). As far as I can remember, Charles' only real crime was plotting to kill Washington, the man (spoilers) ultimately responsible for burning down Connor's village. Charles was in a pretty pathetic state after Haytham's death. Maybe he would have continued being a threat, but I doubt it. Connor only killed him because he had dedicated too many years obsessing over this target specifically. He couldn't let it go even after he found out the truth. That's one aspect I appreciate in his character, one that makes him less than perfect. He claims to fight for justice and truth, but in the end his real motivation for killing Charles is his own selfish obsession.

Jexx21
07-05-2013, 03:25 AM
Yea, because I'm sure that it's justifiable to almost choke a young kid to death while berating him.

Connor was also moved forward because of Achilles telling him to kill Charles Lee (and also his father) to end the Templar threat. So It wasn't just Connor's decision, Achilles thought that Lee needed to die aswell.

LoyalACFan
07-05-2013, 03:56 AM
Yea, because I'm sure that it's justifiable to almost choke a young kid to death while berating him.

Connor was also moved forward because of Achilles telling him to kill Charles Lee (and also his father) to end the Templar threat. So It wasn't just Connor's decision, Achilles thought that Lee needed to die aswell.

The choking scene was the absolute worst part of the game. They worked so hard to make you like Lee and the Templar crew, then completely ****ing ruined it by randomly making Lee a sadistic racist bastard (when in actuality he had a Mohawk wife and kids...). Like I said, I'm still not completely satisfied with the way it was presented, but I feel slightly better about the ending now.

As for Achilles... since when does Connor obey everything he says? He's the one who told him that fighting the Revolution was a stupid, doomed idea. Honoring Achilles' wish works better as a motive if you chase Lee after the funeral where he says "I'll make you proud," but you can't rely on a well-timed side mission to complete the ending.

Jexx21
07-05-2013, 04:08 AM
Well.. Achilles died in 1781, I did that mission after the Battle of the Chesapeake and before I sneaked into Fort George via the tunnels (although that side mission probably happens after Fort George). The chase after Lee happened in 1782.

So, chronologically, Achilles does die before Connor kills Lee.

..you know what, I agree with you, they should of made some of the homestead missions part of the actual story. I'm thinking mainly just the ones that get the homesteaders at the town (since most of them involve beating people up or something), Achilles' paintings, robes, and death, and maybe other key events such as the birth of Warren and Prudence's child and the wedding of Myriam and Norris.

Ureh
07-05-2013, 04:34 AM
Yeah I really liked the sorta morose ending. Basically everything Connor did accomplished nothing even Lee's death. He was basically cheated by everyone (even an alien wearing a golden hat). He's like, "Ok, I failed my people, I was bamboozled,... Now what the heck do I do?!"
Defeat in Victory.

Wolfmeister1010
07-05-2013, 04:39 AM
I don't understand why people are saying that Connor killed lee out of selfish obsession.

First of all, Achilles and Connor both knew that the ENTIRE Templar order needed to fall. And lee was the second in command. People are saying that he was "no longer a threat" but how long do you think he would stay that way? The entire theme of the Templar conflict in AC3 (something that lee said himself) is that no matter how much the assassins fight and conquer the Templars, they always rise back up anyway. Lee would never had just quit being a Templar. He needed to die.

Remember rodrigo Borgia? Ezio hunted him down for years, destroyed his order, and rendered him powerless. If he killed him, it would have ended there. But noooo, ezio let him live because his entire order was destroyed in Italy and he had no power anymore, and he went on to be the pope, and help to supply cesare with money and support that would help cesare virtually destroy and conquer all of Italy.

Then, after restoring Rome, and finally destroying cesare's rule, ezio decided AGAIN to spare the target and instead let cesare be out in jail. Obviously he was powerless so he could do not damage. Oh wait! He actually ended up escaping, gathering troops, and laying siege to Vienna, killing thousands of innocent people.

All of this could have been avoided if ezio had just assassinated them as soon as possible.

You see the pattern? You can't just assume that lee is powerless and will never hurt anyone again because he was dishonored and relieved from the army. He was the last member of the colonial assassin order, and he said himself that he would not rest until he destroyed connor's village, it's people, his homestead, and his order.
Lee needed to die. Connor did have some personal feelings toward the man, but in the end, he knew he had to end him regardless of how much he liked him or not.

I-Like-Pie45
07-05-2013, 04:41 AM
Yeah I really liked the sorta morose ending. Basically everything Connor did accomplished nothing even Lee's death. He was basically cheated by everyone (even an alien wearing a golden hat). He's like, "Ok, I failed my people, I was bamboozled,... Now what the heck do I do?!"
Defeat in Victory.

Go to McDonald's

Ureh
07-05-2013, 04:47 AM
Not sure if Connor killed Lee purely out of hate or whatever. But it would've been futile either way. Within everyone is a Templar and an Assassin, we have a propensity to lean towards one or suddenly switch sides. More Templars would rise. Connor's village was eventually forced away and oppressed even further, and supposedly the Davenport Homestead will suffer some sort of attack after Lee's death. Kill him? Someone else does his dirty work. Spare him? Same thing happens.

Wolfmeister1010
07-05-2013, 04:51 AM
Not sure if Connor killed Lee purely out of hate or whatever. But it would've been futile either way. Within everyone is a Templar and an Assassin, we have a propensity to lean towards one or suddenly switch sides. More Templars would rise. Connor's village was eventually forced away and oppressed even further, and supposedly the Davenport Homestead will suffer some sort of attack after Lee's death. Kill him? Someone else does his dirty work. Spare him? Same thing happens.

Even if the same general thing happens in both situations, it doesn't mean that the situation should just be ignored by Connor. If all the assassins in history thought like that, then the Templars would have won long ago. and the would have no one to stop them. Then there is DEFINITELY no chance for the assassins to win

Ureh
07-05-2013, 04:59 AM
I know, I agree that some people must die. But it's an eternal struggle is what it is. Connor kiled Lee, someone else - likely a Templar - finished what Lee threatened to do.

Jexx21
07-05-2013, 05:11 AM
Wolfmeister, I just want to say that the idea of not giving someone a second chance to redeem themselves is sort of a Templar idea.

The Assassins and the Templars both want peace. The Templars want to control others because they don't think humanity will be able to overcome selfishness, greed, and other baser instincts and feelings to actually have peace, so thus they need to be influenced and controlled. The Assassins believe that over time people can learn and change, and eventually peace will come through freedom.

The idea of not giving someone the chance to learn from what they have done is not an Assassin idea.

But at the same time, Charles was set in his beliefs, and Haytham was as well.

LoyalACFan
07-05-2013, 05:13 AM
I don't understand why people are saying that Connor killed lee out of selfish obsession.

First of all, Achilles and Connor both knew that the ENTIRE Templar order needed to fall. And lee was the second in command. People are saying that he was "no longer a threat" but how long do you think he would stay that way? The entire theme of the Templar conflict in AC3 (something that lee said himself) is that no matter how much the assassins fight and conquer the Templars, they always rise back up anyway. Lee would never had just quit being a Templar. He needed to die.

Remember rodrigo Borgia? Ezio hunted him down for years, destroyed his order, and rendered him powerless. If he killed him, it would have ended there. But noooo, ezio let him live because his entire order was destroyed in Italy and he had no power anymore, and he went on to be the pope, and help to supply cesare with money and support that would help cesare virtually destroy and conquer all of Italy.

Then, after restoring Rome, and finally destroying cesare's rule, ezio decided AGAIN to spare the target and instead let cesare be out in jail. Obviously he was powerless so he could do not damage. Oh wait! He actually ended up escaping, gathering troops, and laying siege to Vienna, killing thousands of innocent people.

All of this could have been avoided if ezio had just assassinated them as soon as possible.

You see the pattern? You can't just assume that lee is powerless and will never hurt anyone again because he was dishonored and relieved from the army. He was the last member of the colonial assassin order, and he said himself that he would not rest until he destroyed connor's village, it's people, his homestead, and his order.
Lee needed to die. Connor did have some personal feelings toward the man, but in the end, he knew he had to end him regardless of how much he liked him or not.

Rodrigo had connections. Half of his family were cardinals. If he had died in 1499, Cesare would have still been in power, because Juan Borgia would most likely become Pope. Cesare had enough power to strong-arm the Vatican into choosing him. That is, if Cesare didn't seize control himself and forget about papal support. By the time Ezio even made it to the Vatican the first time in 1499, Cesare was at his most powerful. Rodrigo was actually trying to get him to calm the hell down in his later life. Killing Rodrigo wouldn't have changed anything. Of course, Ezio didn't know any of that, so it was relatively impulsive and irrational to leave him alive.

Charles Lee, on the other hand, had no power and couldn't have done anything to Connor. Regardless of his threats in that stupid funeral scene. He was no longer even an officer; just some angry bum.

Bottom line, Ezio should have killed Rodrigo, and Connor shouldn't have killed Lee :nonchalance:

Farlander1991
07-05-2013, 07:41 AM
As far as I can remember, Charles' only real crime was plotting to kill Washington, the man (spoilers) ultimately responsible for burning down Connor's village.

Well, there's also that "little" incident of him turning Connor's village against the patriots AND Connor himself which led to Connor killing his childhood best friend... and almost destroying the patriot cause itself (via his trickery in the Battle of Monmouth), which, Washington's betrayal or not, Connor still believed in (or at least wanted to, by that point).


The choking scene was the absolute worst part of the game. They worked so hard to make you like Lee and the Templar crew, then completely ****ing ruined it by randomly making Lee a sadistic racist bastard (when in actuality he had a Mohawk wife and kids...).

I wasn't bothered by the choking scene. I actually saw that scene as how getting power may bring out the worst in us.

itsamea-mario
07-05-2013, 09:37 AM
Guess Achilles did pose a threat after all.

pacmanate
07-05-2013, 10:42 AM
Something I dont get about the ending is..........


How come Connor walks really slow up to the tavern, but if you use the stalking zones he goes supa speed :p derp

Locopells
07-05-2013, 11:23 AM
Yeah, I found that - it beats taking forever to walk inside...

Jexx21
07-05-2013, 02:11 PM
They didn't want to program in slow stalking.

Also, Connor probably shouldn't be injured anymore in that epilogue mission in New York. He wasn't injured when he took the tomahawk out of the post at the homestead, or when he buried the key. This leads me to believe that that specific epilogue cutscene was originally to be included before Connor left New York to chase after Lee and deliver the killing blow.

Ureh
07-05-2013, 02:36 PM
They didn't want to program in slow stalking.

Also, Connor probably shouldn't be injured anymore in that epilogue mission in New York. He wasn't injured when he took the tomahawk out of the post at the homestead, or when he buried the key. This leads me to believe that that specific epilogue cutscene was originally to be included before Connor left New York to chase after Lee and deliver the killing blow.

Iirc, he was limping in those scenes. Evacuation Day (the first epilogue mission) takes place about a year after Lee's death I believe.

Jexx21
07-05-2013, 02:59 PM
If he was limping, I sure didn't notice it.

-Scratch that. Evacuation Day is NOT the first epilogue mission. It's just the first named one.

By the first epilogue sequence I mean the one on the Homestead where Connor burns the paintings and takes the hatchet out.

I think Evacuation Day was originally supposed to be a cut-scene in Sequence 12, in the last memory.

Here's a video of the entire epilogue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc8AA8ph6Og

It doesn't make sense for him to be fine in the first cutscene and then injured again in the second one and fine again in the third one.

Ureh
07-05-2013, 03:25 PM
He's limping in all three missions. I just watched that vid.

cmrggamer
07-05-2013, 03:48 PM
As Ureh said, he's actually limping in all of those cutscenes. When he goes to take the Tomahawk out of the post there's a slight grimace on his face just before he reaches the post which suggested to me he was in pain.
The one that's out of place is the first Epilogue mission on the dock, because his robes are still covered in blood. It makes me think that was supposed to occur right after Charles Lee's death, and that they must have cut out some of the ending.

Jexx21
07-05-2013, 04:05 PM
I only really see injuries in the second cutscene, and while I can see how some things can be seen as limping in the first one, I don't see anything like it in the third.

AC2_alex
07-06-2013, 06:09 AM
Anyone else find Charles Lee's death a bit anti-climactic?

Assassin_M
07-06-2013, 06:16 AM
Anyone else find Charles Lee's death a bit anti-climactic?
I thought it saved the ending. It was pretty darn epic. Charles just sitting there "Oh crap...you found me" and sharing his drink with his would be killer "well...here`s to your victory and my death" then Lee accepting his death and nodding?? Nope...probably the most epic Ancestor ending for me...

AC2_alex
07-06-2013, 06:20 AM
I thought it saved the ending. It was pretty darn epic. Charles just sitting there "Oh crap...you found me" and sharing his drink with his would be killer "well...here`s to your victory and my death" then Lee accepting his death and nodding?? Nope...probably the most epic Ancestor ending for me...

Its better than going over the top, I guess. In a game like AC3, with all this action and explosions, it was probably the right move. I'm disappointed Lee didn't have a final death monologue like the other targets. Those are my favorite parts of the game.

Assassin_M
07-06-2013, 06:23 AM
Its better than going over the top, I guess. In a game like AC3, with all this action and explosions, it was probably the right move. I'm disappointed Lee didn't have a final death monologue like the other targets. Those are my favorite parts of the game.
I actually liked the subtlety of it all...Sharing a drink, pain, nodding, stab, silence....

Assassin_M
07-06-2013, 06:34 AM
To be honest, I didn't find AC III`s ending as deep as TLoU`s. Sure, AC III had its moments, but it didn't linger in my mind for days like TLoU`s. I grasped AC III pretty quickly and my brain just shaped it all. Connor, his struggle, his intentions, his actions, his mentality right after the game ended.

now, I had to sit down alone for about 20 minutes to think about the last of us. It wasn't an open end, but it felt like one and at the same time it was eerily satisfying, it doesn't quite cross the line between a happy ending and depressing ending, but it hits something else. I don`t know if it was the ambiguity, but it was certainly thought provoking and it kept me busy for days

AC2_alex
07-06-2013, 06:53 AM
To be honest, I didn't find AC III`s ending as deep as TLoU`s. Sure, AC III had its moments, but it didn't linger in my mind for days like TLoU`s. I grasped AC III pretty quickly and my brain just shaped it all. Connor, his struggle, his intentions, his actions, his mentality right after the game ended.

now, I had to sit down alone for about 20 minutes to think about the last of us. It wasn't an open end, but it felt like one and at the same time it was eerily satisfying, it doesn't quite cross the line between a happy ending and depressing ending, but it hits something else. I don`t know if it was the ambiguity, but it was certainly thought provoking and it kept me busy for days

***************SPOILERS*****************SPOILERS** *********************SPOILERS****************SPOIL ERS***********************SPOILERS**************** ***

What's so brilliant is that you realize that Joel is an absolute monster. I mean, a homicidal sociopath with selfish motives. At the same time though, he's doing it all out of desperation for companionship. At the end of the winter story arc, where Ellie smashes that guy's face in with a machete, and she just starts crying and Joel embraces her and goes "It's ok, baby girl." Just like he did with Sarah... so ****in poignant man.

I-Like-Pie45
07-06-2013, 07:09 AM
SPOILERS
if
you
read
at
own
discretion
and
still
complain
i
may
have
spoiled
you
quit
crying

There's a series of parallels and contrasts between Joel and Connor that I have noted.

Both are deadly serious most of the time, never cracking jokes like their predecessors (Nathan Drake and Ezio), and many of the emotions are displayed subtly.
Both have had their character shaped by loss of important people to them - Joel loses his daughter and Tess and Connor loses his mother plus Best Friend Guy and you see that afterwards they are severely affected.
They both have strained relations with their remaining family, although Joel's relationship with Tommy isn't as "unique" as Haytham and Connor was.
Animals are their friends - Joel with the giraffe and Connor with doggies plus his spirit wolves in ToKW. And of course ****ing horses
They both end up getting Nolan North killed in some way indirectly. Joel gets injured which forces Elile to drag him to the Lakeside Resort where she embarks on a hunt to find supplies to nurture him which causes the chains of events where she meets David and eventually machetes the pedophilie cannibal christian freak. And Connor shows Desmond how to open the deus ex door where he has to touch the deus ex switch and die.
They are manipulated by some woman with ulterior motives

the contrasts that separate them

Joel sacrifices the theoretical greater good (a vaccine for the infection, but let's be honest: if the Fireflies did succeed in making one they would've just used it as leverage) so he can fulfill his relationship with Ellie, whereas Connor sacrificed his personal goals (revenge on Washington for killing his mother, an alliance with his father, and the safety of his village) for the greater good - the colonist's freedom and the victory of the Assassin Order over the Templars.
Joel also possesses a brutality more in line with Haytham than Connor - like the scene where he like strangles and machetes the prisoner cannibals after interrogating them. Not to mention his apathy that allowed him to survive twenty years of post-apocalpse.
all the colored folk 'round Joel die, but only one 'dem African folk die round Conna.

Assassin_M
07-06-2013, 07:18 AM
***************SPOILERS*****************SPOILERS** *********************SPOILERS****************SPOIL ERS***********************SPOILERS**************** ***

What's so brilliant is that you realize that Joel is an absolute monster. I mean, a homicidal sociopath with selfish motives. At the same time though, he's doing it all out of desperation for companionship. At the end of the winter story arc, where Ellie smashes that guy's face in with a machete, and she just starts crying and Joel embraces her and goes "It's ok, baby girl." Just like he did with Sarah... so ****in poignant man.
don`t worry, the title`s already been updated for spoilers...

I didn't see Joel as a monster at all, the moment for me was the killing of David and Ellie just breaking down in Joel`s arms too and before that at the ranch when Ellie admits to Joel that she feels safe with no one but him and Joel just trying to let go of her simply because he knows that he may fail again....just like how he felt when Sarah dies..he doesn't want to feel the pain of all this again and the thing is...he never really failed with Sarah..he outlasted the infected, carried her to safety and everything was going to be fine....Sarah was taken IN SPITE of everything he did. She wasn't torn to bits, she wasn't turned, no, she was killed by a fully functional human being acting on the order of another human being working to sacrifice the few to save the many.

He lost his daughter so that others can survive, the soldier acted this way so that he can ensure the safety of those inside the perimeter of the city. He lost her to the whims of someone else. I believe that if it wasn't for Tommy, whom Joel probably had to protect during the first days, Joel would`v just ended it all then and there, when Tommy left him, he found Tess (who sacrificed herself to the whims of another man) the world was cruel to Joel...humanity was cruel. it crossed a line and I felt like Joel didn't owe it anything.

Ellie saves his life TWICE. she could`v just left him to die when he was impaled, but she stuck with him till the end, she kept him safe and nursed him back to health. I was Joel at that moment and I felt everything he felt. I wasn't ready to let my surrogate daughter be taken away for a chance at a vaccine...to the whims of another...to save the many. I didn't see hope. the fireflies?? a bunch of thugs who made it worse for the people living in the QZs. didn't you see Pittsburgh and the hunters?? just one of the fireflies` handy dandy work. only hope I saw was Tommy`s dam. "Remember when we thought no one can live like this anymore?? well, we did it" -Tommy.

arguably, the ONLY good guy in the game. Tommy was a part of them fireflies and he leaves them. why is that?? because they`re a bunch of idiots...that`s why. butt rifling a man trying to revive a girl?? because **** logic

Was rooting for Joel the whole way.....Stabbed the surgeon in the throat too...regretted nothing.

AC2_alex
07-06-2013, 07:47 AM
don`t worry, the title`s already been updated for spoilers...

I didn't see Joel as a monster at all, the moment for me was the killing of David and Ellie just breaking down in Joel`s arms too and before that at the ranch when Ellie admits to Joel that she feels safe with no one but him and Joel just trying to let go of her simply because he knows that he may fail again....just like how he felt when Sarah dies..he doesn't want to feel the pain of all this again and the thing is...he never really failed with Sarah..he outlasted the infected, carried her to safety and everything was going to be fine....Sarah was taken IN SPITE of everything he did. She wasn't torn to bits, she wasn't turned, no, she was killed by a fully functional human being acting on the order of another human being working to sacrifice the few to save the many.

He lost his daughter so that others can survive, the soldier acted this way so that he can ensure the safety of those inside the perimeter of the city. He lost her to the whims of someone else. I believe that if it wasn't for Tommy, whom Joel probably had to protect during the first days, Joel would`v just ended it all then and there, when Tommy left him, he found Tess (who sacrificed herself to the whims of another man) the world was cruel to Joel...humanity was cruel. it crossed a line and I felt like Joel didn't owe it anything.

Ellie saves his life TWICE. she could`v just left him to die when he was impaled, but she stuck with him till the end, she kept him safe and nursed him back to health. I was Joel at that moment and I felt everything he felt. I wasn't ready to let my surrogate daughter be taken away for a chance at a vaccine...to the whims of another...to save the many. I didn't see hope. the fireflies?? a bunch of thugs who made it worse for the people living in the QZs. didn't you see Pittsburgh and the hunters?? just one of the fireflies` handy dandy work. only hope I saw was Tommy`s dam. "Remember when we thought no one can live like this anymore?? well, we did it" -Tommy.

arguably, the ONLY good guy in the game. Tommy was a part of them fireflies and he leaves them. why is that?? because they`re a bunch of idiots...that`s why. butt rifling a man trying to revive a girl?? because **** logic

Was rooting for Joel the whole way.....Stabbed the surgeon in the throat too...regretted nothing.

Oh yeah, no doubt. I didn't trust the fire flies either. Its all a matter of perspective, really. In this state of society, everyone sees themselves as being in the right, and everyone sees everyone else as the villains.

But that line David had with Ellie where he's like "There was this crazy man killing everyone and he was protecting a little girl," really makes me realize that there is no right or wrong at this point. Just survival.

avk111
07-06-2013, 02:03 PM
This is pretty much how I see AC3's ending. Not in the sense that Connor has lost his morality or anything, just that he seems to have no other reason for hunting Charles than his own bitterness. He knew Charles wasn't responsible for the destruction of his village. Ultimately Charles wasn't even that bad as a Templar compared to the others, whom we clearly saw committing atrocities (killing natives etc.). As far as I can remember, Charles' only real crime was plotting to kill Washington, the man (spoilers) ultimately responsible for burning down Connor's village. Charles was in a pretty pathetic state after Haytham's death. Maybe he would have continued being a threat, but I doubt it. Connor only killed him because he had dedicated too many years obsessing over this target specifically. He couldn't let it go even after he found out the truth. That's one aspect I appreciate in his character, one that makes him less than perfect. He claims to fight for justice and truth, but in the end his real motivation for killing Charles is his own selfish obsession.


I beg to differ,

reason Connor was obsessive about hunting down Lee was his position in terms of Politics, If the templars won the leadership of the colonies and Charles Lee was to be elected as grand master , he would be a ruthless tyrant. evident by his early experience when he first came upon Lee as a kid.

In addition, the other twisted plots Lee put to insure his leadership, -blaming Connor during his incarceration - Twisting tales against him to his tribe - and ofcourse his threat message "I will burn everything dear to you, your village , your assassins , and your homestead"

Why do you think Connor and Haytham came at a differential point and it was because Connor wanted Lee to be put out however Haytham insisted that Lee is a good leader to lead the country.

avk111
07-06-2013, 02:08 PM
As for Achilles... since when does Connor obey everything he says? He's the one who told him that fighting the Revolution was a stupid, doomed idea. Honoring Achilles' wish works better as a motive if you chase Lee after the funeral where he says "I'll make you proud," but you can't rely on a well-timed side mission to complete the ending.

*Cough Cough* I think you may have gotten it wrong, Achillies was the one who inspired Connor to fight for the Colonists and Patriots not deem it unworthy, his only contemplation was that dont expect alot of your work as an Assassin.

pacmanate
07-06-2013, 02:08 PM
Please no one ever compare AC3 to the Last of Us ever again unless you say how The Last of Us owns it.

avk111
07-06-2013, 02:13 PM
Please no one ever compare AC3 to the Last of Us ever again unless you say how The Last of Us owns it.

Different strokes for different folks ... Cant compare Oranges and Apples now can you :)

cmrggamer
07-06-2013, 02:15 PM
::::SPOILER ALERT, JUST IN CASE:::::
I think the ending of TLOU is deeper and causes more mulling over for several reasons. The first reason is that the story is told through its characters. The story doesn't really have much of a plot, if you think about it, and the story is propelled by its characters. Being able to tell a story through characters is something really good writers can do. In that light, this story was about the relationship between two people, and what makes it unique is that they're not related. This is something everyone can relate to because it's really about earning trust.
Another reason the ending is so significant is because of the way the story causes people to kind of question their morality. I've seen several people complain about how they didn't have a choice with the doctors, but isn't that the point? To show Joel's desperation. To Joel, there is no other choice.
But it's the ambiguity that I think tops it off. Because for the whole story you have seen this building up of trust for Joel and Ellie, and the willingness to put everything on the line for each other, so when we see just a sliver of doubt in Ellie and the way she accepts what Joel tells her I think the player hates it for not being the complete truth but at the same time knows that they would have done the same thing (or at least, I'm sure that's what the devs hope people felt). I have also heard that there were some documents that actually sort of gave weight to what Joel said, but I have only watched the game (and I won't get to play it until I see my friend who has a PS3 in the spring next year :( ). It's also powerful because while Joel made that selfish decision to take Ellie back with him, he also is going to hold the weight of what he told Ellie on shoulders forever, really.

AC3's ending actually made me think over a few days, too. But it's very different from TLOU. I would say, while the story in AC does focus on the character, it doesn't seem so much to be them propelling the story, if that makes sense. The AC stories deal with morality in a more philosophical light rather than personal, in my opinion. The ending of AC3 wasn't really made to make us ponder, I think it was more to set up the next game (with Juno's release and everything).

avk111
07-06-2013, 02:23 PM
Trying to discuss this topic without looking at TLOU spoilers is becoming like platform games lol any chance you guys can mark the spoilers please
:P

SixKeys
07-06-2013, 04:49 PM
Without spoiling anything, the ending to TLoU is the first time a video game has made me think deeply for days on end.

pacmanate
07-06-2013, 05:12 PM
Without spoiling anything, the ending to TLoU is the first time a video game has made me think deeply for days on end.

The Last of Us is the only game that made me think. Period.

Assassin_M
07-06-2013, 05:13 PM
Without spoiling anything, the ending to TLoU is the first time a video game has made me think deeply for days on end.
this

LoyalACFan
07-06-2013, 07:02 PM
I think the ending of TLOU is deeper and causes more mulling over for several reasons


To be honest, I didn't find AC III`s ending as deep as TLoU`s.


Please no one ever compare AC3 to the Last of Us ever again unless you say how The Last of Us owns it.

My thread has been misinterpreted :I

I never suggested that AC3's ending is anywhere near as good as TLOU's, just that TLOU's ending made me reevaluate AC3's and judge it a little more favorably.

AC2_alex
07-06-2013, 07:38 PM
Without spoiling anything, the ending to TLoU is the first time a video game has made me think deeply for days on end.

So did Infinite, but certainly not to the extent of TLoU.

Assassin_M
07-07-2013, 03:25 AM
My thread has been misinterpreted :I

I never suggested that AC3's ending is anywhere near as good as TLOU's, just that TLOU's ending made me reevaluate AC3's and judge it a little more favorably.
I think you misunderstood what i`m saying. I never said you suggested that AC III was as deep as TLoU, i was just saying how I felt about both endings..

I-Like-Pie45
07-07-2013, 03:29 AM
Hey M

what do you think about my Connor-Joel comparison.

Assassin_M
07-07-2013, 03:35 AM
Hey M

what do you think about my Connor-Joel comparison.
It`s pretty hard to think of the similarities between the two when the difference between them is as large as it is. one aspires to be a selfless hero and eventually becomes one and the other never wanted to be a hero; nonetheless, I thought you adding Haytham to the fold managed to balance it better and make the similarities of Connor and Joel more apparent.

Connor is as ruthless as Joel, but lacks the cold blood his father obtains when he`s older. they both find outlets for their anger or sorrows that are very justified and understandable...

You adding Haytham to the comparison made me see it your way better...

cmrggamer
07-07-2013, 03:43 AM
My thread has been misinterpreted :I

I never suggested that AC3's ending is anywhere near as good as TLOU's, just that TLOU's ending made me reevaluate AC3's and judge it a little more favorably.

Sorry about that, I was simply just going off the conversation that had developed!

avk111
07-07-2013, 08:17 AM
You punks,

I havent added TLOU to my collection yet and I feel left out . Im going to be sending my band of Assassins to take care of you while sleeping :P

After I add it to the collection Ill get back to you and give you a "piece of my mind"

Assassin_M
07-07-2013, 08:20 AM
You punks,

I havent added TLOU to my collection yet and I feel left out . Im going to be sending my band of Assassins to take care of you while sleeping :P

After I add it to the collection Ill get back to you and give you a "piece of my mind"
We are laughing at your misfortune..ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha ..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha.. ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha

avk111
07-07-2013, 09:50 AM
We are laughing at your misfortune..ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha ..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha.. ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha.ha..ha...ha

Said Rober De Sable to Al Mualim . :)

pacmanate
07-07-2013, 12:11 PM
Hey M

what do you think about my Connor-Joel comparison.

Well.

Connor and Joel to me are nothing alike. Yes both people have lost someone, but Connors story is about Freedom and Revenge whereas Joels story is just about delivering a package (Ellie). They both have very different motives and I cant see any similarities in character at all. Connor just lives with anger and dishes it out in fights as an outlet, yet Joel copes with loss by moving on and forgetting. Yes Joel is ruthless, but he has to be, his reason is survival.