PDA

View Full Version : The assassin's part in history is getting less and less plausible...



killzab
10-05-2013, 02:51 PM
The point of previous AC games was to explore dark and shady parts of history and explain them via the actions of the assassins. And it worked formidably well with Altair and Ezio as they always kept kind of a low profile. But with Connor, it just got ridiculous. The american revolution is so well documented that it's just not credible anymore that a hooded native american would've almost single handedly won the Concord battle for example.

They should've sticked to maybe ONE historical character ( George Washington) and have him not mention Connor in history books because he's revealed to be kind of a bastard.

Events like Bunker Hill could've been present but with Connor just observing and/or just killing Pitcairn without first talking to Putnam etc.

And the same seems to happen in Black Flag, we know lots of things about Black Beard and other notorious pirates, but Edward who apparently becomes one if not THE most feared and powerful pirate in the Carribeans was never mentioned in any books ???

Hans684
10-05-2013, 03:37 PM
The point of previous AC games was to explore dark and shady parts of history and explain them via the actions of the assassins. And it worked formidably well with Altair and Ezio as they always kept kind of a low profile. But with Connor, it just got ridiculous. The american revolution is so well documented that it's just not credible anymore that a hooded native american would've almost single handedly won the Concord battle for example.

They should've sticked to maybe ONE historical character ( George Washington) and have him not mention Connor in history books because he's revealed to be kind of a bastard.

Events like Bunker Hill could've been present but with Connor just observing and/or just killing Pitcairn without first talking to Putnam etc.

And the same seems to happen in Black Flag, we know lots of things about Black Beard and other notorious pirates, but Edward who apparently becomes one if not THE most feared and powerful pirate in the Carribeans was never mentioned in any books ???

Firtly it's your opinion not a fact(no saying you stated that either but you gett the point), secondly Ezio is just as much a 'history changer' than Connor and as him he had more than ONE historical person as an ally. Ezio hunted down the Borgia family single handenly yet he is not mention in history books??? Stop complain for the sake of complaing, this series IS based on history so we are going to chape most events directly or indirectly no matter time period or the aprotch the assassin takes.

silvermercy
10-05-2013, 03:43 PM
I don't understand why in most of your posts you are complaining about something... :/

But to answer the question, no, I don't think it gets less and less plausible. The game story may be based on historical events but it's still FICTION for goodness sake!

(Also, Animus? Super-advanced ancient technology? Are these not historically implausible?)

adventurewomen
10-05-2013, 03:45 PM
SMH.. To the OP I highly disagree with you and your posts are all the same, quit complianing for once! Please!

**** just got real!!


I don't understand why in most of your posts you are complaining about something... :/

But to answer the question, no, I don't think it gets less and less plausible. The game story may be based on historical evens but it's still FICTION for goodness sake!

(Also, Animus? Super-advanced ancient technology? Are these not historically implausible?)
AGREED! Damn right you tell 'em girl!

Azurefeatherfly
10-05-2013, 03:47 PM
You ignored the context of that "well documented history" presented in the game. That history is handed out on a platter by Abstergo and the Templars. If the real governments can brainwash people on the Gulf of Tonkin and WMD Iraq, then Templars would certainly have the resources to do the same with all of history when they rule the world.

Within the context of the Assassin's Creed Universe, recorded history is fabrication based off of true animus history. Of course, outside the game we know that Animus history is written fiction based on the real history.

killzab
10-05-2013, 03:48 PM
I don't understand why in most of your posts you are complaining about something... :/

But to answer the question, no, I don't think it gets less and less plausible. The game story may be based on historical events but it's still FICTION for goodness sake!

(Also, Animus? Super-advanced ancient technology? Are these not historically implausible?)


Because I'm not a fan of the direction the series has been going lately.

killzab
10-05-2013, 03:50 PM
SMH.. To the OP I highly disagree with you and your posts are all the same, quit complianing for once! Please!

**** just got real!!


AGREED! Damn right you tell 'em girl!


Well, I don't really care if you think I complain too much, don't read my replies and threads.

adventurewomen
10-05-2013, 03:53 PM
Well, I don't really care if you think I complain too much, don't read my replies and threads.
Like Hans in this thread said your opinions aren't facts.

TheHumanTowel
10-05-2013, 03:54 PM
I do agree it's become less plausible as the series has gone on. Since Brotherhood really when it started to seem like Ezio was this well known figure. In ACR the heralds are out shouting about how "Ezio Auditore the assassin is banned from the city!" It just didn't feel like it fit with the description that Ezio "dropped out of history" we got in AC2. And yeah some of the stuff Connor did going completely unnoticed is stupid. Like really no one ever mentioned Samuel Adams bringing this random Native American to congress meetings or this same Native American being present at the signing of the Declaration of Independance?

The whole "they destroyed the records" excuse can only go so far.

killzab
10-05-2013, 03:57 PM
Like Hans in this thread said your opinions aren't facts.

Did I EVER say they were ? but don't complain about me posting on these forums, please.

If it bothers you, don't comment and just participate in threads that you actually find interesting.

You didn' even talk about the topic, you just said " oh it's you complaining again " etc. So it's useless.

Hans684
10-05-2013, 04:01 PM
Did I EVER say they were ? but don't complain about me posting on these forums, please.

If it bothers you, don't comment and just participate in threads that you actually find interesting.

You didn' even talk about the topic, you just said " oh it's you complaining again " etc. So it's useless.

Read the begging of my post and looks like you where surprised when he said that, so going by that i would say you ignored my post. Something i expected becouse of your opinion on what AC is.

ze_topazio
10-05-2013, 04:01 PM
It has been explained before that Assassins and Templars change history books and official documents to hide their presence.

Rugterwyper32
10-05-2013, 04:10 PM
While a big part of the series is based back on what Vidic said about the truth of history being different from what you see in books back in AC1, admittedly, the series has gone a little too far with that (Revelations and 3 being the biggest offenders). I mean, the whole "Ezio uses a parachute all over Istambul and then chases the son of the sultan hanging on a cart with a parachute" is a little ridiculous, wouldn't you agree?

AC4 seems to be heading in a good direction, using a historic era in which the records of Edward could easily be lost among the ones of other pirates and documentation isn't as complete as the American Revolution, for instance. Getting to meet historical characters is cool, but it should be kept within reason and it should be historical characters who end up being very much relevant to the overall storyline. AC1 did that the best, in my opinion: You got to meet big historical characters (Garnier, William de Montferrat, Robert de Sable, King Richard. Heck, your mentor Al Mualim was a historical figure) a few characters based on historical figures and some full on fictional. A good balance. And the circumstances for the historic ones are changed (Garnier should've been with Robert and King Richard if the game aimed for 100% accuracy, but they played around) so there's that.
I still think AC3 could have done with less "HEY LOOK BEN FRANKLIN HEY LOOK YOU'RE BEST BUDS WITH WASHINGTON" and kept a smaller cast that you could feel were more important. Sam Adams kinda disappears some time into the story, for instance, what if he had been a game-long contact, rather? Instead of Paul Revere asking you to join him, Sam being the one asking you for stuff and maybe having a lot more of development between him and Connor. They wanted Putnam? Make him more prevalent and make him have a meaningful connection to Connor. Things like that. But don't just shove all this historical characters because "hey look CAN YOU TOUCH HISTORY". I feel that ended up being a problem, combined with the gump factor.

AssassinHMS
10-05-2013, 04:14 PM
I agree with the OP. AC3 was all about sending Connor to the middle of every battle just because: explosions and history.
The thing is, after AC1, assassin's creed became less and less about the low profile assassin who works in the shadows to serve the light and more about the one man army guy who kills everyone with a huge arsenal of useless weapons.

Hans684
10-05-2013, 04:27 PM
I agree with the OP. AC3 was all about sending Connor to the middle of every battle just because: explosions and history.
The thing is, after AC1, assassin's creed became less and less about the low profile assassin who works in the shadows to serve the light and more about the one man army guy who kills everyone with a huge arsenal of useless weapons.

Well there was historical people that died in battles so having Pitcarn as assassination target made sence, and we have been an one man army since AC1.

AssassinHMS
10-05-2013, 05:17 PM
Well there was historical people that died in battles so having Pitcarn as assassination target made sence

Sure. But why did Connor had to traverse the battleground? An assassin would have investigated an alternative (safer) route and avoided the soldiers. Connor, the immortal one, just went head on like a...suicidal maniac.



and we have been an one man army since AC1.

I never said Altair wasn't a little overpowered in AC1, but combat was actually harder, specially against templars. I mean, who didn't have trouble in that mission in the graveyard were altair fought Maria?
In AC1 it was much easier to assassinate by being stealthy unlike later games where it's easier to just kill everyone instead of dealing with super sensitive enemies or bad implemented stealth.

AC1 was about pulling off quiet and swift assassinations that the player could plan and choose how to complete. It was about being a blade in the crowd and keeping a low profile (even in free roam). It encouraged the player to use stealth and act carefully because fighting more than 5 enemies at once was more difficult than it's rewarding or enjoyable and could alert the assassination target (during a mission).

AC3 rewards those who kill everyone and punishes those who try to be stealthy and kill as less as possible. Not to mention later games are full of action stunts and huge battles where the only quality (or should I say super power) needed for an assassin is to be able to fight a hundred men.
So yeah, AC is more and more about being an one man army.

STDlyMcStudpants
10-05-2013, 05:55 PM
The point of previous AC games was to explore dark and shady parts of history and explain them via the actions of the assassins. And it worked formidably well with Altair and Ezio as they always kept kind of a low profile. But with Connor, it just got ridiculous. The american revolution is so well documented that it's just not credible anymore that a hooded native american would've almost single handedly won the Concord battle for example.

They should've sticked to maybe ONE historical character ( George Washington) and have him not mention Connor in history books because he's revealed to be kind of a bastard.

Events like Bunker Hill could've been present but with Connor just observing and/or just killing Pitcairn without first talking to Putnam etc.

And the same seems to happen in Black Flag, we know lots of things about Black Beard and other notorious pirates, but Edward who apparently becomes one if not THE most feared and powerful pirate in the Carribeans was never mentioned in any books ???
Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
This means that just because something is said, or written down and that the majority agree this is fact does not make it fact. Example The Earth is flat...this was "fact" for such a long time in history.
As far as occurrences, there is more than one side to every story..in fact there are almost endless sides to world history.
George Washington being a freemason is not taught in school..you have to dig to find this and then you have to wonder who's loose lips let this slip? and what if this person had been killed before he said anything..then we would not know. (Though I believe George was proud to be a mason and was the one that let the cat out of the bag by letting it be documented)
And do you honestly think everything we need to know in the history of this world was documented? Dark ages tell us no.

Even today in America we don't know what happened on 9/11, we can either speculate or believe what our corrupted government is telling us, but either way guess which story the history books will tell...
Do you honestly think it is 100% impossible for a native or a tribe to be heros of this war and were not given credit?
If you were to tell your story of triumph, trying to influence a new nation, persuade them to follow you, would you tell them "I am not fit, I had to be saved by natives." Or would you tell them "We did this together"..or possibly just keep it in secret.
I'm sure George Washington studied war, and knew which part of land you needed to control to win a war and you better believe he had natives by his side showing him their land and vantage points.

BUT I have to say, I would actually prefer and what I hoped for was Connor to be a hired arm..not an Army..
I wanted to sneak into forts and assassinate at night by surprise..dropping from trees and just destroying small groups of men at a time..
That's what I got from previews and trailers.
I didn't like the fact that we were perceived as the face of war...

Assassin_M
10-05-2013, 06:06 PM
Sure. But why did Connor had to traverse the battleground? An assassin would have investigated an alternative (safer) route and avoided the soldiers. Connor, the immortal one, just went head on like a...suicidal maniac.
If you think about it more, Connor's approach was the safest and least attention provoking approach. think about it...what better hiding cloak to approach without raising awareness in the battlefield than the battle itself? look at the terrain of the place...what's the other option of approach to you?


I mean, who didn't have trouble in that mission in the graveyard were altair fought Maria?
I didn't...combat in AC I was always the better and quicker choice than the careful and patient approach of stealth, so....no

that said, I actually agree with the OP a bit. the greatest offenders to this were ACB and ACR imo (which portrayed a gang-esque presence of the Assassins. town criers knew the organization by NAME for heaven's sake)...AC II, AC I and AC III all had the best context with the Assassin involvement. The Assassin presence or lack thereof was what's shown in history. The assassins in AC I were just as they were in History. a powerful, imposing presence in the holy land. in AC II they were integrated into society's underground...secret..no one knows what those people do and then it's the same with AC III, influencing events from behind the scenes and making allies...the "direction", though..that OP is talking about which claims that this was started after AC II is incorrect...Pazzi conspiracy? a dashing, hooded man coming to the save of the city's ruler and no one said anything about it? thaaaaaat's right, we have to assume there was an off-screen agreement to keep the main Assassins' involvement a secret.

I agree that AC III should'v toned it down...we were meeting people EVERYWHERE for no reason at all, it would'v been a lot more meaningful if the Assassin allies were specific people....not entire groups of everybody...Sam Adams, Putnam and ONE more person would have sufficed...building the relationship between those 3 and Connor would'v been amazing, instead of spreading it out like that...it was a mess

Lowly Assassin
10-05-2013, 06:09 PM
The point of previous AC games was to explore dark and shady parts of history and explain them via the actions of the assassins. And it worked formidably well with Altair and Ezio as they always kept kind of a low profile. But with Connor, it just got ridiculous. The american revolution is so well documented that it's just not credible anymore that a hooded native american would've almost single handedly won the Concord battle for example.

They should've sticked to maybe ONE historical character ( George Washington) and have him not mention Connor in history books because he's revealed to be kind of a bastard.

Events like Bunker Hill could've been present but with Connor just observing and/or just killing Pitcairn without first talking to Putnam etc.

And the same seems to happen in Black Flag, we know lots of things about Black Beard and other notorious pirates, but Edward who apparently becomes one if not THE most feared and powerful pirate in the Carribeans was never mentioned in any books ???

i agree with the opening of your statement, less so with the title, and even less so with te tail end of your statement
there was not a single reason that assassins creed was created
tehre where many, i shall list some:
to create a new franchize that ubisoft can profit from
to gve teh prince of persia crews something to do inbetween prince of persia titles
to create a sandbox open world environment
to showcase what ubisoft can do
to make us question the "truth" and to question "what is truth"
among many other things, i personlally have ne

i have attempted research of the golden age of piracy, there are conflicting views of a lot of the "known facts" of that period in time, and although the american revolution era may be well documented, a major part (not the whole part but a large slice) of the franchize, is that history is written by the victors, and to them the spoils, i hate to bring up the Hitler arguement so soon in a thread but; every story has too sides, have you ever hit someone? or hurt or nudged someone accidentally when you didn't think you done it that hard, yet the receiver of the blow is adamant that you done it intentionally with full force
have you ever wtnessed a rumour spread, and known how much the new story differs from the source or even how much your own eye mitness experience can differ from the person standing next to you in the exact same event?

to me this is a huge part of what the franchize stands for, and the whole oh its set in the past present and future is just the medium in which they use to tell the story and nusge us on the path of discovery and "railed" thought

another huge part is the link between the creation stories of the world and the "Those Who Came Before" but that is irrelevant in this debate so i wont talk any further on it

STDlyMcStudpants
10-05-2013, 06:10 PM
And as far as not written in books, of course these protagonists are fictional, but we don't see Ezio in history books getting credit for Assassinating all of these massively large figures in history..We just know that they were indeed Assassinated or died mysteriously.
And I have to say I'd much rather they stick to filling in the gaps of mystery thanjust throwing a character into documented history like they did with Connor and seem to be doing with Edward..
BUT the creed is just as secretive as the Templar.
The Knights Templar were supposedly disbanded and executed in the early 1300s, YET we are finding Templar looking chambers and church buildings in America dating pre Columbia about the time they were disbanded.
makes you wonder..were they disbanded or did they leave and or go into secrecy?
You can kill a "title" but not an ideology.
I believe the templar eventually became the Freemasons and that George Washington was a Templar :O

And again...the Templar hardly show in in history books but have a massive presence even today....

Hans684
10-05-2013, 06:16 PM
Sure. But why did Connor had to traverse the battleground? An assassin would have investigated an alternative (safer) route and avoided the soldiers. Connor, the immortal one, just went head on like a...suicidal maniac.




I never said Altair wasn't a little overpowered in AC1, but combat was actually harder, specially against templars. I mean, who didn't have trouble in that mission in the graveyard were altair fought Maria?
In AC1 it was much easier to assassinate by being stealthy unlike later games where it's easier to just kill everyone instead of dealing with super sensitive enemies or bad implemented stealth.

AC1 was about pulling off quiet and swift assassinations that the player could plan and choose how to complete. It was about being a blade in the crowd and keeping a low profile (even in free roam). It encouraged the player to use stealth and act carefully because fighting more than 5 enemies at once was more difficult than it's rewarding or enjoyable and could alert the assassination target (during a mission).

AC3 rewards those who kill everyone and punishes those who try to be stealthy and kill as less as possible. Not to mention later games are full of action stunts and huge battles where the only quality (or should I say super power) needed for an assassin is to be able to fight a hundred men.
So yeah, AC is more and more about being an one man army.

"But why did Connor had to traverse the battleground? An assassin would have investigated an alternative (safer) route and avoided the soldiers. Connor, the immortal one, just went head on like a...suicidal maniac."

:/ it's like saying it's suicide to even be in the battle. Also the Devs of AC3 said that Connor is a very direct assassin, sure they could have made the mission 'safer' but it was still a battle. All Connor did was take advantage of the chaos and sliped trough it the battle then stealthy assassinating Pitarn.

"I never said Altair wasn't a little overpowered in AC1, but combat was actually harder, specially against templars. I mean, who didn't have trouble in that mission in the graveyard were altair fought Maria?
In AC1 it was much easier to assassinate by being stealthy unlike later games where it's easier to just kill everyone instead of dealing with super sensitive enemies or bad implemented stealth."

I know you never did but he still is, yes the combat was 'harder' but still very easy. I didn't have trouble in the mission where you fight Maria, when the fight start i always move in a position what makes the achers hit all the others. I have been using 'human shields' since AC1.
There is the problem people choose the easy way, in AC1 it is easy do do stealth so most people go the stealth path but when killing is easy then they kill everyone instead, then cry and complain becouse they did not try to challenge them selfs with finding a stealth path. They do what h game say is easy and not think for them self.

"AC1 was about pulling off quiet and swift assassinations that the player could plan and choose how to complete. It was about being a blade in the crowd and keeping a low profile (even in free roam). It encouraged the player to use stealth and act carefully because fighting more than 5 enemies at once was more difficult than it's rewarding or enjoyable and could alert the assassination target (during a mission)"

No not totally correct, it was about allowing you to do it your way. Kill everyone or stealth, like a historical version of Hitman. It encouraged stealth but allowed you do kill everyone in the assassination missions. If full stealth is enjoyable for you then do that but ome enjoy some fights to. I'm a stealth person Hitman, Splinter Cell, Dishonored, Thief e.c.t but the games should allow more than only stealth.

"AC3 rewards those who kill everyone and punishes those who try to be stealthy and kill as less as possible. Not to mention later games are full of action stunts and huge battles where the only quality (or should I say super power) needed for an assassin is to be able to fight a hundred men.
So yeah, AC is more and more about being an one man army"

The time period, writhers and Devs desides what time period and the possibility paths you can take to gett to your target. AC had never been stealth only so the action stunts is nothing new and the time periods they choose desides if the assassin is going to go to a battle to assassinate the templar(including if some one like Pitcarn died in one) or should they ignore every battle in history? This series IS based on history therefore we are going to go some battles. They shouldt restrict themselves becouse some fans claim it does not 'suite' AC. History is there playground so why limit themeselves? AC also has to adopt to the time period they choose, it's like having a game in The Golden Age of Piracy and only having you play on land. And we have been a one man army from the begging.

ArabianFrost
10-05-2013, 06:20 PM
I do have my questions about how they hid seemingly conspicuous matters before, but the thing that bugs me.the most is Edward's cover. You'd the the man Blackbeard said is the fiercest dog in the west Indies would at least leave some sort of legend or myth behind him. I'd really like to see if they try and explain how one of the most notorious pirates ever just simply disappeared, or at least worked under an alias or something, but they need to explain it.

Jexx21
10-05-2013, 06:24 PM
Actually the game doesn't reward you with killing people and it doesn't punish you for trying to be stealthy. You never get less money or something for doing something stealthily or getting more money for killing people. Optional objectives had both stealth and combat objectives, and even then you weren't exactly rewarded for completing them, unless you count Connor's original native outfit as a true reward.

Also, the line is "We work in the dark, to serve the light," not the shadows, because Assassins don't exactly work in the shadows, they're more out in the open, blending with the crowd, and aiming to strike and that the Templars will know it was the Assassins. This line wasn't even introduced until AC2 or ACB though, so I don't get your point here.

Has anyone else thought of the situation with Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders and their storm up San Juan Hill? The great victory by Teddy Roosevelt that won him great fame? Oh, you mean that didn't actually happen? That the Rough Riders only took the smaller and less difficult hill, Kettle Hill? That the Buffalo Soldiers (then from the 10th and 25th infantries), black soldiers, actually did the bulk of the fighting on San Juan Hill led by Lieutenant Ord (not black), and they never really recieved recognition for it? In some history books today, it is still taught that it was Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders who stormed up San Juan Hill, or at least it was in the book I had for History class, and the only reason I know about this is because my teacher knew.

silvermercy
10-05-2013, 06:26 PM
I do have my questions about how they hid seemingly conspicuous matters before, but the thing that bugs me.the most is Edward's cover. You'd the the man Blackbeard said is the fiercest dog in the west Indies would at least leave some sort of legend or myth behind him. I'd really like to see if they try and explain how one of the most notorious pirates ever just simply disappeared, or at least worked under an alias or something, but they need to explain it.

Maybe they can explain it through a Templar cover-up conspiracy. He was deemed so dangerous he was erased from the history books.
(of course there's always word of mouth...)

Well, we can always blame the stupid guards. dem stoooopid. lol

ArabianFrost
10-05-2013, 06:29 PM
Maybe they can explain it through a Templar cover-up conspiracy. He was deemed so dangerous he was erased from the history books.
(of course there's always word of mouth...)

Well, we can always blame the stupid guards. dem stoooopid. lol
As I said, BlackBeard kept telling stories of Edward in taverns, so they could at least build Edward around an urban legend or myth, if not then it would really be implausible to "erase" someone becauae they're dangerous. Makes little sense.

Hans684
10-05-2013, 06:30 PM
Maybe they can explain it through a Templar cover-up conspiracy. He was deemed so dangerous he was erased from the history books.
(of course there's always word of mouth...)

Well, we can always blame the stupid guards. dem stoooopid. lol

Thay could have given that legend to Blackbeard either before his death or after without him knowing.

Jexx21
10-05-2013, 06:31 PM
I do have my questions about how they hid seemingly conspicuous matters before, but the thing that bugs me.the most is Edward's cover. You'd the the man Blackbeard said is the fiercest dog in the west Indies would at least leave some sort of legend or myth behind him. I'd really like to see if they try and explain how one of the most notorious pirates ever just simply disappeared, or at least worked under an alias or something, but they need to explain it.


Pirates didn't exactly keep records. Rather, it seems like it was only a few men who actually did. Edward could have possibly influenced these men.

Jexx21
10-05-2013, 06:32 PM
As I said, BlackBeard kept telling stories of Edward in taverns, so they could at least build Edward around an urban legend or myth, if not then it would really be implausible to "erase" someone becauae they're dangerous. Makes little sense.

Pretty sure in that tavern scene Blackbeard was trying to convince people that Edward is someone you would want to be your captain, and that at the time, Edward was recruiting.

guardian_titan
10-05-2013, 06:34 PM
The winner decides history. Look at the American Revolution. If the Brits won, I very much doubt we'd know the Boston Massacre as a massacre today. Other events like the Boston Tea Party, etc would also likely have been called something else. Americans won so they decided what those events were called.

Templars often beat the Assassins into the ground and it's not unlikely Presidents Jackson, Van Buren, etc were Templars due to their treatment of Native Americans. It's possible Connor could've been in the history books and even mentioned in letters from people like George Washington to his wife or Sam Adams to his cousin John. But due to the treatment Native Americans got, and likely be extension Connor, in the first half of the 19th century, Connor's influence on history could've been eradicated by Templar historians. Templars are everywhere and have influence in every circle. Not much of a stretch that they can find most references to Connor and either remove them or change them.

We see eradication of various people in history often enough and only find bits and pieces of their life sometime later. Some remain a mystery on who they were and what influences they had. Others we eventually find a "holy grail" of sorts. Look at Tutankhamen. Poor guy was buried in a pauper's tomb not fit for a pharaoh, his sister/wife stolen out from under him by his own vizier and successor (Aye), and then his name wiped from the history books shortly after, possibly by Horemheb (Aye's successor). They went so far as to remove Tutankhamen and his father Akhenaten from the temple of Kharnak and the calendars which created a lot of issues when it came to calculating years since ancient Egyptians counted years based upon the reign of their pharaoh. Each new pharaoh started at year 1. By chance, archaeologists found bits and pieces of Akhenaten and Tutankhamen revealing they did exist, but it wasn't until Howard Carter actually found Tutankhamen that we actually could learn more about him. A few years ago, it was believed Akhenaten was found, too, but if I recall, the DNA test was inconclusive and could've been an older brother to Tutankhamen instead (Smenkare, if I recall correctly). Haven't seen anything on that story in recent years.

But basically, how do we know the Templars didn't do the same thing to Connor? We know Connor loses Davenport in the early 1800s. Things likely started to unravel rapidly for him at that point so it's possible by the American Civil War, Connor's name was possibly just an obscure mention in some random soldier's love letter to his girlfriend, and even then, he could've just been called the "Hooded Indian".

On another note, it is just a game. It's meant to entertain. It's nice that it has some historical accuracy with real people who many of us have heard of at one point or another, but like anything from books, movies, or games, I'd take how historically accurate it is with a grain of salt. It's called creative licensing. And as many gamers know, often gameplay trumps anything else. Look at the real death dates of everyone who Altair assassinated in AC1. Very inaccurate. AC2 and AC3 were closer to the real dates for assassination targets. I wouldn't take things so seriously. If you're unhappy with the game, there are other options out there. If you find yourself getting frustrated or angry at something, then it's time to walk away.

Gi1t
10-05-2013, 07:12 PM
This honestly strikes me as a relatively minor complaint. XD I don't think it's so much about the facts as it is about the feeling one gets from being involved in an event that seems to have enough grey areas to allow an Assassin to glide through unseen, as opposed to a famous historical moment with an Assassin shoehorned in.

BUT, I think the way to look at it is that there's a difference between history being well-documented and history being well-taught. Especially if you're an American, AC3 will seem pretty implausible since you've heard details about the Revolution all your life, pretty much, but the scenarios in other countries would seem a lot more likely since you haven't had the actual recorded events drilled into your head since preschool. But if you knew more about them, it wouldn't seem nearly as likely. So really, their historical accuracy hasn't been super focused even since the beginning. It's just that, based on where you live or based on the high-profile nature of some events, they may seem less likely because you know more of the actual history they were based on.

Anyway, as far as excuses go, the Templars' attemtps to hide the truth can definitely only go so far, but if it's true that Assassins also attempted to hide their presence in history then that's a much better explanation since there really wouldn't have been many people trying to work against that goal. It doesn't seem like the Templars were all that eager to make their involvement in history public either, so it's really not such a stupid excuse. It's still an excuse, but it works well enough for a series revolvig around magic artifacts. :D But I don't think it's too much to ask for them to at least keep it in the backs of their minds not to go totally over-the-top with the historical interference an make the Assassin in the game feel more like a time traveler than a hidden factor in history.

As for AC4, that's a tough one. It's true that it's an area where someone could vanish into history, but having Blackbeard personally say 'this guy's tougher than me' seems a little over-the-top. To me it seemed ovely convenient despite the fact that it's not really a matter of convenience for the writers it's just kind of...I guess predictable is the word I'm looking for. XD But Edward's story may also include some information about why his record was erased (he may have wanted to give up that life and had to erase his presence from history in order to do so, something like that) and if they do, even if it's kind of silly, it would still prove they're still thinking about the historical grey-zone.

Sushiglutton
10-05-2013, 07:27 PM
In principle I think the idea to be close to/take part in historical events and not just settings is good. I don't mind if it's not entirely plausible at times. But I think they should be careful adding very foreign gameplay systems to achieve this. Battle of Concord and Paul Rever are two obvious examples. There's just no way they can build an interesting strategy game in that short time and for just one mission. It's bound to be pretty silly/shallow/unengaging.

The Bunker Hill mission had the right approach though imo. Sneaking past enemy lines and assassinate the enemy leader is perfect for what AC does well. Also running through a bombarded city (even though actual parkour was not needed), sneaking aboard ships and climbing the mast. In this scenario the devs used a historical event as backdrop and were still able to build missions based on core mechanics for the franchise. This is good design imo. Another example was Boston Teaparty which was a combat mission with a slight twist.

In short I like to participate in historical events, as long as the missions are robust and not rely too much on auxiliary mechanics.

LieutenantRex
10-05-2013, 09:02 PM
I agree with you to an extent. The plausibility of historical awareness has gone down a lot. Demond's world is much like our world, only with a few more advancements in technology (Animus) and other world events that were thought to be possible in 2007 (Famine globally). AC3 has an overall Gumpy effect, which I didn't like. The American Revolution was well documented, and it would have been insane for Connor to have killed Pitcairn without people knowing, especially since Connor canonically killed Pitcairn through a one hit assassination, in front of a company of British regulars and marines. Thomas Hickey's death was in front of thousands of people, yet Connor was the one who they came to see die. They all just forgot about him once he broke loose?

Sure, you can say that people didn't want to tarnish their Revolution by basing a Native American as their cause for overall victory, but that's highly unlikely. With Ezio and Altair, there was an air of mystery. Records weren't as well kept back then, and Ubisoft could really use the tremendous amount of flexibility to work with assassinations and in-game universe accuracy.

Gi1t
10-05-2013, 09:16 PM
In principle I think the idea to be close to/take part in historical events and not just settings is good. I don't mind if it's not entirely plausible at times. But I think they should be careful adding very foreign gameplay systems to achieve this. Battle of Concord and Paul Rever are two obvious examples. There's just no way they can build an interesting strategy game in that short time and for just one mission. It's bound to be pretty silly/shallow/unengaging.

The Bunker Hill mission had the right approach though imo. Sneaking past enemy lines and assassinate the enemy leader is perfect for what AC does well. Also running through a bombarded city (even though actual parkour was not needed), sneaking aboard ships and climbing the mast. In this scenario the devs used a historical event as backdrop and were still able to build missions based on core mechanics for the franchise. This is good design imo. Another example was Boston Teaparty which was a combat mission with a slight twist.

In short I like to participate in historical events, as long as the missions are robust and not rely too much on auxiliary mechanics.

Kind of good game designing advice in general really. :D

Jexx21
10-05-2013, 09:28 PM
I agree with you to an extent. The plausibility of historical awareness has gone down a lot. Demond's world is much like our world, only with a few more advancements in technology (Animus) and other world events that were thought to be possible in 2007 (Famine globally). AC3 has an overall Gumpy effect, which I didn't like. The American Revolution was well documented, and it would have been insane for Connor to have killed Pitcairn without people knowing, especially since Connor canonically killed Pitcairn through a one hit assassination, in front of a company of British regulars and marines. Thomas Hickey's death was in front of thousands of people, yet Connor was the one who they came to see die. They all just forgot about him once he broke loose?

Sure, you can say that people didn't want to tarnish their Revolution by basing a Native American as their cause for overall victory, but that's highly unlikely. With Ezio and Altair, there was an air of mystery. Records weren't as well kept back then, and Ubisoft could really use the tremendous amount of flexibility to work with assassinations and in-game universe accuracy.


I bring up again Teddy Roosevelt and his charge on San Juan Hill in which he didn't actually do anything at San Juan Hill and a regiment of black troops actually charged San Juan Hill while Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders charged the smaller, less important, Kettle Hill.

killzab
10-06-2013, 12:38 AM
Wow ! I'm glad the thread evolved into an interesting and well argued conversation after the utter idiocy of the first posts ( except Hans'). Even if people don't exactly agree with what I say, I'm glad that they express their opinions with developed and constructive posts.

The point of my threads is to argue and discuss about various topics. Even if it sounds too "whiny" to some, I actually just want to bring up a new matter of discussion.

To clarify my position about the series.... I am a fan !!!

I love AC, I can't wait for Black Flag, I'm almost counting the hours until its release and hope it's the best in the series.

I was just so hyped for AC3 I almost couldn't sleep and well it didn't turn out so well. Not that it was bad by any means, I'd give it a 7/10 or 8/10 depending on my moon but I expected it to be a 9 or a 9.5 ... It just that I was "surprised" by its shortcomings because IMO the Ezio saga didn't suffer from them. And I took their qualities for granted !

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 12:48 AM
Wow ! I'm glad the thread evolved into an interesting and well argued conversation after the utter idiocy of the first posts ( except Hans'). Even if people don't exactly agree with what I say

So all of us who replied to you on the first page asking why ALL of your posts seem to always be complaining about something are idiots?
The fact that this evolved into an intelligent discussion is totally by chance!!! The tone of your original post, just like the rest, are usually extremely provoking! I'm not sure why you haven't realized that yet.

killzab
10-06-2013, 12:52 AM
So all of us who replied to you on the first page asking why ALL of your posts seem to always be complaining about something are idiots?
The fact that this evolved into an intelligent discussion is totally by chance!!! Your original post, just like the rest, are usually extremely provoking! I'm not sure why you haven't realized that yet.

Nope it's not provoking at all ! I'm just stating my opinion and try to give arguments and examples.

And I think pointing out faults is more interesting than drooling over Connor's cuteness or just saying a game is great. I mean yeah I could say "the free-running is awesome" but then what would there be to discuss ?

And it wasn't by chance, I just brought up an interesting topic about one of the recurring themes of the series.

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 12:55 AM
Nope it's not provoking at all ! I'm just stating my opinion and try to give arguments and examples.

And I think pointing out faults is more interesting than drooling over Connor's cuteness or just saying a game is great. I mean yeah I could say "the free-running is awesome" but then what would there be to discuss ?
Yes, it can be considered provoking. I'm talking about the TONE of your posts. You even called our posts idiotic ("utter idiocy") just because we challenged you! It's hypocritical of you to talk about developed and constructive posts now.

What are you talking about? What drooling? Why are you mentioning Connor and drooling in this thread? That's a great deflective argumentative tactic if I saw one.

killzab
10-06-2013, 01:04 AM
Yes, it can be considered provoking. I'm talking about the TONE of your posts. You even called our posts idiotic just because we challenged you!

What are you talking about? What drooling? Why are you mentioning Connor and drooling in this thread? That's a great deflective argumentative tactic if I saw one.

Assassin M is extremely provoking, moreso than I and still is one of the most active and important members of the forums.

You didn't challenge me, you just said you thought I was annoying for complaining too much, and so what ? Should I care ?

You didn't even comment on the topic at hand, hence the idiocy of your posts, that and the " yeah yeah go get him girl" or something alike that adventurewomen said, you know the Connor fangirl who can't even see something bad about AC3 when it's in her face and pretends to prefer terrible assassinations missions like they were in AC3 rather than the well fleshed-out ones in AC2.

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 01:05 AM
Assassin M is extremely provoking, moreso than I and still is one of the most active and important members of the forums.

You didn't challenge me, you just said you thought I was annoying for complaining too much, and so what ? Should I care ?

You didn't even comment on the topic at hand, hence the idiocy of your posts, that and the " yeah yeah go get him girl" or something alike that adventurewomen said, you know the Connor fangirl who can't even see something bad about AC3 when it's in her face and pretends to prefer terrible assassinations missions like they were in AC3 rather than the well fleshed-out ones in AC2.
Just quoting this for future reference. It will be needed. I won't even bother replying... wow...

Shahkulu101
10-06-2013, 01:08 AM
Everybody hates the Paul Revere mission, but they never mention that mission in brotherhood when Ezio disguised himself as a guard and had to find a way into the bankers party by listening to the other guards response as you played a guessing game as to where to go. " I hope they let us go inside." AH Shut UP!

ArabianFrost
10-06-2013, 01:09 AM
Assassin M is extremely provoking, moreso than I and still is one of the most active and important members of the forums.

You didn't challenge me, you just said you thought I was annoying for complaining too much, and so what ? Should I care ?

You didn't even comment on the topic at hand, hence the idiocy of your posts, that and the " yeah yeah go get him girl" or something alike that adventurewomen said, you know the Connor fangirl who can't even see something bad about AC3 when it's in her face and pretends to prefer terrible assassinations missions like they were in AC3 rather than the well fleshed-out ones in AC2.

Don't make this.personal. just drop it. While it may have been out of line for them.to call you out immediately without consideration of the discussion, you are horribly rude. Keep down your tone and stop harassing and insulting members.

adventurewomen
10-06-2013, 01:16 AM
Nope it's not provoking at all ! I'm just stating my opinion and try to give arguments and examples.

And I think pointing out faults is more interesting than drooling over Connor's cuteness or just saying a game is great. I mean yeah I could say "the free-running is awesome" but then what would there be to discuss ?

And it wasn't by chance, I just brought up an interesting topic about one of the recurring themes of the series.
All of your posts recently have been provoking and you're looking for reactions. This is exactly the reason why we are calling you out on your ish!

Seriously you need to check yourself.


Yes, it can be considered provoking. I'm talking about the TONE of your posts. You even called our posts idiotic ("utter idiocy") just because we challenged you! It's hypocritical of you to talk about developed and constructive posts now.

What are you talking about? What drooling? Why are you mentioning Connor and drooling in this thread? That's a great deflective argumentative tactic if I saw one.
Well said my friend! :)


Don't make this.personal. just drop it. While it may have been out of line for them.to call you out immediately without consideration of the discussion, you are horribly rude. Keep down your tone and stop harassing and insulting members.
THIS!! & Thanks my friend!

-----------------------

@Killzab: Stop your immaturity, and it's like you're over critical just stop it's getting to the point where you are being creepy.

killzab
10-06-2013, 01:19 AM
Don't make this.personal. just drop it. While it may have been out of line for them.to call you out immediately without consideration of the discussion, you are horribly rude. Keep down your tone and stop harassing and insulting members.

Really ?

I just want to discuss matters on the forums and I'm being criticized for just wanting to talk about things that I think SHOULD maybe be better. I just sort of apologized when saying that I'm an AC fan and don't really want to be rude but then silvermercy insists instead of letting go. I'm pissed off to say the least and just want to be able to express myself without being discouraged to do so and that's why I may have sounded insulting.

But if you find THIS insulting, well I'm glad for you that you don't live in France, because you guys would be crying everyday with people's attitude, I'm actually rather temperate compared to french standards.

So to end the argument, I'm sorry if I sounded rude to anyone but pretty please, let me discuss whatever I want to discuss and if you find me annoying, just ignore me.

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 01:22 AM
...don't really want to be rude but then silvermercy insists instead of letting go.
What!??? Are you for real now??!? You basically call us IDIOTS and you expect us not to respond to that!???????

You should learn to express yourself WITHOUT insulting others then!!!

Jexx21
10-06-2013, 01:23 AM
guys.. the man stated his opinion. we all have had our fair share of name-calling, let's let it drop

If someone finds a lot of faults in a series, it doesn't mean you have to flame him for it.

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 01:25 AM
guys.. the man stated his opinion. we all have had our fair share of name-calling, let's let it drop

If someone finds a lot of faults in a series, it doesn't mean you have to flame him for it.
It's the name-calling and the insults we have problem with. His tone in general. Not the content of his posts.

killzab
10-06-2013, 01:27 AM
It's the name-calling and the insults we have problem with. His tone in general. Not the content of his posts.

Lies, YOU started it by criticizing the content of my posts which provoked my name-calling.

adventurewomen
10-06-2013, 01:27 AM
adventurewomen said, you know the Connor fangirl who can't even see something bad about AC3 when it's in her face and pretends to prefer terrible assassinations missions like they were in AC3 rather than the well fleshed-out ones in AC2.
I never said AC3 was perfect, there are some issues with glitches and bugs.

I can relate to Connor because I'm Mohawk.

Please stop your name calling, it's going too far.

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 01:28 AM
Lies, YOU started it by criticizing the content of my posts which provoked my name-calling.
What??? So everyone who criticizes something in your posts deserves a name-calling? THAT's what you're saying??

Shahkulu101
10-06-2013, 01:30 AM
Everybody hates the Paul Revere mission, but they never mention that mission in brotherhood when Ezio disguised himself as a guard and had to find a way into the bankers party by listening to the other guards response as you played a guessing game as to where to go. " I hope they let us go inside." AH Shut UP!

Everyone stop arguing and discuss my valid point. ^

killzab
10-06-2013, 01:33 AM
Listen, you guys started it but I'm tired of this argument so I'll just ignore it.

Back to the topic, Shakulu you're right, and I don't even know why people complain about Revere's mission in particular so much. Maybe it was because he would NEVER SHUT UP lol. But it wasn't that bad, not especially fun but it had a point story-wise.

Jexx21
10-06-2013, 01:55 AM
I don't understand why in most of your posts you are complaining about something... :/



SMH.. To the OP I highly disagree with you and your posts are all the same, quit complianing for once! Please!

**** just got real!!


AGREED! Damn right you tell 'em girl!


Well, I don't really care if you think I complain too much, don't read my replies and threads.


Like Hans in this thread said your opinions aren't facts.


after the utter idiocy of the first posts



And I think pointing out faults is more interesting than drooling over Connor's cuteness


Assassin M is extremely provoking, moreso than I and still is one of the most active and important members of the forums.


All of your posts recently have been provoking and you're looking for reactions. This is exactly the reason why we are calling you out on your ish!

Seriously you need to check yourself.


Well said my friend! :)


THIS!! & Thanks my friend!

-----------------------

@Killzab: Stop your immaturity, and it's like you're over critical just stop it's getting to the point where you are being creepy.

posts I believe were overly hostile in this
adventurewomen seems to denounce any opinion that she thoroughly disagrees with.
silver was the one who started this

Shahkulu101
10-06-2013, 01:58 AM
Edgar ate my ham today, ham today. Edward ate my ham today too bad it tasted like ****.

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 02:02 AM
I didn't start "any" of this. (Actually Hans was the one who first mentioned the complaining, before me). I then stated my opinion about an obvious pattern we were all started to notice in OP's threads (which was initiating threads using provocative complaining). And, then, like the rest of us, got attacked for this. Just because we called him out on this thread initiation pattern.


Firtly it's your opinion not a fact(no saying you stated that either but you gett the point), secondly Ezio is just as much a 'history changer' than Connor and as him he had more than ONE historical person as an ally. Ezio hunted down the Borgia family single handenly yet he is not mention in history books??? Stop complain for the sake of complaing, this series IS based on history so we are going to chape most events directly or indirectly no matter time period or the aprotch the assassin takes.

I-Like-Pie45
10-06-2013, 02:04 AM
Edgar ate my ham today, ham today. Edward ate my ham today too bad it tasted like ****.

He was ashamed of his persiflage, his boasting, his pretensions of courage and ruthlessness; he was sorry about his cold-bloodedness, his dispassion, his inability to express what he now believed was the case- that he truly regretted killing Jesse, that he missed the man as much as anybody and wished his murder hadn't been necessary. Even as he circulated his saloon he knew that the smiles disappeared when he passed by. He received so many menacing letters that he could read them without any reaction except curiosity. He kept to his apartment all day, flipping over playing cards, looking at his destiny in every King and Jack. Edward O'Kelly came up from Bachelor at one P.M. on the 8th. He had no grand scheme. No strategy. No agreement with higher authorities. Nothing but a vague longing for glory, and a generalized wish for revenge against Robert Ford. Edward O'Kelly would be ordered to serve a life sentence in the Colorado Penitentiary for second degree murder. Over seven thousand signatures would eventually be gathered in a petition asking for O'Kelly's release, and in 1902, Governor James B. Ullman would pardon the man. There would be no eulogies for Bob, no photographs of his body would be sold in sundries stores, no people would crowd the streets in the rain to see his funeral cortege, no biographies would be written about him, no children named after him, no one would ever pay twenty-five cents to stand in the rooms he grew up in. The shotgun would ignite, and Ella Mae would scream, but Robert Ford would only lay on the floor and look at the ceiling, the light going out of his eyes before he could find the right words.

Shahkulu101
10-06-2013, 02:06 AM
Humans are weak, base and above all, petty.

I-Like-Pie45
10-06-2013, 02:32 AM
Humans are weak, base and above all, petty.

I had all the characteristics of a human being—flesh, blood, skin, hair—but my depersonalization was so intense, had gone so deep, that my normal ability to feel compassion had been eradicated, the victim of a slow, purposeful erasure. I was simply imitating reality, a rough resemblance of a human being, with only a dim corner of my mind functioning

I had become comfortably numb.

Hans684
10-06-2013, 07:09 AM
I didn't start "any" of this. (Actually Hans was the one who first mentioned the complaining, before me). I then stated my opinion about an obvious pattern we were all started to notice in OP's threads (which was initiating threads using provocative complaining). And, then, like the rest of us, got attacked for this. Just because we called him out on this thread initiation pattern.

You started your post with a complain about his complaining and by doing that the effect is bigger than if you just mention it in the middle, where it easely can be overlooked or ignored.
His complaining was not my main point or an issue for me. Read that part again and to the end "Stop complaining for the sake of complaining, this series IS based on history do we are going to so we are going to chape most events directly or indirectly no matter time period or the aprotch the assassin takes."


I don't understand why in most of your posts you are complaining about something... :/

But to answer the question, no, I don't think it gets less and less plausible. The game story may be based on historical events but it's still FICTION for goodness sake!

(Also, Animus? Super-advanced ancient technology? Are these not historically implausible?)

STDlyMcStudpants
10-06-2013, 07:26 AM
Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
This means that just because something is said, or written down and that the majority agree this is fact does not make it fact. Example The Earth is flat...this was "fact" for such a long time in history.
As far as occurrences, there is more than one side to every story..in fact there are almost endless sides to world history.
George Washington being a freemason is not taught in school..you have to dig to find this and then you have to wonder who's loose lips let this slip? and what if this person had been killed before he said anything..then we would not know. (Though I believe George was proud to be a mason and was the one that let the cat out of the bag by letting it be documented)
And do you honestly think everything we need to know in the history of this world was documented? Dark ages tell us no.

Even today in America we don't know what happened on 9/11, we can either speculate or believe what our corrupted government is telling us, but either way guess which story the history books will tell...
Do you honestly think it is 100% impossible for a native or a tribe to be heros of this war and were not given credit?
If you were to tell your story of triumph, trying to influence a new nation, persuade them to follow you, would you tell them "I am not fit, I had to be saved by natives." Or would you tell them "We did this together"..or possibly just keep it in secret.
I'm sure George Washington studied war, and knew which part of land you needed to control to win a war and you better believe he had natives by his side showing him their land and vantage points.

BUT I have to say, I would actually prefer and what I hoped for was Connor to be a hired arm..not an Army..
I wanted to sneak into forts and assassinate at night by surprise..dropping from trees and just destroying small groups of men at a time..
That's what I got from previews and trailers.
I didn't like the fact that we were perceived as the face of war...


And as far as not written in books, of course these protagonists are fictional, but we don't see Ezio in history books getting credit for Assassinating all of these massively large figures in history..We just know that they were indeed Assassinated or died mysteriously.
And I have to say I'd much rather they stick to filling in the gaps of mystery thanjust throwing a character into documented history like they did with Connor and seem to be doing with Edward..
BUT the creed is just as secretive as the Templar.
The Knights Templar were supposedly disbanded and executed in the early 1300s, YET we are finding Templar looking chambers and church buildings in America dating pre Columbia about the time they were disbanded.
makes you wonder..were they disbanded or did they leave and or go into secrecy?
You can kill a "title" but not an ideology.
I believe the templar eventually became the Freemasons and that George Washington was a Templar :O

And again...the Templar hardly show in in history books but have a massive presence even today....

I should have just dropped mic here..
What more is there to be said?
Documented does not mean fact..that is the only argument a game based on history that adds to a story really needs..
After all Assassin's Creed is a game that puts you into an era, a time and place that has existed and still does in part today...it isnt a read along history lesson.
Enjoy the closest thing to a time machine we have before it's too late.
I feel sorry for the nitpickers that will never appreciates this series magic until it's no more.
*Drops mic*

Black_Widow9
10-06-2013, 07:30 AM
Can we stop now please. Let's get back on Topic. :/

pirate1802
10-06-2013, 07:47 AM
Everyone stop arguing and discuss my valid point. ^

I may be wrong, memory is a bit foggy these days but two things:

1. in that mission you were wearing a disguise, surrounded by enemies. I can see how that's more interesting that riding through empty fields with a guy at your back. The first one was keeping with the assassin feeling, the second was anything but.

2. Over there, you had to make sure you didnt stray too far from the intended path or the guards would get suspicious. And you only had the guard's dialogs to guess which is the intended path The route you took mattered, not just getting to the endpoint. In AC3, you can roam about the Frontier all you want and nothing bad will happen as long as you return to the checkpoint. So, in the first instance you had something to take notice of throughout the mission, in AC3 you had virtually nothing to do, just get from point A to B and fend off some weak guards in between, which was easy as **** anyway.

Regarding the topic, I was okay with how things were up until AC3. In AC3 Connor was virtually at every important point of history. That was pushing it way too hard. It was never explained what Connor was doing at the signing of the declaration anyway. Granted he was Sam's friend and helped throw some boxes but was he so important as to be invited to that important event? At any rate Connor didnt seem to be a guy who would strut along to the social meets of those colonial people. Nobody even paid attention to him, he just stood at a corner and looked sexy, that's all. I'm not the type to nitpick the **** out of every little bit, but even I was honestly asking myself "wait, what is he doing here?" when I saw that scene.

I think this problem stems from the change in philosophy in AC3. In previous ACs the games used the background history to tell its own stories, in AC3 they virtually made the game a lesson on the American war of independence, where every major event had to be shown and the protagonist had to be shoehorned in each one of thm, doesn't matter if he doesnt fit there. Because without the protag being there, we wouldnt see those uber important events would we? And that's where the problem stems from.

eagleforlife1
10-06-2013, 09:14 AM
I agree with OP.

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 10:15 AM
You started your post with a complain about his complaining and by doing that the effect is bigger than if you just mention it in the middle, where it easely can be overlooked or ignored.
His complaining was not my main point or an issue for me. Read that part again and to the end "Stop complaining for the sake of complaining, this series IS based on history do we are going to so we are going to chape most events directly or indirectly no matter time period or the aprotch the assassin takes."
Right. So because I started the sentence with this but you did it in the middle you are blameless!????? And now everyone blames ME that I started it?? When you did the same thing? I'm sorry this makes no sense whatsoever.! And they shouldn't respond to my posts if they don't like it!

I'm sorry I keep responding to this but I won't have anyone blaming ME that I started any argument!!! This is ridiculous!! I had just stated my opinion!!! The argument actually started when OP couldn't leave it alone and came back after a few pages to start insulting us and calling us idiots among many other insults! I would have made ONE post on this thread otherwise, on the very first page! But no... he had to come back and insult us just because we called him out on his thread initiation pattern! Apparently we don't make intelligent posts, we are idiots.

killzab
10-06-2013, 10:20 AM
Right. So because I started the sentence with this but you it in the middle you are blameless!????? And now everyone blames ME that I started it?? When you did the same thing? I'm sorry this makes no sense whatsoever.! And they shouldn't respond to my posts if they don't like it!

I'm sorry I keep responding to this but I won't have anyone blaming ME that I started any argument!!! This is ridiculous!! I had just stated my opinion!!! The argument started when OP started insulting us and calling us idiots among many other insults!

So why did YOU respond to my threads since you don't like them ?

And seriously STOP NOW !

The argument is over, don't be childish and let's just agree to disagree and let go.

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 10:29 AM
So why did YOU respond to my threads since you don't like them ?

And seriously STOP NOW !

The argument is over, don't be childish and let's just agree to disagree and let go.
Why DO YOU not stop responding either then???
Right. So I am childish now, but when you called us all the names on the world some pages back, you were not childish? You are trying to appear mature now?
I won't stop until you PROPERLY apologize for all the insults and name calling! And because I won't have anyone accusing me of things I didn't do!!!! You even dragged people who were not in this thread to defend themselves in your insult-fest!

killzab
10-06-2013, 10:36 AM
Why DO YOU not stop responding either then???
Right. So I am childish now, but when you called us all the names on the world some pages back, you were not childish? You are trying to appear mature now?
I won't stop until you PROPERLY apologize for all the insults and name calling! And because I won't have anyone accusing me of things I didn't do!!!!

You can keep at it forever then, I will not apologize.

silvermercy
10-06-2013, 10:38 AM
You can keep at it forever then, I will not apologize.
LOL Don't worry. I knew it.
That's because I knew I would expect as much from someone like you.:rolleyes:

Sushiglutton
10-06-2013, 10:59 AM
Regarding the topic, I was okay with how things were up until AC3. In AC3 Connor was virtually at every important point of history. That was pushing it way too hard. It was never explained what Connor was doing at the signing of the declaration anyway. Granted he was Sam's friend and helped throw some boxes but was he so important as to be invited to that important event? At any rate Connor didnt seem to be a guy who would strut along to the social meets of those colonial people. Nobody even paid attention to him, he just stood at a corner and looked sexy, that's all. I'm not the type to nitpick the **** out of every little bit, but even I was honestly asking myself "wait, what is he doing here?" when I saw that scene.

I think this problem stems from the change in philosophy in AC3. In previous ACs the games used the background history to tell its own stories, in AC3 they virtually made the game a lesson on the American war of independence, where every major event had to be shown and the protagonist had to be shoehorned in each one of thm, doesn't matter if he doesnt fit there. Because without the protag being there, we wouldnt see those uber important events would we? And that's where the problem stems from.


I think you are right that for AC3 they decided which events to include first and then tried to build gameplay/story around them, instead of viewing them as a smorgasboard where they could pick the ones that made the most sense. On the other hand I can't really say I blame them. I think people would have been very disapointed if they had not included some of these events. It's a bit of a dilemma really.

killzab
10-06-2013, 11:09 AM
I think you are right that for AC3 they decided which events to include first and then tried to build gameplay/story around them, instead of viewing them as a smorgasboard where they could pick the ones that made the most sense. On the other hand I can't really say I blame them. I think people would have been very disapointed if they had not included some of these events. It's a bit of a dilemma really.

True, but at the same time I think that AC3 was really aimed too specifically towards their american audience...

Events of the Renaissance weren't as famous so their inclusion or not didn't really impact the audience. But being French and knowing virtually nothing about the american revolution before playing AC3, I had a hard time following the plot and a lot of references were lost on me before I took the time to read the database and go check it out on wikipedia.

pirate1802
10-06-2013, 11:18 AM
I think you are right that for AC3 they decided which events to include first and then tried to build gameplay/story around them, instead of viewing them as a smorgasboard where they could pick the ones that made the most sense. On the other hand I can't really say I blame them. I think people would have been very disapointed if they had not included some of these events. It's a bit of a dilemma really.

Yeah, It was a no-win situation for the devs really. Once you decide to base your game in a completely well-known settings you either show all the events and arrive at a AC3-like situation or don't show the and disappoint fans. I just hope they take notes from this avoid historical events we know too well about. Black Flag seems to be on the right track. It is in a famous setting, but the one in which we don't know too well about. I mean not many of us know about the events and players of that era (save for Blackbeard and a few others), unless you're a student of history.


But being French and knowing virtually nothing about the american revolution before playing AC3, I had a hard time following the plot and a lot of references were lost on me before I took the time to read the database and go check it out on wikipedia.

Yeah, same here. Things like the midnight ride, or the withdrawal of british troops in the last cutscene were completely unknown to me. Not to my brother though, he's a history student. And he was like whoa! that's Revere! Omg this is Sam Adams! I was like...who? :p

Sushiglutton
10-06-2013, 11:25 AM
Yeah, It was a no-win situation for the devs really. Once you decide to base your game in a completely well-known settings you either show all the events and arrive at a AC3-like situation or don't show the and disappoint fans. I just hope they take notes from this avoid historical events we know too well about. Black Flag seems to be on the right track. It is in a famous setting, but the one in which we don't know too well about. I mean not many of us know about the events and players of that era (save for Blackbeard and a few others), unless you're a student of history.



Yeah, same here. Things like the midnight ride, or the withdrawal of british troops in the last cutscene were completely unknown to me. Not to my brother though, he's a history student. And he was like whoa! that's Revere! Omg this is Sam Adams! I was like...who? :p


Yeah they will have a lot more freedom with the pirate setting. The only pirate I knew about was John Long Silver, but he appears to have been purely fictional :o. And I can't name a single event in that era. Now I'm not the most well read (played too many damn games), but I still guess it's true for the vast majority as well then. Famous settings for which noone knows what the heck happened, may be the best ones for AC!

I guess the Paul Revere mission would have been a lot better if you knew who the bloke was. Sam Adams I had heard from (beer label :p)

Raibuscus
10-06-2013, 11:54 AM
Lol.

roostersrule2
10-06-2013, 12:25 PM
Yeah, same here. Things like the midnight ride, or the withdrawal of british troops in the last cutscene were completely unknown to me. Not to my brother though, he's a history student. And he was like whoa! that's Revere! Omg this is Sam Adams! I was like...who? :pSame, the only one who I knew was George Washington, I had heard Lafayette's name off a movie once and Charles Lee was talked about on here prior to release, I had no idea who the others were.

It was the same with the other AC's though, I knew a couple names like Leonardo, King Richard, William of Montferrat, Mario Auditore etc. but in the other AC's it was fun to learn about these people.

ze_topazio
10-06-2013, 12:51 PM
I too didn't knew much about the American Revolution, a few characters and events, but that's it, perhaps that's why i enjoyed the Italian games so much, it was always a joy to see characters and buildings that i knew fairly well appearing on the screen.

Farlander1991
10-06-2013, 03:24 PM
I didn't know anything about American Revolution either when playing the game, however the only things that felt out of place to me or "WTF is going one?" were the inclusion of Ben Franklin, and the signing of declaration of independence.

Also, the way New York switched control from the Patriot to the British, while is somehow mentioned in the game, it wasn't clear enough (though, I suppose that has something to do with the amount of content that was cut regarding New York in the first place).

I-Like-Pie45
10-06-2013, 03:43 PM
Connor was originally going to sign the Declaration IRL but then that asscheese John Hancock signed his name twice the size of the others and so he took up Connor's intended space

roostersrule2
10-06-2013, 03:44 PM
Connor was originally going to sign the Declaration IRL but then that asscheese John Hancock signed his name twice the size of the others and so he took up Connor's intended spaceWhy would you want to put your name twice if it's Hancock?

Rugterwyper32
10-06-2013, 03:57 PM
I didn't know anything about American Revolution either when playing the game, however the only things that felt out of place to me or "WTF is going one?" were the inclusion of Ben Franklin, and the signing of declaration of independence.

Also, the way New York switched control from the Patriot to the British, while is somehow mentioned in the game, it wasn't clear enough (though, I suppose that has something to do with the amount of content that was cut regarding New York in the first place).

We know that they cut out a part related to the great fire of New York, and I'm pretty convinced they probably were planning on adding something regarding the Battle of Long Island. I'm pretty sure they had the battles of Trenton and Princeton in mind (I even remember seeing a big battle in a snowy battlefield in a trailer) but seems that was cut off too.
Man, so much wasted potential in New York.

I-Like-Pie45
10-06-2013, 04:01 PM
Why would you want to put your name twice if it's Hancock?

http://www.elcivics.com/john_hancock_signature_civics.jpg
cuz he's john hancock

SixKeys
10-06-2013, 04:03 PM
Why would you want to put your name twice if it's Hancock?

You just answered your own question.