PDA

View Full Version : (Spoilers) Do you think they'll follow up on...



LoyalACFan
01-05-2014, 07:28 AM
Woodes Rogers?

I mean, they made a specific point of telling us he was still alive, and Edward vowed to finish him off when he returned from England. TBH I was expecting him to be Adewale's main target in Freedom Cry, since he was active in the slave trade.

I dunno, it just seems odd that they handled his "assassination" in the way they did. They've been known to fudge death dates (i.e. Burgess & Cochran) as well as letting Edward spare his enemies (i.e. Charles Vane), so it feels weird to me that they would say "congratulations, you killed him" then "oops, he's still alive and Edward's gonna seal the deal soon" if they weren't planning to actually follow up with it. Future DLC? Adewale sequel? Just another loose end left hanging? What do you think?

AdamPearce
01-05-2014, 07:32 AM
I think nobody really cares about Rogers fate since he is a totally useless character.

Give him a PoE, then we'll talk.

Fatal-Feit
01-05-2014, 07:49 AM
I thought they concluded him in Forsaken.

Tysodie
01-05-2014, 07:58 AM
Having read the novel I can safely say Rogers will not be seen again. By the end of it all he ends up in prison, his health is in a state of disrepair and the Templar Order has disowned him. He won't be seen again.

adventurewomen
01-05-2014, 12:37 PM
I thought they concluded him in Forsaken.
Agreed, I thought the same in Forsaken. Rogers story is pretty much concluded in Forsaken.

pacmanate
01-05-2014, 01:44 PM
I need to read forsaken again...

LoyalACFan
01-05-2014, 09:52 PM
Damn it, why do they always leave this stuff hanging in the games and resolve it in the novels? It's bad storytelling. You should get the entire story from the game, since, y'know, Ubisoft is a ****ing game studio...

AdrianJacek
01-05-2014, 10:52 PM
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110214120933/assassinscreed/images/5/5a/Mickypng.png
Are you really so suprised? Rogers is pretty much Corella 2.0 .

LoyalACFan
01-06-2014, 12:22 AM
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110214120933/assassinscreed/images/5/5a/Mickypng.png
Are you really so suprised? Rogers is pretty much Corella 2.0 .

At least Micheletto was sort of wrapped up in the game. Ezio basically said "I don't care that you're still alive, you're not even worth killing. Bye." Whereas Edward was like "Whoops, my bad, I'll finish of the guy when I get back." And then he didn't.

But yeah, Micheletto's fate was revealed in the book as well :nonchalance: Even though I didn't care as much then since he was a pretty one-dimensional character compared to Rogers IMO.

Fatal-Feit
01-06-2014, 12:38 AM
Damn it, why do they always leave this stuff hanging in the games and resolve it in the novels? It's bad storytelling. You should get the entire story from the game, since, y'know, Ubisoft is a ****ing game studio...

Assassin's Creed is longer just a game franchise, yo. AC:4 didn't have enough time and production to cramp all of Forsaken's story into it. Woods Roger, for the most part, was finished in AC:IV. He was no longer going to pose any threat for a long while. I was actually surprised they got around to giving us a chance to hunt him down, individually.

LoyalACFan
01-06-2014, 01:12 AM
Assassin's Creed is longer just a game franchise, yo.

It's primarily a game franchise, "yo." I don't mind that they have stories in other mediums (The Fall and The Chain were great) but each story should be self-contained within it's own medium. Not "oh, let's make a game that tells most of the story, but leave some stuff hanging and resolve it in the novelization so we sell more books." THAT mindset is total bullsh*t.

Fatal-Feit
01-06-2014, 01:40 AM
It's primarily a game franchise, "yo." I don't mind that they have stories in other mediums (The Fall and The Chain were great) but each story should be self-contained within it's own medium. Not "oh, let's make a game that tells most of the story, but leave some stuff hanging and resolve it in the novelization so we sell more books." THAT mindset is total bullsh*t.

The end of Woodes Rogers is as irrelevant to the main story as what you mentioned. Forsaken is its own story that happens to be a follow up after AC:IV and a prequel to AC:3. It doesn't need to be in the game.

AC:IV has its own story and moral. The way they concluded Woodes Rogers in Forsaken does not need to be in AC:IV at all. Woodes Roger have had his presence and relevance in AC:IV. He does not need anymore screentime.

Forsaken is more than just a book about ''how Woodes Roger is defeated''. Read it if you will, but you will not be missing anything in AC:IV if you only play the game.

LoyalACFan
01-06-2014, 01:52 AM
The end of Woodes Rogers is as irrelevant to the main story as what you mentioned. Forsaken is its own story that happens to be a follow up after AC:IV and a prequel to AC:3. It doesn't need to be in the game.

AC:IV has its own story and moral. The way they concluded Woodes Rogers in Forsaken does not need to be in AC:IV at all. Woodes Roger have had his presence and relevance in AC:IV. He does not need anymore screentime.

Forsaken is more than just a book about ''how Woodes Roger is defeated''. Read it if you will, but you will not be missing anything in AC:IV if you only play the game.

My issue is not THAT they left him hanging, but HOW they left him hanging. If they had just had Edward spare him and never mention him again, I wouldn't care. But in the finale they made a point of telling us that he was coming back and Edward made a promise to hunt him down. And nothing came of it.

pirate1802
01-06-2014, 12:19 PM
Wait, Rogers was there in Forsaken? What the eff.. I need to read it again..


Give him a PoE, then we'll talk.

In other words, use the same tired plot device over and over and over again?

TexasToast712
01-07-2014, 08:55 AM
He survived Edward's assassination attempt because it would be a historical inaccuracy for him to die. Woodes Rogers was a real person and died in Nassau July 15, 1732. This is where everyone comes in screaming "ITS A GAME, BRO." Let me tell you this, For the most part, the Assassins creed series has had very few historical inaccuracies and tries be as accurate as possible. The only major historical inaccuracy I have noticed is Robert De Sable in AC1. He actually died on 23 September 1193. We could chalk this up to a dating error in game on Ubisoft's part or that the Templars covered up the truth. This is why love the AC series. I love history.

/history lesson rant

Long story short, Edward not finishing the job makes total sense.

pirate1802
01-07-2014, 10:38 AM
AC4 had its fair share of inaccuracies, most of them intentional. That huge cathedral in Havana shouldn't even be there if the game followed history that religiously.

killzab
01-07-2014, 11:10 AM
AC4 had its fair share of inaccuracies, most of them intentional. That huge cathedral in Havana shouldn't even be there if the game followed history that religiously.

If they do the French revolution one day, they'd better not have the Eiffel tower in it lol, I'd be offended.

pirate1802
01-07-2014, 11:20 AM
What if they let you see/climb the Eiffel tower during the modern segments, AC3 parachute mission style?