PDA

View Full Version : An Assassin's Creed game that takes place in World War II



LeechHax
12-05-2014, 07:44 AM
I sent this message to Ubisoft. But you guys should support me so they will see it.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________________

(This idea is just one idea from a fan (me) and you guys might not even like this, but I think this would be a great idea and you should atleast consider considering it.)

There should be an Assassin's Creed game that takes place during World War II. The plot would focus on another one of Desmond's ancestors and fought in World War II that was also an Assassin. The story line that would catch everyone's attention is this; Adolf Hitler was actually a Templar!

In the game the new character should be wearing a black trench coat that still has the signature hood on it. You would still have the hidden blades, but you would also be able to use modern weapons such as submachine guns like the MP-35 and pistols like the Luger. Some of the missions should involve riding in airplanes and tanks. There should even be an option to fast travel to different parts of the world using airplanes.

You could visit cities like Poland, Denmark, and Norway and help the citizens fight of the Nazi invaders. Of course there would be new architecture to free-run on and even taller buildings to climb up and synchronize.

Not ALL Nazis would be regular Nazis. Some of them would secretly be Templars that you have to assassinate, or interrogate. Some of the Templar hideouts would be Nazi bunkers with munitions that you have to destroy. Or you can find chests with gun parts to craft, or explosive parts (to make grenades, land mines, claymores).

Some cool new "assassin weapons" should be CO2 powered hidden blades (takes up another weapon slot). Think of the ballistic-knife, but instead you can launch the hidden blades at your target. Also I was thinking of pineapple grenades, signal flares for distracting enemies, smoke grenades instead of smoke bombs, tear gas, and more!

Also at the end of the game, you are actually the one that kills Hitler; you just make it look like he committed suicide, but really Desmond's ancestor assassinated him!

Finally after that game, it would all lead up to an Assassin's Creed game where you actually play as Desmond in the 21'st century. But that's another story for another time... Please write back and let me know what you think.

Rafe Harwood
12-05-2014, 07:52 AM
er no.

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 07:57 AM
er no.

If people want to make an Assassin's Creed set during World War II they need to explain why an organization good at secrecy and infiltration, at being one step ahead of Templars and the like, missed out the large fact that 11 million people were being killed while the battles were droning on, and more importantly did nothing to break the story to the public and inform the world.

No WWII game really tackles the fact that the Holocaust as a reality negates any heroic narrative people want to put in place. If you play as a soldier that's one thing, but playing as an Assassin superhero at a time when that kind of stuff could actually be useful is pointless.

And what will they do, put collectibles on maps, collect Resistance Armor by visiting Mass Graves and Gas Chambers and platforming across Auschwitz, you know climb the top of the Chimney on the Gas Chamber to unlock viewpoint and jump into a stack of corspes at the bottom...

Fatal-Feit
12-05-2014, 07:58 AM
How about WW1?

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 08:03 AM
How about WW1?

That might work. I mean WW1 was bloody brutal and pointless, but not really all that different from wars committed before in that every side was guilty and that none of the war crimes were on the scale of the holocaust.

The thing is in gameplay terms it might not be different from say, the Bunker Hill missions of AC3. It'll be assassinations in battlefields and tents. If they want to do WW1 they should make it really gory and bloody, because that is something that every soldier on the front reported and its there in the war poetry, limbs torn apart, guts hanging out and people bleeding to death in trenches. That was the reality of industrial warfare that people faced up front there. Shrapnel destroying faces, gas attacks. If you can't make that game bloody and gory, you shouldn't make a WW1 game.

WW1 is also a good place to introduce planes. They were not too modern or too unsophisticated as to be unplayable. You can kill the Red Baron(Red Plane with a Black Cross...yup Templar all right).

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 08:03 AM
Depends on Victory's reception to consider such a setting in the future.

Though that rift sequence in Unity was alright...maybe we could view more rifts like that in Victory?

Overall, I'd be game for a WWII setting, but I think it's time we go back in time after Victorian London. :rolleyes:


EDIT: WWI could work better... ^^

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 08:13 AM
Depends on Victory's reception to consider such a setting in the future.

Though that rift sequence in Unity was alright...maybe we could view more rifts like that in Victory?

Overall, I'd be game for a WWII setting, but I think it's time we go back in time after Victorian London. :rolleyes:


EDIT: WWI could work better... ^^

Ideally if they want to do a good 20th Century setting, Berlin in the 1920s would be the best one. A great city, great architecture...a lot of scientists and artists, Bertolt Brecht, Kurt Weill and also film-makers, Fritz Lang, F. W. Murnau and actresses Louise Brooks and Marlene Dietrich.

And you know it can have a dark ending because, well you know 20s Germany...and you can have a Coda set in 40s Berlin where You Kill Hitler. But a game set during WW2 strikes me as a ridiculous endeavour.

Aphex_Tim
12-05-2014, 08:20 AM
You could visit cities like Poland, Denmark, and Norway and help the citizens fight of the Nazi invaders.

Yeah, I would love to visit the city of Norway one day. Perhaps we could also visit the country of Amsterdam.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 08:28 AM
Ideally if they want to do a good 20th Century setting, Berlin in the 1920s would be the best one. A great city, great architecture...a lot of scientists and artists, Bertolt Brecht, Kurt Weill and also film-makers, Fritz Lang, F. W. Murnau and actresses Louise Brooks and Marlene Dietrich.

20th Century Berlin?

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~klio/im/weimar/preWW1/Berlin%20Um%201910.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-03034,_Berlin,_Verfassungsfeier_vor_dem_Reichstag. jpg

I could dig it... ^^




And you know it can have a dark ending because, well you know 20s Germany...and you can have a Coda set in 40s Berlin where You Kill Hitler.

Meh, I'm not really into the "Killing Hitler" thing.

Would be a bit Controversial... :rolleyes:




But a game set during WW2 strikes me as a ridiculous endeavour.

It wouldn't have to be...it would just come down to how it's written.

Through like the Hitler scenario you suggested, that setting is also very controversial.


The story line that would catch everyone's attention is this; Adolf Hitler was actually a Templar!


Hitler wasn't really a Templar... ( Or least not to me)

He was just a puppet that the Templars used to further their goals.

"Hey! this Hitler guy has these people around his finger. Why don't we take advantage of both of them?" :rolleyes:

killzab
12-05-2014, 08:32 AM
20th Century Berlin?

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~klio/im/weimar/preWW1/Berlin Um 1910.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-03034,_Berlin,_Verfassungsfeier_vor_dem_Reichstag. jpg

I could dig it... ^^





Meh, I'm not really into the "Killing Hitler" thing.

Would be a bit Controversial... :rolleyes:





It wouldn't have to be...it would just come down to how it's written.

Through like the Hitler scenario you suggested, that setting is also very controversial.


Killing Hitler wouldn't be that controversial ... it's been done before in games too !

Plus AC games need to grow some balls and go further !

Rafe Harwood
12-05-2014, 08:40 AM
Killing Hitler wouldn't be that controversial ... it's been done before in games too !

Plus AC games need to grow some balls and go further !

Historical narrative. History would be changed by the killing of Hitler so that's a no.

We don't play AC to play war games. If you want that, there are a million titles out there to pick from.

I (and I am guessing a very large portion of "true" AC fans) play for the historical aspect, the immersion into different time zones/cultures. The whole 'war' thing is just completely stupid to be frank.

Just go check the poll thread about why people play AC and get a glimpse of how we feel. It would be the final straw that broke the franchise if it became another bloody cod/modern warfare/other rank shooty rubbish.

I would even go so far as guessing that anyone who wants the 'war' settings, actually started playing AC no earlier than ACIII and has no real concept of what it's all about.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 08:43 AM
Killing Hitler wouldn't be that controversial ... it's been done before in games too !


Plus AC games need to grow some balls and go further ![/QUOTE]

Yeah, but some people have lived/have ancestors who lived through that era so It's hard to talk about.

Not to mention the Holocaust which would be hard to explain.

And you're right they do...but how far can they go?


I would even go so far as guessing that anyone who wants the 'war' settings, actually started playing AC no earlier than ACIII and has no real concept of what it's all about.

"History is our playground." - Ubisoft. :rolleyes:

And what concept? You make no sense. -__-

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 08:46 AM
The problem with a War setting in Assassin's Creed game is the same as that of a Revolutionary setting, the events are too big not to affect the plot, the destruction that happens in the background makes an Assassin jumping across Rooftops a trifle absurd. War means destruction so you know climbing up monuments that you expect to still exist to stand in a sandbox after an air-raid or artillery attack gets hard to sustain as an illusion.

Modern warfare is total warfare where all the civilian-industrial-economic instiutions drop what they are doing and mobilize for defense and attacks. Artists are ordered to work in propaganda and so on and so forth. It's different from medieval warfare in the Crusades and the Renaissance, where you had some separation in civilian and military life and those wars were protracted longform affairs whereas the world wars happened for five-to-six long years.

Like people say they would want to go to Amsterdam during WW2, but ask yourself Amsterdam was the city of philosophy and Dutch Painting, you can go to Amsterdam in a war setting and find some monuments and rescue some paintings but with the war around, appreciating that and getting into it would be hard to do. Whereas you can do that better in an earlier time of the 17th Century with the Dutch Golden Age(the period where Desilets' game 1666 is apparently set).

Assassin's Creed works best in peacetime, where you have some breathing room and you can see daily life on the street. You have to time to appreciate the architecture and setting and get to know some famous historical figures. A war setting does not really allow that I am afraid. It was still somehow possible in a Revolutionary Setting but they messed that up big time in UNITY and in AC3 they struggled as it was working the war into the story.


Meh, I'm not really into the "Killing Hitler" thing.

Would be a bit Controversial...

Same here...but you know there's no point for Assassin's Creed to do a World War II game where you don't kill Hitler.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 08:55 AM
Same here...but you know there's no point for Assassin's Creed to do a World War II game where you don't kill Hitler.

There could still be...maybe an Assassin that fights to get Templar/Nazi influences out of his home.

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 09:01 AM
There could still be...maybe an Assassin that fights to get Templar/Nazi influences out of his home.

Which would be what, occupied Paris, London during the Blitz(actually this I think would be fun)...the setting is too ambitious for that.

When people put Assassin's Creed and WWII...everyone wants to kill Hitler. Sneak into the Bunker, stealth style and then kill him, his mistress and burn their bodies, while all the Nazis will panic and put a story of suicide (the historical cover). It's the same with UNITY, when people heard Revolutionary Paris, people wanted to see the Terror, they wanted Robespierre as the main bad guy(and an Assassin gone extreme), the historical element carries expectations if you choose a really momentous period.

The metaphor of Assassin's Creed is that you are participating in history by punishing and doling out vengeance/justice on bad guys in history, and which man was worse than Hitler?

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 09:11 AM
Which would be what, occupied Paris, London during the Blitz(actually this I think would be fun)...the setting is too ambitious for that.

It wouldn't have to be those places...maybe something smaller?


When people put Assassin's Creed and WWII...everyone wants to kill Hitler. Sneak into the Bunker, stealth style and then kill him, his mistress and burn their bodies, while all the Nazis will panic and put a story of suicide (the historical cover). It's the same with UNITY, when people heard Revolutionary Paris, people wanted to see the Terror, they wanted Robespierre as the main bad guy(and an Assassin gone extreme), the historical element carries expectations if you choose a really momentous period.

Why does everything have to be so over-the-top with the story being ambiguously everywhere?

That's why they end up meh. -__-

Plus wouldn't that give Ubi the opportunity to come up with a story that's original not the cliche way you described?

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 09:23 AM
It wouldn't have to be those places...maybe something smaller?



Why does everything have to be so over-the-top with the story being ambiguously everywhere?

That's why they end up meh. -__-

Plus wouldn't that give Ubi the opportunity to come up with a story that's original not the cliche way you described?

Look, if people play an AC-World War II and find out some random jeweller was secretly the mastermind of the Holocaust and Hitler's rise to power and that Hitler was a puppet and patsy at best...well it might be original (i.e. stupid in an orginal way) to some...it would also be defeating the purpose of putting such a larger than life historical figure in the setting of his prominence. How they frame the situation and meeting allows for a lot of scope and originality, how they portray Hitler(joke/mastermind/pure evil/gentlemen) allows them a lot of imagination and how they imagine everything else gives them freedom to work out the story and gameplay mechanics. There is a lot of effort and creativity involved in historical fiction, and the more accurate you get the more options for creativity you can find.

Rafe Harwood
12-05-2014, 09:32 AM
I hate to say this, because I am completely 110% against a war setting for AC, but the only saving grace is that Hitlers body was never found so... there is room for playing with that single aspect.

Shahkulu101
12-05-2014, 10:13 AM
Optional Objective:

Kill Eva Braun

On a serious note, I'd dig a WWI setting - the setting being Berlin , Belgium or something. As for WWII, perhaps a little too modern - there's also the fact that Hitler in AC canon is actually a Templar puppet and all, so if that gets out to the mainstream controversy would be amounted. Not too mention the fact that placing two secret societies at the centre of such a sensitive time period would look incredibly silly

GoldenBoy9999
12-05-2014, 01:42 PM
Yes, I'd love a WW1 setting. I want it after Victory and then we can go back to ancient times. AC can work well in war or peace. Just because an assassin is a small man in a world, that's alright. The assassins are supposed to be stealthy and secretive anyway. They don't have to be in huge conflicts changing the tide of war.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 01:47 PM
Yes, I'd love a WW1 setting. I want it after Victory and then we can go back to ancient times. AC can work well in war or peace. Just because an assassin is a small man in a world, that's alright. The assassins are supposed to be stealthy and secretive anyway. They don't have to be in huge conflicts changing the tide of war.

This.

That is what made Edward stand out, he wasn't this "chosen one" that changed the tide of the war.

Pretty much only two of all his Templar assassinations were when he became an Assassin.

Fatal-Feit
12-05-2014, 01:52 PM
That is what made Edward stand out, he wasn't this "chosen one" that changed the tide of the war.

But he kind of was. In fact, he changed the tide of war TWICE. What a guy.

If we're to point at someone, let it be Arno. But then again, people are mad because he WASN'T doing said stuff.


Pretty much only two of all his Templar assassinations were when he became an Assassin.

3, IIRC.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 02:01 PM
Optional Objective:

Kill Eva Braun

Haha. XD



On a serious note, I'd dig a WWI setting - the setting being Berlin , Belgium or something. As for WWII, perhaps a little too modern - there's also the fact that Hitler in AC canon is actually a Templar puppet and all, so if that gets out to the mainstream controversy would be amounted. Not too mention the fact that placing two secret societies at the centre of such a sensitive time period would look incredibly silly

Agreed. Especially the Hitler part...

Not to mention talking/showing the Holocaust and such events would really spark a lot of controversy from everyone.


But he kind of was. In fact, he changed the tide of war TWICE. What a guy.

If we're to point at someone, let it be Arno. But then again, people are mad because he WASN'T doing said stuff.

All he did was kill a small group of Templars in the west indies that didn't lead to nothing.

At least to me, it felt that way. And twice? Sorry I haven't played in awhile.




3, IIRC.

Who?

IRC only Torres & El Tiburon

Though I doubt the latter...

Rogers didn't die.

GoldenBoy9999
12-05-2014, 02:09 PM
Agreed. Especially the Hitler part...

Not to mention talking/showing the Holocaust and such events would really spark a lot of controversy from everyone.

Yeah, that is a problem. It reminds me of other things like the debate over the Redcoats and Patriots in AC3 or the samurai and ninjas of Japan. Maybe WW1 would be a better setting to avoid that.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 02:12 PM
Maybe WW1 would be a better setting to avoid that.


Agreed. ^^

marvelfannumber
12-05-2014, 02:14 PM
Hmmm WWII, yeah I could dig it. As long as it is not on the frontlines (which would be ridiculously stupid) I don't see any major issues.

Though I think I would prefer WWI just due to dat glorious facial hair :rolleyes:

http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/world-war-i-leaders/kaiser-wilhelm-ii.jpg

Hitlers mustache sucked alrite.

Shahkulu101
12-05-2014, 02:20 PM
Hmmm WWII, yeah I could dig it. As long as it is not on the frontlines (which would be ridiculously stupid) I don't see any major issues.

Though I think I would prefer WWI just due to dat glorious facial hair :rolleyes:

http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/world-war-i-leaders/kaiser-wilhelm-ii.jpg

Hitlers mustache sucked alrite.

That picture reminds me - The Kaiser. He wore Knight's Templar badges all over his clothing.

AC could 'explain' that.

Fatal-Feit
12-05-2014, 02:24 PM
All he did was kill a small group of Templars in the west indies that didn't lead to nothing.

At least to me, it felt that way. And twice? Sorry I haven't played in awhile.

The first time, he carried on Duncan's betrayal, causing the Assassins to become the hunted, instead of hunters.

The second time, he took down the most important West Indie Templars. I wouldn't consider them just a small group of Templars, they were literally on an agenda to revolutionize the world through blackmailing with the PoE. If it weren't for their untimely deaths, AC:3 and AC:U would have been entirely different.


Rogers didn't die.

Sure, but Rogers was still a major threat.

And even after his recovery, Rogers' career was ****, IIRC. (sorry, didn't finish the novel yet)

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 02:37 PM
The first time, he carried on Duncan's betrayal, causing the Assassins to become the hunted, instead of hunters.

The second time, he took down the most important West Indie Templars. I wouldn't consider them just a small group of Templars, they were literally on an agenda to revolutionize the world through blackmailing with the PoE. If it weren't for their untimely deaths, AC:3 and AC:U would have been entirely different.

Oh, Okay.

And when you put it in long-term, they would've been really important to the plot.

Too bad the game didn't flesh them out and treat them that way. -__-




Sure, but Rogers was still a major threat.

And even after his recovery, Rogers' career was ****, IIRC. (sorry, didn't finish the novel yet)

Yeah, you have a point there.

marvelfannumber
12-05-2014, 02:44 PM
That picture reminds me - The Kaiser. He wore Knight's Templar badges all over his clothing.

AC could 'explain' that.

I believe you are referring to the Iron Cross, which seems to have some relation to the Teutonic Knights....interesting....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Cross

That is a very interesting observation, they could definetly come up with some kind of lore relating to it.

killzab
12-05-2014, 03:00 PM
Historical narrative. History would be changed by the killing of Hitler so that's a no.

We don't play AC to play war games. If you want that, there are a million titles out there to pick from.

I (and I am guessing a very large portion of "true" AC fans) play for the historical aspect, the immersion into different time zones/cultures. The whole 'war' thing is just completely stupid to be frank.

Just go check the poll thread about why people play AC and get a glimpse of how we feel. It would be the final straw that broke the franchise if it became another bloody cod/modern warfare/other rank shooty rubbish.

I would even go so far as guessing that anyone who wants the 'war' settings, actually started playing AC no earlier than ACIII and has no real concept of what it's all about.

A WWII setting wouldn't necessarily involve COD-like gameplay you know... The bulk of the game could take place in both Paris and Berlin and involve behind the scenes actions, like helping the resistance, infiltrating Nazi outposts ... Many opportunities for stealth action.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 03:27 PM
Why does everyone assume AC would be like COD if it goes to WW1/WW2?

If anything, I think it'd encourage stealth at it's highest level.

Not saying I'm begging for it, but a meaningful story around these settings in the future would be nice.

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 03:37 PM
Why does everyone assume AC would be like COD if it goes to WW1/WW2?

If anything, I think it'd encourage stealth at it's highest level.

Not saying I'm begging for it, but a meaningful story around these settings in the future would be nice.

You know with changes in Next Gen you can probably go ahead and try to make the first really great World War II game and not just as a First Person Shooter. You can deal with Resistance, Art Looters, Destroying Supplies and Gathering Intelligence, recruiting and spreading propaganda or broadcasting messages, helping Jews and other persecuted to hide in secret, this was a lot of the stuff that happened in Europe. There were also famous assassinations in World War II, Reinhard Heydrich(the architect of the Holocaust) got assassinated in Czechslovakia (in revenge, the Nazis burned the town of nearby Lidice to the ground, sent the men to the gas chamber and the women sold to slavery), they called him the Hangman (there's an awesome WW2 era film called Hangmen Also Die - directed by German refugees Fritz Lang, Bertolt Brecht and Hans Eisler).

The thing is it should be a new IP and not necessarily tied to AC, that's not a setting that allows for this kind of silliness (except you know in the lore or via Abstergo, where since it comes from their files you can always question the source, since the Templars lie even to themselves).

andrew_m50
12-05-2014, 03:38 PM
Same here...but you know there's no point for Assassin's Creed to do a World War II game where you don't kill Hitler.

Why?
Then...there is no point for AC2, the best of the series?
We didn't kill Rodrigo.

MakimotoJin
12-05-2014, 03:41 PM
Why?
Then...there is no point for AC2, the best of the series?
We didn't kill Rodrigo.

It wouldn't be Assassin's Creed,seriously.
I've read somewhere that Hitler was killed by a Assassin.
He shot his double to pretend he killed himself,but someone found and murdered him.

xboxauditore
12-05-2014, 03:46 PM
I'd like a WW2 Assassin's Creed with a German ancestor infiltrating the Nazi government and dismantling them from within, and helping the allies and soviets as they move towards Berlin at the end of the war.

Cmon, if Wolfenstein can get away with all the stuff in the New Order, then Ubisoft should have the cojones to tackle this!

Fatal-Feit
12-05-2014, 03:47 PM
Assassin's Creed is about the Assassin's Creed. Stop making up your own definition to suit your own wants, guys.

MakimotoJin
12-05-2014, 03:49 PM
Assassin's Creed is about the Assassin's Creed. Stop making up your own definition to suit your own wants, guys.

I'm just talking about the AC history.I'm not gonna get into this CoD/Guns only AC fight.

andrew_m50
12-05-2014, 04:02 PM
It wouldn't be Assassin's Creed,seriously.


You say that AC2 is not Assassin's Creed, because we don't kill our final target.
Why is it essential to kill your target? Becasue you are an assassin with a hidden blade?
No...if the story or the circumstances don't require the killing, then you don't have to kill.

There were so many attempt to kill Hitler which were unsuccessful. Just think about the Operation Valkyrie.
Claus von Stauffenberg was an assassin! :D

Fatal-Feit
12-05-2014, 04:03 PM
I'm just talking about the AC history.I'm not gonna get into this CoD/Guns only AC fight.

That's cool.

I'm just sick of hearing ''GUNS = COD = NOT AC/ETC'' garbs. It's very narrow minded.

Matt.mc
12-05-2014, 04:09 PM
Am I the only one that wants them to go back in time? Like, back to the 14/15th century ?

MakimotoJin
12-05-2014, 04:09 PM
You say that AC2 is not Assassin's Creed, because we don't kill our final target.
Why is it essential to kill your target? Becasue you are an assassin with a hidden blade?
No...if the story or the circumstances don't require the killing, then you don't have to kill.

There were so many attempt to kill Hitler which were unsuccessful. Just think about the Operation Valkyrie.
Claus von Stauffenberg was an assassin! :D

Wow,wow.I said nothing about AC2,at all.All I said,is that in the AC universe,Hitler dies by an Assassin.


That's cool.

I'm just sick of hearing ''GUNS = COD = NOT AC/ETC'' garbs. It's very narrow minded.

Even if that happens,I'm sure Ubi will make it a good AC.I think people don't want it because there has been,what,9 ACs with sword fighting?People don't want changes.But,they do want changes.It's weird.
I just hope it's not like AC3's MD missions.
"Look,it's Desmond!Let me aim with my gun for a few seconds,and shoot only once!"

marvelfannumber
12-05-2014, 04:14 PM
Am I the only one that wants them to go back in time? Like, back to the 14/15th century ?

Not sure if serious......

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 04:23 PM
Why?
Then...there is no point for AC2, the best of the series?
We didn't kill Rodrigo.

That has nothing to do with what I said. What I meant was that the only reason people want to play a WW2 AC game is to kill Hitler at the end of 1945. The whole purpose of this thread is what are the issues, political/moral/gameplay that will come with making a game in such a timeline.

As for Rodrigo Borgia, the fact is that he wasn't a central villain of the Renaissance, that was something the AC writers deliberately used to work him into their scenario and as such all it mattered was for Ezio to confront him and give him a beating of a lifetime.

It's not remotely the same situation as Hitler's hypothetical appearance in the game.


There were so many attempt to kill Hitler which were unsuccessful. Just think about the Operation Valkyrie.
Claus von Stauffenberg was an assassin!

He was a failed assassin, unlike the Czech partisans who actually killed Reinhard Heydrich. And in any case Stauffenberg and Valkyrie is overly mythologized. That was an officer's revolt who felt that Hitler was incompetent. Most of the people in that outfit were themselves anti-semites.



I'd like a WW2 Assassin's Creed with a German ancestor infiltrating the Nazi government and dismantling them from within, and helping the allies and soviets as they move towards Berlin at the end of the war.

Then why the hell didn't he do anything about the Holocaust if he was infiltrating the government, the Holocaust wasn't something secret - people in Germany knew about it it was an open secret and the government definitely knew about it. For Wolfenstein it was okay, it's a silly FPS but in AC that would not be acceptable.

Matt.mc
12-05-2014, 04:26 PM
Not sure if serious......
Yes. I'm serious.

Not sure why you asked if I was serious.......?

marvelfannumber
12-05-2014, 04:26 PM
That has nothing to do with what I said. What I meant was that the only reason people want to play a WW2 AC game is to kill Hitler at the end of 1945.

Awesome generalization right there :rolleyes:


Yes. I'm serious.

Not sure why you asked if I was serious.......?

I was just checking if you were trolling or living under a rock.

Because everyone and their dog talks about "18th century such boring, let's go back to the fut....PAST!"

xboxauditore
12-05-2014, 04:27 PM
Maybe cus it's a little difficult to shut down lots of camps with one man? That's for Ubisoft to decide!

MakimotoJin
12-05-2014, 04:28 PM
Awesome generalization right there :rolleyes:



Because everyone and their dog talks about "18th century such boring, let's go back to the fut....PAST!"

I was just checking if you were trolling or living under a rock.

I agree with him,actually.Either that,or saving the crap out of Jews in concentration camps.

marvelfannumber
12-05-2014, 04:32 PM
I agree with him,actually.Either that,or saving the crap out of Jews in concentration camps.

So basically just Freedom Cry x1000?

Sounds pretty boring.....but whatever, i'll stay away from this debate.

Matt.mc
12-05-2014, 04:34 PM
Awesome generalization right there :rolleyes:



I was just checking if you were trolling or living under a rock.

Because everyone and their dog talks about "18th century such boring, let's go back to the fut....PAST!"
Yeah as soon as I wrote "Am I the only one" I sort of face palmed because I hate when people say that because you just know others are going to agree because it's such an obvious statement.
I wouldn't say it's boring. It's just that I'm pretty done with guns being common weapons and all that. I don't know, I just want them to keep up on our toes! I don't want a forth game that's within the game few dozen years as each other.

Perk89
12-05-2014, 04:34 PM
It's already been explicitly stated Hitler was a Templar. I know a portion of this forum is enamored with "morally grey!!!" but that's just a reality you're going to have to accept. The Templars in the AC universe were responsible for the murder of millions in WW2 courtesy of Templar Adolf Hitler.

unless you care to tale a crack at defending Hitler as a man, accept it.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-05-2014, 04:34 PM
There should be an Assassin's Creed game that takes place during World War II.

Please no!

They've said it will never happen, most AC fans don't want it to happen. Assassin's Creed is not Call of Duty, it's not Wolfenstein, nor should it EVER be.

Fatal-Feit
12-05-2014, 04:39 PM
Maybe cus it's a little difficult to shut down lots of camps with one man? That's for Ubisoft to decide!

If I could manage taking down a fort in AC:3 without getting detected, I can do anything.

Perk89
12-05-2014, 04:40 PM
As for the setting, I've been saying it's be an excellent one for a long time.


Nobody has done a WW2 game in years and the market is ripe. It'd be a new direction for the series that would give it a shot in the arm. Most importantly though, it's an excellent idea because it'll be fun. As I've said a couple times, after playing the naval fort conquests in Rogue, I'm even more convinced it's an excellent idea. The thrilling, behind enemy lins while chaos is happening is the absolute high point of Rogue, and you can easily make a game out of that feature set in WW2 and it be an awesome one.


you guys need to alter the way you look at it. You wouldn't be a soldier taking a tour of various famous battles as most here seem to think when they consider it. Picture a resistance fighter visiting a couple cities. Poland for the Nazi invasion, Berlin for allied air raids and he russian siege.


there is so so so much potential.

Fatal-Feit
12-05-2014, 04:49 PM
As for the setting, I've been saying it's be an excellent one for a long time.


Nobody has done a WW2 game in years and the market is ripe. It'd be a new direction for the series that would give it a shot in the arm. Most importantly though, it's an excellent idea because it'll be fun. As I've said a couple times, after playing the naval fort conquests in Rogue, I'm even more convinced it's an excellent idea. The thrilling, behind enemy lins while chaos is happening is the absolute high point of Rogue, and you can easily make a game out of that feature set in WW2 and it be an awesome one.


you guys need to alter the way you look at it. You wouldn't be a soldier taking a tour of various famous battles as most here seem to think when they consider it. Picture a resistance fighter visiting a couple cities. Poland for the Nazi invasion, Berlin for allied air raids and he russian siege.


there is so so so much potential.

Wolfenstein, mate.

Other than that nit bit, I agree with your post. It would make for an interesting and innovative game. Just like AC:IV, which turned out to be spectacular.

I'm surprise by all the complaints about how AC will become a first-person shooter simply because of the setting. That's the most dumbest argument I've ever heard, no offense to some people. Did AC:3 become an FPS? No, they innovated upon the core mechanics. AC:IV, despite having an emphasis on naval and piracy, still holds up the Assassin's Creed title better than 90% of its predecessors. Hell, IIRC, it had more stealth than ANY of its predecessors. Come on people, the developers aren't that incompetent. AC is a 3rd person action adventure stealth game and setting it in WWII isn't going to change that. If anything, it'll change its IP like what may have happened with W_D.

But to be clear, I'm not a fan of the setting. It's at the bottom of my list for wants. But please, for f***'s sake, use a better argument.

Hans684
12-05-2014, 05:11 PM
It's already been explicitly stated Hitler was a Templar puppet.

Fixed it.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 05:11 PM
But to be clear, I'm not a fan of the setting.

Same here, friend.

These arguments make no sense. -__-

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 05:12 PM
Wolfenstein, mate.

Other than that nit bit, I agree with your post. It would make for an interesting and innovative game. Just like AC:IV, which turned out to be spectacular.

I'm surprise by all the complaints about how AC will become a first-person shooter simply because of the setting. That's the most dumbest argument I've ever heard, no offense to some people. Did AC:3 become an FPS? No, they innovated upon the core mechanics. AC:IV, despite having an emphasis on naval and piracy, still holds up the Assassin's Creed title better than 90% of its predecessors. Hell, IIRC, it had more stealth than ANY of its predecessors. Come on people, the developers aren't that incompetent. AC is a 3rd person action adventure stealth game and setting it in WWII isn't going to change that. If anything, it'll change its IP like what may have happened with W_D.

But to be clear, I'm not a fan of the setting. It's at the bottom of my list for wants. But please, for f***'s sake, use a better argument.

The only real argument is what exactly signifies Assassin's Creed in terms of open-world gameplay. I think it's about cities in older timelines, with monuments, crowds, interesting architecture to climb with side missions that immerse you in city life and historical period settings. I don't know how an Assassin can be invested in that tourism at a time of warfare, widespread devastation and genocide, its way too serious a context to allow that kind of adventure-loving exploration. It kills it.

Berlin is more interesting to visit in 1918-1920s when it had severe economic problems, government instability(it was common for many to be assassinated at the time) and a vibrant art scene and night-life with many great artists and scientists(quite a few would leave the city at the end). You can also help and foil Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch at Munich(a short segue to another city). You can start with the end of the Spartacist Uprising and Rosa Luxemburg(a Marxist who was critical of Lenin and the October Revolution) and end with the Depression and the rise of Hitler in 1933. That's a long period, dark, gloomy and filled with possibilities and a single city setting.

MakimotoJin
12-05-2014, 05:24 PM
Same here, friend.

These arguments make no sense. -__-

I'm not either.I think people just want to see Hitler.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 05:30 PM
I'm not either.I think people just want to see Hitler.

Yeah, people always want these cliche narratives when it comes to settings like these. -__-

MakimotoJin
12-05-2014, 05:34 PM
Yeah, people always want these cliche narratives when it comes to settings like these. -__-

AC3,for example,was a cluster**** of known people.The whole Kenway saga,actually.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 05:38 PM
AC3,for example,was a cluster**** of known people.The whole Kenway saga,actually.


I disagree as AC4 did alright in that aspect...

And AC3 had some decent ones like Lafayette...

Then you had Paul Revere... >__>

MakimotoJin
12-05-2014, 05:40 PM
I disagree as AC4 did alright in that aspect...

And AC3 had some decent ones like Lafayette...

Then you had Paul Revere... >__>

Oh no I didn't mean it's a bad thing.I'm just saying it shouldn't be the reason to buy a game.

Fatal-Feit
12-05-2014, 05:43 PM
AC:3 didn't sell because it had Washington, neither did AC:IV with Blackbeard, nor AC:U with Napoleon. History has proven(pun intended) that fans are more interested in the gameplay innovations and setting than one key figure.

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 05:48 PM
AC:3 didn't sell because it had Washington, neither did AC:IV with Blackbeard, nor AC:U with Napoleon. History has proven(pun intended) that fans are more interested in the gameplay innovations and setting than one key figure.

Haha, true. :rolleyes:


Oh no I didn't mean it's a bad thing.I'm just saying it shouldn't be the reason to buy a game.

Agreed.

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 05:49 PM
AC:3 didn't sell because it had Washington, neither did AC:IV with Blackbeard, nor AC:U with Napoleon. History has proven(pun intended) that fans are more interested in the gameplay innovations and setting than one key figure.

AC3 was the best-selling game of the Franchise and the American Revolution setting and Native American protagonist was part of that. That was what we see on the box.

Black Flag sold well(slightly less than AC3) because it was the Pirate Game we've all been waiting for.

UNITY I can't comment if it has sold well or not since I don't know.

The Historical Element is a huge reason why the games sell well. People want to travel back in time and meet these figures.

MakimotoJin
12-05-2014, 05:50 PM
AC:3 didn't sell because it had Washington, neither did AC:IV with Blackbeard, nor AC:U with Napoleon. History has proven(pun intended) that fans are more interested in the gameplay innovations and setting than one key figure.

That's good.I'm saying this because I bought the Amazing Spider-Man 2 because it had Carnage as a final boss.Mistake learned.

Fatal-Feit
12-05-2014, 05:52 PM
AC3 was the best-selling game of the Franchise and the American Revolution setting and Native American protagonist was part of that. That was what we see on the box.

Black Flag sold well(slightly less than AC3) because it was the Pirate Game we've all been waiting for.

UNITY I can't comment if it has sold well or not since I don't know.

The Historical Element is a huge reason why the games sell well. People want to travel back in time and meet these figures.

Not sure if you're trying to prove my point or not, but yeah.

Regarding AC:U, it had a HUGELY hyped fanbase behind it pre-release, also.

Xstantin
12-05-2014, 05:57 PM
Regarding AC:U, it had a HUGELY hyped fanbase behind it pre-release, also.

I wanted the Fr Rev game since Brotherhood times, so yeah. Anyway if WW2 game ever happens, please no killing Hitler/Hitler fistfight in a glowing room/anything Hitler.

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 06:03 PM
I wanted the Fr Rev game since Brotherhood times, so yeah. Anyway if WW2 game ever happens, please no killing Hitler/Hitler fistfight in a glowing room/anything Hitler.

Which again begs me to ask, what is the point of a WW2-Assassin's Creed game if you don't punch or kill Hitler? What is the point of a series that has insanity as one of its many pillars - fistfight with the Pope, bossfight with Alternate Universe Washington on a Pyramid, Scaling the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty during the French Revolution - if given a setting that allows you to do that, you drop the ball.

Don't tell me about possibilities of gameplay in terms of infiltrating or sneaking around military bases since we have Metal Gear Solid(among many many others) for that.

killzab
12-05-2014, 06:09 PM
Which again begs me to ask, what is the point of a WW2-Assassin's Creed game if you don't punch or kill Hitler? What is the point of a series that has insanity as one of its many pillars - fistfight with the Pope, bossfight with Alternate Universe Washington on a Pyramid, Scaling the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty during the French Revolution - if given a setting that allows you to do that, you drop the ball.

Don't tell me about possibilities of gameplay in terms of infiltrating or sneaking around military bases since we have Metal Gear Solid(among many many others) for that.

... Have you read anything we've posted ?? You're not even trying to have a discussion ...

Xstantin
12-05-2014, 06:11 PM
@VestigalLlama, probably because there'll be people who'll say that it is historically incorrect/silly/awful, just as you have been saying about Unity for the past few weeks actually.

VestigialLlama4
12-05-2014, 06:27 PM
@VestigalLlama, probably because there'll be people who'll say that it is historically incorrect/silly/awful, just as you have been saying about Unity for the past few weeks actually.

So a better option is not deal with history at all?

Look, I don't want a WW2 game but to imagine a WW2 AC game without you dealing with Hitler, where like in UNITY, a background extra of history is the secret mastermind behind everything, is sillier than having a fistfight with the Pope...

MakimotoJin
12-05-2014, 09:03 PM
From the Wikia,and AC2's Glyph:
"On 30 April 1945, at the end of the war, Hitler executed his body double inside the Führerbunker and planned to meet Winston Churchill with the Apple of Eden at a rendezvous point. However, upon leaving the bunker, Hitler was assassinated by the Assassins."
Surprise,Hitler dies by the Assassins.Shall we stop this pointless debate?

Farlander1991
12-05-2014, 09:41 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't mind historical connections to be even looser than Unity, ala AC1 (maybe even looser than that). This interconnectivity with history actually gets tiresome, historical events/people don't necessarily lead to a better immersion or use of historical setting.

Xstantin
12-05-2014, 09:55 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't mind historical connections to be even looser than Unity, ala AC1 (maybe even looser than that). This interconnectivity with history actually gets tiresome, historical events/people don't necessarily lead to a better immersion or use of historical setting.

I agree, but imagine the outrage if Victory puts the player to assassinate random physicians and lawyers :rolleyes:

Farlander1991
12-05-2014, 10:12 PM
I agree, but imagine the outrage if Victory puts the player to assassinate random physicians and lawyers :rolleyes:

Well, half of our AC1 targets were some random people as well :p

But Victory is already getting an outcry in the form of 'that era has barely any recognizable/famous historical people', to which I'm gonna say.... **** YEAH!!!!!

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 10:17 PM
Well, half of our AC1 targets were some random people as well :p

But Victory is already getting an outcry in the form of 'that era has barely any recognizable/famous historical people', to which I'm gonna say.... **** YEAH!!!!!

Nothing groundbreaking really happened in BF in terms of historical events, still didn't stop it from being a great story.

And I'm sure it isn't gonna Victory from being a potentially good story as well.

Sometimes less is more, you know?

Farlander1991
12-05-2014, 10:22 PM
Nothing groundbreaking really happened in BF in terms of historical events, still didn't stop it from being a great story.

I actually like BF a lot when it comes to historical interconnectivity, because, even though like 75% of characters in the game are historical people, we know about them for the most part because there was a guy who interviewed a bunch of people and then wrote about it (yes, there are other sources as well since we deal with outlaws, but Johnson's book is pretty much THE main thing), they're not that famous or influential on their own right (more as a group of people). And the 'biggest' historical people that we deal with are local governors, while the biggest historical event is a hurricane (I'm not sure if you can count the fall of Nassau as an 'event', that's more of a gradual thing).

Namikaze_17
12-05-2014, 10:37 PM
I actually like BF a lot when it comes to historical interconnectivity, because, even though like 75% of characters in the game are historical people, we know about them for the most part because there was a guy who interviewed a bunch of people and then wrote about it (yes, there are other sources as well since we deal with outlaws, but Johnson's book is pretty much THE main thing), they're not that famous or influential on their own right (more as a group of people). And the 'biggest' historical people that we deal with are local governors, while the biggest historical event is a hurricane (I'm not sure if you can count the fall of Nassau as an 'event', that's more of a gradual thing).

Mh-hmm. Well said. ^^

Sometimes the smallest things can add great impact if written right.

The fall of Nassau may have been nothing in history as you mentioned, but it was depicted so well in the game that it made you care about the characters and their struggle.

Megas_Doux
12-05-2014, 10:38 PM
I´m sure Ubi will stay away from:

1 Jesus Christ, Muhammad and such. Obvious reasons.
2 WW II!.For it is TOO recent, if many are whinning about how the French Revolution was not accurately portrayed in a FICTIONAL game, would you imagine anything related to the Nazis???? That is still a sensitive and mostly polemic issue.

Altair1789
12-06-2014, 02:39 AM
I wouldn't like a game anywhere within 200 years of 2014.
Exceptions for Victory. Because throwing knives. And top hats

VestigialLlama4
12-06-2014, 03:54 AM
Honestly, I wouldn't mind historical connections to be even looser than Unity, ala AC1 (maybe even looser than that). This interconnectivity with history actually gets tiresome, historical events/people don't necessarily lead to a better immersion or use of historical setting.

The historical connections was loose in AC1 because there wasn't a lot of information about it, compared to say the Renaissance and later eras so it allows for more freedom of invention. Like the city of Acre is obviously made up of later areas and anachronistic architecture because there's not a lot left from the original Acre of the Crusades. The Assassins, who are the main focus in the game, are shown accurately in their real-life fortress of Masyaf(an actual location by the way). They are called Asasiyun in the game(by Malik and Al Mualim) which is their actual historical term, and not the Hashashin, which came from the cooked-up(if interesting and entertaining in a "wouldn't it be cool if it was true" way), that they got high on hashish and were drugged up and sent to assassinate others (why people think that junkies on a high make good assassins is beyond me). The targets are fictional and actual who get moved around here and there, that's true enough but the main thrust of its story, in terms of their philosophy and function, is still fairly accurate. It's not for nothing that Friedrich Nietzche wrote, "When the Christian crusaders in the Orient came across that unconquered Order of Assassins, that free-spirited order par excellence, whose lowest ranks lived a life of obedience of the sort no order of monks attained, then they received by some means or other a hint about that symbol and motto, which only the highest ranks kept as their secret, "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." . . . Well now, that was spiritual freedom. With that the very belief in truth was cancelled. . . Has a European, a Christian free spirit ever wandered by mistake into this proposition and its labyrinthine consequences?"

The loosest game in terms of history is REVELATIONS but that's mostly because Ezio is on Vacation and a tourist in Ottoman Turkey so it makes sense for him to not be too involved in the politics and stuff that happen. The events we see is basically an extrapolation of one of many minor palace intrigues and the Byzantine-Palailogos stuff is obviously fictionalized.

Black Flag is pretty accurate to the pirate era, even using actual speeches from that time.

Until UNITY they never actually outright falsified history. They always worked within that base.

pirate1802
12-06-2014, 06:00 AM
Lol no thanks. I couldn't stand the ridiculousness of watching a trenchcoated guy with a stupid and ill-fitting hood on his head running across battlefields and rooftops in that funny attire. The hood went out of fashion long, long ago and Ubi should have gotten that message, but they continue to use it because kids need a visual clue to make the connection. Also hidden blades, did I imagine it all when I read it in the comics that they are mostly of ceremonial use in the modern days? Why does every WW2 and modern day assassin request includes it? No idea. Twentieth century assassins would have way-way better ways of dispose of the enemy than a blade strapped to your wrist. There is hardly any melee combat nowadays anyway so it will be moot.

And anyway if I wanted to play a WW2 parkour/stealth/combat game I'd play Saboteur. A better game and free of all that trappings VestigialLlame mentioned a WW2-AC would fall into.

Corleone-Kun
12-06-2014, 06:16 AM
I always thought Hitler was not Templar nor Assassin,he just found a Apple,like Napoleon for example. Wasn't that in one of the Subject 16 enigmas,or is just my imagination?

DragonAddicted
12-06-2014, 06:42 AM
No thanks, what Assassin's Creed makes so special is that you're fighting with swords, blades and other old weapons.
What you want is that Assassin's Creed will becoming a game such as Call of Duty and Battlefield.

Sabutto
12-06-2014, 07:16 AM
ww2? assassin using machine guns? ahahahaah noty

JamesFaith007
12-06-2014, 12:06 PM
Also hidden blades, did I imagine it all when I read it in the comics that they are mostly of ceremonial use in the modern days? Why does every WW2 and modern day assassin request includes it? No idea. Twentieth century assassins would have way-way better ways of dispose of the enemy than a blade strapped to your wrist. There is hardly any melee combat nowadays anyway so it will be moot.


Exactly my problems with WWII AC. Why use hidden blade and sneak inside enemy house when we are in era of snipers and bombmakers? Sniper Elite showed as how such WWII assassins work.

And those arguments about bigger emphasis on stealth - did these people ever take in account that some people like sword fight in AC and want it? I'm personally more sneaker, but even then I love fights on ships in AC4. And UBI would have to deliberately sacrifice this part of fanbase on altar of WWII stealth game.

pirate1802
12-06-2014, 12:19 PM
Well yes, there's a game describing how authentic WW2 assassins used to operate. But I fear people are hardly after historical authenticity anyway, hence the demand for a ridiculous hooded figure stabbing gunmen firing at you with obsolete knives instead of a sniper zooming in and dropping them one by one.

Fatal-Feit
12-06-2014, 01:53 PM
After playing much of AC:U's rift missions, I can happily say that a WWII setting might not be that bad. :p

UBOSOFT-Gamer
01-25-2015, 05:55 PM
Why during WW2? It could set in Germany and Europe or even the World before WW2. Think of the movie Indiana Jones and the last crusade. We could visit cities like Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Zurich, Alexandria in Egyp, Berlin, London, Wahsington, New York, Tokyo. And the third reich last only 12 years so a small period of time to snap in. No, no, dont let play the full game in those 12 years and never during the war, but maybe a part of it befor 39.

Why? Because the Nazis, were occult and esoteric. Some examples. In the Assassinc creed universe myth and artefacts and secrets are a strong part.

The NS-Headquarter of the occult - The Wewelsburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...n_of_the_North_Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wewelsburg#Description_of_the_North_Tower)

The Nazis did an expedition to Tibet. For the game they could search for more pieces of eden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1..._Expedition_to_Tibet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938-1939_German_Expedition_to_Tibet)

They did an expedition to the Antartica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Swabia

Rubbish, secret nazi ufo base
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_UFOs

German U-Boats didn't only attacked Allied ships, they also transported agents, saboteurs, etc. Could also be used for a fictional thing for AC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234

Or take the secret german airforce unit KG200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...0_in_the_Middle_East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KG_200#KG200_in_the_Middle_East)

Or Brandenburger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...arbarossa_-_Ostfront (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburger_Regiment#Operation_Barbarossa_-_Ostfront)

Or a piece of enden could be located in an unknown nazibunker somewehre in Europe.


Or underground Berlin
http://berliner-unterwelten.de/home.1.1.html

Or may the red army took the piece of eden and brought it to Moscow.
Or an American soldier found it in a german town and send it to USA.

Hitler and the Hol Lance
http://jettandjahn.com/2013/03/hitle...-roman-empire/ (http://jettandjahn.com/2013/03/hitler-the-crown-jewels-of-the-holy-roman-empire/)


BLACK SUN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_(occult_symbol) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_%28occult_symbol%29)

There could be so many things to be used for the AC universe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


The only thing what may cause a bit trouble is the use of nazimyth and (neo)-nazisymbols for the story of a game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_occultism#Games

Philadelphia Experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment


The Bell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Glocke

Foo Fighter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter

There is many mystical stuff before ww2, that would fit in the AC Universe.

Altair1789
01-25-2015, 07:50 PM
Hitler, FDR, and Churchill are actually templars in AC lore according to the acwiki

A whole game on WW2 I wouldn't like. 1 or 2 missions would be fine though

VestigialLlama4
01-25-2015, 08:14 PM
Hitler, FDR, and Churchill are actually templars in AC lore according to the acwiki

And Stalin. Which is why I am not keen on a WW2 AC game unless they change their lore. I mean saying all of them are Templars makes sense as a nice goofy joke in a throwaway comment, but it can't be taken seriously in a legitimate full game, because you are essentially accusing Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin of being collaborators and conspirators of the Holocaust and other Nazi war crimes, which to me is absurdly immoral and offensive, tarring the people who ended the Holocaust with the crimes of their opponents.

mohack221
01-26-2015, 04:38 AM
And Stalin. Which is why I am not keen on a WW2 AC game unless they change their lore. I mean saying all of them are Templars makes sense as a nice goofy joke in a throwaway comment, but it can't be taken seriously in a legitimate full game, because you are essentially accusing Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin of being collaborators and conspirators of the Holocaust and other Nazi war crimes, which to me is absurdly immoral and offensive, tarring the people who ended the Holocaust with the crimes of their opponents.

They could make it so that Hitler could have been a rogue templar that decided to initiate the holocaust on his own command. The rest of the templar leaders could have just not known about it.

Assaltslayer99
11-30-2016, 04:08 AM
Dude yes. I had this exact idea, with the trench coat and co2 blades as well. It even makes sense because real Adolf Hiter received the iron cross. Which could be made to look like a painted over templat cross. But the protagonist should be an excaped jew from one of the concetration camps, who meets a former assassin inside and the assassin directs him to a assassin hideout before he's killed. There's room for side missions, such as searching for lost pieces of art that the nazi's stole or sabatoging nazi techological advancements. I don't understand why it's such a bad idea. And for all the people saying that Churchil and FDR would have to be killed, Elise de Laserre was a templar but helped Arno Dorian. And Churchill partnered with Lydia Frye in AC: Syndicate.

joelsantos24
11-30-2016, 05:28 PM
An AC game in WW2? God, no!

cawatrooper9
11-30-2016, 05:53 PM
Personally, I don't want to have a full game set in WWII, but I'd love for a substantial rift during this time.

I absolutely loved the rift section in Syndicate- probably the greatest innovation in the series since sailing. For the next game, I truly hope we get several of these more substantial rifts. Let's say the game is set in Middle Kingdom Egypt-
We could get a a rift each for:

Old Kingdom
New Kingdom
Greco Roman Period
Napoleonic Era
WWII


Something like that would be absolutely amazing for me- especially if each rift ties in to the POE/MacGuffin of the game.

marvelfannumber
11-30-2016, 07:13 PM
Let's say the game is set in Middle Kingdom Egypt
Will it be though? Didn't the leaks suggest it would be another trilogy with the same character in Egypt, Greece and Rome? The only way that would work is if the character is in his early 20's in the first game and it's set during the end of Ptolemaic Egypt.

Sigma 1313
11-30-2016, 07:58 PM
Will it be though? Didn't the leaks suggest it would be another trilogy with the same character in Egypt, Greece and Rome? The only way that would work is if the character is in his early 20's in the first game and it's set during the end of Ptolemaic Egypt.

Well we could also see Egypt during the Achaemenid Empire (Persia), maybe during Inaros' Egyptian Revolt against the satrap Achaemenes following the assassination of Xerxes. (my GDD for Empire suggested several years prior and seeing part of the Greco-Persian wars). Rome was had been founded about 300 years prior and was starting to gain power and even had a large slave revolt in 464 BCE). However, while I think that's more interesting for Egypt and Greece, if they had a trilogy in mind, it will most likely take place during Ptolemaic Egypt as you said.

marvelfannumber
11-30-2016, 08:05 PM
Well we could also see Egypt during the Achaemenid Empire (Persia), maybe during Inaros' Egyptian Revolt against the satrap Achaemenes following the assassination of Xerxes. (my GDD for Empire suggested several years prior and seeing part of the Greco-Persian wars). Rome was had been founded about 300 years prior and was starting to gain power and even had a large slave revolt in 464 BCE). However, while I think that's more interesting for Egypt and Greece, if they had a trilogy in mind, it will most likely take place during Ptolemaic Egypt as you said.

The thing is though, during Achaemenid Egypt, Rome was just a tiny village with wooden buildings and simple painted temples. You can't base an entire game within a trilogy around that, so the only period that would make sense would be late Ptolemaic Egypt. I think it would be pretty interesting to get that Greco-Egyptian feel, it would feel quite unique and intriguing.

cawatrooper9
11-30-2016, 08:13 PM
Will it be though? Didn't the leaks suggest it would be another trilogy with the same character in Egypt, Greece and Rome? The only way that would work is if the character is in his early 20's in the first game and it's set during the end of Ptolemaic Egypt.


Let's say the game is set in Middle Kingdom Egypt-

Just saying hypothetically so. Replace any time period in there for whatever, I was just trying to demonstrate how rifts could work. There's no confirmation on when the time period really is. In fact, there's technically no confirmation it's even Egypt.

marvelfannumber
11-30-2016, 08:17 PM
Just saying hypothetically so. Replace any time period in there for whatever, I was just trying to demonstrate how rifts could work. There's no confirmation on when the time period really is. In fact, there's technically no confirmation it's even Egypt.

Yeah I know, it's just that I have been seeing alot of people discuss periods like this which would be incocnsistent with the leaks, so I used your comment as a sort of exuse to go on a soapbox about it. Sorry about that.

Sigma 1313
12-01-2016, 02:07 AM
The thing is though, during Achaemenid Egypt, Rome was just a tiny village with wooden buildings and simple painted temples. You can't base an entire game within a trilogy around that, so the only period that would make sense would be late Ptolemaic Egypt. I think it would be pretty interesting to get that Greco-Egyptian feel, it would feel quite unique and intriguing.

Well that's just not true. While Rome was not a sprawling metropolis like it was in Brotherhood, it still was a fairly substantial city. By the 6th century it had a treaty with Carthage, by 509 BCE the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus the oldest temple in Rome:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/City_of_Rome_during_time_of_republic.jpg

Of course then we have large walls being built around the city: (Republican Walls)

http://www.mmdtkw.org/ALRItkwRom101BasicTopWalls.jpg

This is ignoring the original foundations of Rome (the forums). I was just there on my honeymoon a few months ago, and trust me, they're way bigger than they were in brotherhood. (Overall the AC games are good at scaling, but there were a few errors, like the size of Castel Sant Angelo and forum).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Roman_forum_cropped.jpg/800px-Roman_forum_cropped.jpg

Of course Rome became a republic by 500 BCE and then entered into war with the Sabines, and by 493 began asserting its dominance over Italy, taking the next hundred years to take over Veii, Volsci, and Aequi. A game with an open map along the Roman countryside and having Rome, Veii, Volsci, and Aequi as playable cities around 450 BCE is not insane. And an entire game could easily fit within this period of warring between these city states. I mean, we have an entire game taking place within a single year during the Ottoman Empire switching power from Bayezid II to Selim I. A game similar to Revelations that has a heavier emphasis on POE and a personal journey could definitely work within that time period. This isn't saying that seeing Rome at its height wouldn't be better for a single game, but for a trilogy, I personally think that Persia's expanse would be better as a time period with time rifts into Alexandria and Cairo. My GDD also made this entirely in a single game.

marvelfannumber
12-01-2016, 01:02 PM
Well that's just not true. While Rome was not a sprawling metropolis like it was in Brotherhood, it still was a fairly substantial city. By the 6th century it had a treaty with Carthage, by 509 BCE the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus the oldest temple in Rome:
That picture is pretty romanticized, the Temple of Jupiter shown seems to depict the 4th iteration of it, built by Domitian in the 1st Century AD. The Temple of Jupiter during the Republican era would have been the original Etruscan temple which would have been made of wood and be fairly plain in terms of decoration:

http://i.imgur.com/SuTIO7V.jpg



Of course then we have large walls being built around the city: (Republican Walls
Said Republican walls enclosed a rather small area of mostly wooden buildings. Even if they went out of their way to make it a scale model unlike Brotherhood, it would still be lacking as a city, it would be of moderate size and have very plain buildings spread out from eachother.


This is ignoring the original foundations of Rome (the forums). I was just there on my honeymoon a few months ago, and trust me, they're way bigger than they were in brotherhood. (Overall the AC games are good at scaling, but there were a few errors, like the size of Castel Sant Angelo and forum).
I know, but the Forums wouldn't look anything like what remains today during the early Republican times. Most buildings wouldn't be made of marble and would be quite short and plain. This is a reconstruction from 200 BC, which is getting close to the end of the Republic

http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2-Phase-G_Sp%C3%A4te-Republik-I_Blick-von-O.jpg

Even here it's quite plain and empty, in the early Republic it would be even more plain and small.


Of course Rome became a republic by 500 BCE and then entered into war with the Sabines, and by 493 began asserting its dominance over Italy, taking the next hundred years to take over Veii, Volsci, and Aequi. A game with an open map along the Roman countryside and having Rome, Veii, Volsci, and Aequi as playable cities around 450 BCE is not insane. And an entire game could easily fit within this period of warring between these city states.
I don't think that would be particularily interesting. As said there would be a few wooden citiess with not very dense housing and ALOT of countryside. Now if there is one certainty within Assassin's Creed, it's that the countryside always sucks for gameplay, unless it's AC3 but that's because the cities there were pretty bad.



I mean, we have an entire game taking place within a single year during the Ottoman Empire switching power from Bayezid II to Selim I. A game similar to Revelations that has a heavier emphasis on POE and a personal journey could definitely work within that time period.
Which was a complete waste, Byzantine Constantinople would have been much more interesting. Even then Constantinople was heavily urbanized and had plenty of tall/densely packed buildings. Something which early Republican Rome, just doesn't have.


II personally think that Persia's expanse would be better as a time period with time rifts into Alexandria and Cairo. My GDD also made this entirely in a single game.

I definetly don't want all of that as a single game. First off that would be a complete waste as they would have to strip all three setting bare in order to make them fit within one game. Secondly, I don't even think that would be possibile to do, without as said stripping the settings bare and making them a complete waste of potential.

ze_topazio
12-01-2016, 02:12 PM
Yeah, Republican Rome would not be that great, but Imperial Rome would be glorious.

Helforsite
12-01-2016, 09:10 PM
My problem with having a trilogy of games set in Egypt, Greece and Rome with the same protagonist is that you would have to make to many compromises to accomodate that idea. You won't get the best of each location out of the games, because you have to have it set at a time when all 3 settings were relevant and thus this eliminates a whole lot of possibilites of when the games are set, assuming a normal lifespan(only teenager to old, but still fit) which gives us about 50 years for our story to be set.

Egypt: Interesting periods of history all the way from 10.000+ BC until the Ptolomaic era(ca.300 BC), when Egypt starts to be very different from Ancient Egypt and losing part of its identity to the almost never-ending occupation by different nations(Greece, Rome, Arabs etc.).
Rome: The city only really becomes relevant and worthwile mentioning at the very earliest around 500 BC and then goes on to be noteworthy until about the end of the 18th century AD.
Greece: Athens becomes interesting starting with Draco around 700 BC and fails to stay significant starting with around 100 BC, which together with the fact that Athens absolutely has to be in a game about Greece, Ancient or otherwise, contributes to the fact that Greece is only really interesting from 700 to100 BC.

This pretty much shrinks the time the trilogy could take place to 500 BC to 100 BC. This leaves the Xerxes invasion of Egypt and Alexander the Great conquest of Egypt and Greece, both of which are not the best time periods, because in both Rome is not up to snuff in my opinion.

TL;DR: Single protagonist for all the 3 games is a bad idea, because it would compromise the settings' potentials and would most probably not be narratively sound.

joshoolhorst
12-01-2016, 10:35 PM
That will be the dead of AC if not done proper. Look I hate WW2 games alot! because it's not original and over freaking used, hell Syndicate took place in the 19th century and they all should have used guns not like Ubisoft cared about the history part in it anyway WW2 is not an AC setting actually I was surprised Syndicate took place in the 19th century in London even Patrice that could've taken place anywhere, Minerva made sense in AC2 because she was a God in Italy.
But I take Syndicate AC setting over WW2 because WW1 and 2 will only be guns and THERE IS NO FORCE that let me buy that Hitler used a Apple, lets just leave it at a teas and never mention it and Hitler got killed by Assassin's anyway. I don't know why people want to kill Hitler in AC hell there are so many games out there you can kill Hitler. Why do people think about Nazis and Assassin's Creed? I REALLY HATE WW2 in AC I freaking do

Sigma 1313
12-03-2016, 02:58 AM
That picture is pretty romanticized, the Temple of Jupiter shown seems to depict the 4th iteration of it, built by Domitian in the 1st Century AD. The Temple of Jupiter during the Republican era would have been the original Etruscan temple which would have been made of wood and be fairly plain in terms of decoration:

http://i.imgur.com/SuTIO7V.jpg

Said Republican walls enclosed a rather small area of mostly wooden buildings. Even if they went out of their way to make it a scale model unlike Brotherhood, it would still be lacking as a city, it would be of moderate size and have very plain buildings spread out from eachother.

I know, but the Forums wouldn't look anything like what remains today during the early Republican times. Most buildings wouldn't be made of marble and would be quite short and plain. This is a reconstruction from 200 BC, which is getting close to the end of the Republic

http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2-Phase-G_Sp%C3%A4te-Republik-I_Blick-von-O.jpg

Even here it's quite plain and empty, in the early Republic it would be even more plain and small.

I don't think that would be particularily interesting. As said there would be a few wooden citiess with not very dense housing and ALOT of countryside. Now if there is one certainty within Assassin's Creed, it's that the countryside always sucks for gameplay, unless it's AC3 but that's because the cities there were pretty bad.

Which was a complete waste, Byzantine Constantinople would have been much more interesting. Even then Constantinople was heavily urbanized and had plenty of tall/densely packed buildings. Something which early Republican Rome, just doesn't have.

I definetly don't want all of that as a single game. First off that would be a complete waste as they would have to strip all three setting bare in order to make them fit within one game. Secondly, I don't even think that would be possibile to do, without as said stripping the settings bare and making them a complete waste of potential.

From what I have seen and read of the Temple of Jupiter and Etruscan architecture, you're right that it would not be ornate or decorative (as that didn't begin until about 300 BCE as the Romans began to take inspiration from Greeks and develop their own style). However that picture is what is believed the original Temple looked like, and many palaces, richer houses, and temples were built out of stone and wood, while the poor homes were primarily made out of wooden beams and thatch roofs. While we couldn't realistically run on thatch roofs, we could run on the wooden beams supporting them. But like you said, Rome would be severely underutilized in this setting, and Rome at the heart of the Empire from about 300 BCE - 200 CE would be best for Rome. Greece however is better used in early-mid antiquity (Trojan War and expansion of Greek City States and wars between them). Egypt is best from about 4000 BCE to about 300 BCE when it loses itself to Rome.


Yeah, Republican Rome would not be that great, but Imperial Rome would be glorious.

Yeah it would be for Rome, but would be a worse setting for Egypt and Greece.


My problem with having a trilogy of games set in Egypt, Greece and Rome with the same protagonist is that you would have to make to many compromises to accomodate that idea. You won't get the best of each location out of the games, because you have to have it set at a time when all 3 settings were relevant and thus this eliminates a whole lot of possibilites of when the games are set, assuming a normal lifespan(only teenager to old, but still fit) which gives us about 50 years for our story to be set.

Egypt: Interesting periods of history all the way from 10.000+ BC until the Ptolomaic era(ca.300 BC), when Egypt starts to be very different from Ancient Egypt and losing part of its identity to the almost never-ending occupation by different nations(Greece, Rome, Arabs etc.).
Rome: The city only really becomes relevant and worthwile mentioning at the very earliest around 500 BC and then goes on to be noteworthy until about the end of the 18th century AD.
Greece: Athens becomes interesting starting with Draco around 700 BC and fails to stay significant starting with around 100 BC, which together with the fact that Athens absolutely has to be in a game about Greece, Ancient or otherwise, contributes to the fact that Greece is only really interesting from 700 to100 BC.

This pretty much shrinks the time the trilogy could take place to 500 BC to 100 BC. This leaves the Xerxes invasion of Egypt and Alexander the Great conquest of Egypt and Greece, both of which are not the best time periods, because in both Rome is not up to snuff in my opinion.

TL;DR: Single protagonist for all the 3 games is a bad idea, because it would compromise the settings' potentials and would most probably not be narratively sound.

100% agree, which is why I've been hoping it's during the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, which is a better period for Greece and Egypt. However this sacrifices Rome. And let's face it, in the general public Roman Empire is better known by public and would likely sell better than the Persian Empire. In the end, I think that despite Persia's rise is better for Greece and Egypt, Ubi will sacrifice Egypt and Greece's potential to have the better selling Roman Empire, along with the ability to better reuse assets during the trilogy.

marvelfannumber
12-03-2016, 03:32 PM
Yeah it would be for Rome, but would be a worse setting for Egypt and Greece.

How would Ptolemaic Egypt be worse? Not only do you have a unique Greco-Egyptian flavour with most of the ancient monuments still in good shape, but you would also have Alexandria (which would be an AMAZING city for an AC game) which wouldn't exist in any other time period prior to the Ptolemaic era.

The only one that somewhat suffers is Greece, but I don't see how that doesn't stop them from creating their own story based in Roman Greece. I wouldn't really mind that at all.

RinoTheBouncer
12-03-2016, 03:43 PM
My problem with having a trilogy of games set in Egypt, Greece and Rome with the same protagonist is that you would have to make to many compromises to accomodate that idea. You won't get the best of each location out of the games, because you have to have it set at a time when all 3 settings were relevant and thus this eliminates a whole lot of possibilites of when the games are set, assuming a normal lifespan(only teenager to old, but still fit) which gives us about 50 years for our story to be set.

Egypt: Interesting periods of history all the way from 10.000+ BC until the Ptolomaic era(ca.300 BC), when Egypt starts to be very different from Ancient Egypt and losing part of its identity to the almost never-ending occupation by different nations(Greece, Rome, Arabs etc.).
Rome: The city only really becomes relevant and worthwile mentioning at the very earliest around 500 BC and then goes on to be noteworthy until about the end of the 18th century AD.
Greece: Athens becomes interesting starting with Draco around 700 BC and fails to stay significant starting with around 100 BC, which together with the fact that Athens absolutely has to be in a game about Greece, Ancient or otherwise, contributes to the fact that Greece is only really interesting from 700 to100 BC.

This pretty much shrinks the time the trilogy could take place to 500 BC to 100 BC. This leaves the Xerxes invasion of Egypt and Alexander the Great conquest of Egypt and Greece, both of which are not the best time periods, because in both Rome is not up to snuff in my opinion.

TL;DR: Single protagonist for all the 3 games is a bad idea, because it would compromise the settings' potentials and would most probably not be narratively sound.

I have to agree with you about that point. It would have to make us stick to a time period where it was possible for all 3 empires to co-exist and like you said, you won't get the best of all three. But I believe if they somehow manage to create interesting protagonists for all 3 games that are related to one another, strongly along with a well-written modern day story and reason to go back and relive those times, it would make everything feel cohesive and interesting and be able to show the best of all 3 destinations, without having to stick to one era, but at the same time, feel like the story is very much connected and you're within the same trilogy, the same flow, and the same affairs, but viewed from the perspectives of different people in different times and places, without having to make each story is something standalone and separate from the others and only linked by a context, like Syndicate and Unity.

adrianbelew
12-03-2016, 09:54 PM
i kinda skipped through it after the first paragraph. if they do this they should use the frye girl or whatever from the wwII segment in unity.

i don't really like the idea of hitler being a Templar. Like seriously? the dude who wanted to kill all the jews for no reason whatsoever was a templar? just seems silly. like, how could he have even known about precursor artifacts and all that crap when he was busy doing stuff like world domination? I literally do not understand. I don't really think a game like this would do well outside of us and canada. especially considering Israel is currently becoming a Nazi Germany Clone. just does not seem like a good time to make a game about how evil and manipulative Hitler really was. Although it would be interesting to see how radically things change over that period of time.

ze_topazio
12-04-2016, 12:03 AM
In the lore of AC, World War 2 was artificially planned by the Templars to shake the world to its core, teach the people a lesson and then rebuild a new world order from the ashes, Hitler, Churchill and Stalin were the three Templars leading the plan.

Which works because that is actually what happened in real life, in real life WW2 was not planned, but the horrors and destruction of the war was so great that the world powers realized they had to rethink their ideals, because those ideals inherited from the XIX century no longer worked, and from the ashes of WW2 we got our modern world, the world in general got more liberal, the colonial empires gave independence to their colonies, countries started promoting friendship and cooperation, extreme nationalism was abandoned, the United Nations was founded, the European Union was founded, etc...,

The Assassins managed to kill Hitler, but Churchill and Stalin got away with it, and at the moment we don't know how much influence the Templars had in the rebuild of world, we know at least that they failed to rebuild the world as they wanted.

That was what AC2 glyphs hinted, however ever since then they have been trying to retcon that by stating that Hitler was not really a Templar, just an ally, and his extermination antics were not part of the plan, I guess making Hitler seem like a sort of unsung hero was too risky for the sales, Churchill was also an Assassin ally at some point before the war, maybe opening the possibility that he was never a Templar after all, I guess making one of WW2 heroes a villain friends with Hitler and Stalin was too controversial, nothing has been said about Stalin so far.

Helforsite
12-04-2016, 09:40 AM
I have to agree with you about that point. It would have to make us stick to a time period where it was possible for all 3 empires to co-exist and like you said, you won't get the best of all three. But I believe if they somehow manage to create interesting protagonists for all 3 games that are related to one another, strongly along with a well-written modern day story and reason to go back and relive those times, it would make everything feel cohesive and interesting and be able to show the best of all 3 destinations, without having to stick to one era, but at the same time, feel like the story is very much connected and you're within the same trilogy, the same flow, and the same affairs, but viewed from the perspectives of different people in different times and places, without having to make each story is something standalone and separate from the others and only linked by a context, like Syndicate and Unity.
That is exactly what I want! I think if you start the game off with our protagonist being an tasked with protecting an artifact(maybe Ankh, maybe somethingelse) and failing at that duty, which sets him upon a self-given quest of finding and bringing that artifact back. While on this quest he would find about other Templar schemes and decides that he has to prevent that scheme, even if he has to give up on finding the artifact for now. In the second game clues about the artifact would send an ancestor of our first protaginist to our second destination and there the plot of the first movies kind of repeats itself - with variations of course- and at the end our new protagonist learns that the artifact has been destroyed or irrevocably lost, which convinces him too give up the search and focus on family. The third game would start off with our third protagonist- ancestor of second protagonist - being a criminal or something of the kind and overhearing rumours about the artifact about 1/4th of the way into the game which motivates her to pick up the hunt for the artifact which also leads her to become an Assassin and ends with her eventually finding and taking back the artifact.
While having a family legacy theme, you would also go full-circle within the games from our first protagonist losing the artifact and being a dedicated assassin over our second protagonist being born into the brotherhood and in the end giving up the brotherhood and the quest to focus on family to our third and final protagonist rediscovering her family's quest and the brotherhood and finally getting back the artifact and becoming its new guardian.

Faronoz
07-17-2017, 10:19 PM
really i also though about this i think there something like this could be nice

MOSpartan
09-28-2017, 02:19 AM
I would submit that a Cold War era game would be sweet. The Templars are in both the US and Soviet governments. They want to start WW III to, once again try to gain their objective of forcing a world order in which they are in charge.

The Assassins are tasked with stopping this and infiltrate both governments. The player would play multiple assassins like in Syndicate, one on the Soviet side and another on the US side. After taking out various targets, the story climaxes in Cuba where the Templars have planned to set off one of the nukes that were parked on Cuba during the Missle Crisis to spark the Cold War into a Full War between the superpowers. With the end result being their ascension to world domination over the rest of the surviving world.

The two Assassins foil the plot and in the end cinematic, scenes from the actual footage from the UN where the Soviet Premier is embarrassed for having been caught red-handed is shown, and then the news reel where it is announced the Soviets have withdrawn their missles from Cuba is shown, then a final scene where the two assassins are shown standing in front of a electronics store window in Miami where the Kennedy Assassination is being broadcast on a stack of TVs, zooming in on the reel, one can see someone on the grassy knoll holding a piece of Eden..............end credits.

Don't know if it'd be proper to work in the Kennedy assassination into the story somehow, though. Maybe as a collateral accident as a result of a Templar and Assassin trying to kill each other or something.

strigoi1958
09-28-2017, 12:30 PM
well... putting lore to one side....

and just speaking as a gamer, there are already lots of war games and we don't need another. ... what would be the title? Creed of Duty? Medal of assassins Honor? Templars battlefield 1? Next they'll be calls for AC to be set in Gotham city or Mordor :confused:

joshoolhorst
09-28-2017, 01:28 PM
Oke I see I already made a post on this and I sound angry in that so let me say my thoughts now.

Just no... Absolute no.

But oke what if we leave all the Lore on the side and don't ask how, why, when etc just don't think about it for a second oke got it thanks.
Let's see locations: one of the big appeals for WW2 fans is a big open world game set in the time of WW2 and there aren't many WW2 games like that, it's like surging for a needle in a haystack beside the Sabotour but the problem is that AC uses locations with many colours or places that aren't visited that much.
WW2 has been done hundreds of times in games that it just has become a giant cliche. They all really have the same visuel effects.
Gameplay: So what happens to the haystacks? ever thought about that are we just gonna jump in giant dumpsters? Are they all placed in Germany? you can't put haystacks in the Modern Day era we live in now without making changes.
With the combat just shooting and taking cover it seems ALMOST impossible to climb buildings without somebody pointing an machine gun at you I mean do we need cover on the walls on the roof top? Maybe there would be hand to hand combat but we can't fight nazi's in public without them using guns on us (I already had to bend my suspension of disbelief in Syndicate for that matter so much).
Car driving seems also weird with the hole ''Your ancestors did not kill innocents'' the only way I can see this happen proper if it doesn't work if the Templars are after you but than you have people like myself who will try that jus for the heck of it to kill so many people all at once.
Even if they find ways to fix all of that what would the public think?
Strigoi1958 said: what would be the title? Creed of Duty? Medal of assassins Honor? Templars battlefield 1? Next they'll be calls for AC to be set in Gotham city or Mordor
This is a very good point and COD is now going back to the WW2 era's so comparisons might happen much more.
And with the hole lore now even if they can find ways to make it work they can't let us sympotise with the Nazi Templars because obvious reasons of course but also cause the Assassin's and Templars are both the same side of the coin, there is no right and wrong really but making some Nazi's Templars might just destroy the hole ''who is right and who is wrong'' if you know what I mean.
And WW2 is so well documented I can already see people noticing differences. I can't really see a win situation with this game maybe it works better for mystery in the AC lore than an actual game. But I am the person who wouldn't mind a linear Modern Day game spin off game so.

Locopells
09-28-2017, 08:33 PM
It would be like Liberation to a certain extent - when in the Slave persona, you couldn't free run in public sight without raising notoriety. The rope launcher would have to make a return - find a quite ally and zip up to the roof before you're spotted.

JamesFaith007
09-29-2017, 12:02 AM
AC set in WW2 or Cold war would be totally unnecessary for me. Reason is simple - I already have assassin-like games set in this era.

WW2 - Sniper Elite, Saboteur, Velvet Assassin and other
Cold war and modern time - Splinter Cell and Death to Spies.

I don't need another game just because hidden blade, Templars and some mystical artifact. I want game set in era I never (or rarely) visited before.

strigoi1958
09-29-2017, 01:10 AM
I love The Saboteur. Such a great game.

brent915
11-09-2017, 09:14 PM
i love WW2 also and in assassins creed unity the have it in WW2 as you escape thorugh the helix it said that they were working on the memery in game but not sure if in real life its a great idea and i think arbistergo is well due to make one since they just finished making origins

Deezl-V
11-10-2017, 10:20 AM
I think AC needs to stay away from strong gun era times. Ac feels best when there’s little to no guns. I think that’s why Origins feels so good again. They got away from the ac4, unity and syndicate gun games. Back to blades and arrows.

cawatrooper9
11-10-2017, 04:34 PM
I think AC needs to stay away from strong gun era times. Ac feels best when there’s little to no guns. I think that’s why Origins feels so good again. They got away from the ac4, unity and syndicate gun games. Back to blades and arrows.

I do agree with you.

However, ironically, if they did decide to go to a more modern era, Origins' arrow system would feel just at home.
We have sniper rifles (predator bows), shotguns (warrior bows), carbines or handfuns (hunter bows), and automatic weapons (light bows).
In a way, it almost fits too well... :p

guest-qyqDvD0e
11-11-2017, 01:58 AM
Blades and Arrows. Perfectly said.

The-Shrykull
11-11-2017, 07:26 AM
I would love both WWI and WWII games. The thing that makes the assassins creed games so great for me at least in part is how they explore different parts of history and characters from history. I hope they do many parts of history especially both world wars.

XrisM
08-16-2018, 07:19 AM
Hitler was defeated by Free Masons, FDR, Truman which are considered descendants of Templars. In fact most evil in the world since the Knights Templar was formed has been defeated by Templar descendants. This is where the world of assassins creed gets a little weird. In real life the Assassins would be the bad guys. Everyone from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to the great 20th century presidents like Reagan all defeated evil in the world and were associates (Free Masons) and descendants of the Knights Templar.. So it would be kind of dumb to have Hitler be a Templar when he was an atheist who persecuted Christians with whom the Knights Templar were created to protect. From the times of the crusades where they fought to liberate the Holy Land from Muslim invaders. In real life the Knights Templar were the good guys. That’s why I always questioned why assassins creed always put Christian Knights in a bad light especially when Islam since its conception has been rooted in every major oppressive detriment from the crusades to ISIS. Even in WW2 a theocracy in Persia allied with Germany to the point that they changed the name of their country to Iran which means “Land of Aryans” in solute to Hitler himself. And we all know the Nazis were the supposed supreme race of Aryans, So in a lot of aspects assassins creed has it backwards. We all know that Ubisoft and the people who worked on the game claim to be of all religious backgrounds but any half wit can tell that they try to demonize Christians. And that’s backwards since it was Christian men who saved the world from tyranny. From great leaders like Washington and Lincoln and Reagan to the men of the greatest generation. Just look at the sea of crosses at Arlington and at Colleville-sur- Mer, Normandy, France. Besides a few Star of David markers both cemeteries are a blanket of white crosses. It’s in a Christians faith that he would sacrifice his life for others. So Hitler being part of the same association as Washington, Lincoln, Reagan and some aspects FDR and JFK is ridiculously asinine.