So I was reading this article right here, and I got to say, he is pretty much speaking out the majority of the fan's cries, like the deterioration of the Modern Day lore, the struggle of the Assassin-Templar war reduced to just chasing objects, no more excitement for both MD and Historical time periods. Its just ebbing away.
Not to mention, he did get my point on how I feel about Ancient Egypt:
"One last thought. As cool as it will be to travel to ancient Egypt, which is rumored to be the setting of the next big game, there’s a massive, massive issue with that. There were no Templars in ancient Egypt. After the first Crusade in 1099, the order of knights began to rise. But it wasn’t for another twenty years before the Catholic Church officially recognized the organization. Which explains the setting of the first game. Who then could the Assassins possibly be facing off against in ancient Egypt?"
Since historically, the Assassins and Templars weren't a founded thing until the First Crusaders, so how will Ubisoft explore this period of time and not screw up the lore? They were proto-Assassins and Templars, but then what were they? I mean I'm for it, but very cautious about it at the same time.
Anyway, read the article here, and tell me if the guy is wrong or not on the status of the series: http://www.forbes.com/sites/archenem.../#7342f7f4621c
EDIT: I wrote this in a rush, but basically I kind of agree with him only 25%, just want to be clear on that part
Nah. Well, maybe he's not wrong, but his arguments are shaky. I mean, he says the usual fluff of 'Edward didn't become an assassin until the end of the game' (which is the point of the whole story and arc, and if you don't like it well then you don't like it but it does not mean a decline of anything), 'Desmond is proactive not reactive' when it's most of the time quite the opposite, and the issue of protagonist and antagonist group is the smallest issue one could find. Honestly, it's a bunch of ramblings, there's a lot of argumented and more global things you can say if you want to explore how the series is in decline or stagnation or what you want to call it, and he didn't touch on any of those points.
Wow, so the author talks about the lore of the series and how it's "detoriorated" but then asks who we'll fight in Ancient Egypt because Templars only appeared in 1099? Clearly he did not pay attention then to the lore that said Templars have been there since the dawn of mankind. Yeah, ever since Forbes started having a gaming section, it's just been one facepalm after the other.
The guy said nothing new. He's simply parroting what other people say without actually going into depth about any of the points he addresses (Which are vague and general on their own anyway). On modern day, I've gone into that at length. Modern day was always sub-par ever since AC II. Just for the little gem above, though, I wouldnt recommend reading articles about gaming from forbes.
Thats one thing I hope that they explore more if they go into Ancient Egypt. Especially since the Templars themselves believe that they were founded during the First Crusades, shown by Warren Vidic in Brotherhood's multiplayer. And the Glyphs prove them wrong otherwise. My concern is that they explain it, but leave more questions and holes than fully answering questions. Kind of like how the Assassins believed that Connor was the first native to become an Assassin, then two games later, they were proven wrong. Or the fact that the Box that was in possession of Ezio, was never explained at all, and why he has it.Originally Posted by Assassin_M Go to original post
I sort of understand him on that part. They keep talking about "A Pirate, trained by Assassins" and it was just everywhere. And I believed that until the game itself came out and I played it. I loved the story, but hated the ideas they were putting in my head.Originally Posted by Farlander1991 Go to original post
But I mean 1-3 was a race against time story, and 4 was the closing of that saga, and now we are just playing keep away with the Templars. It looks like we are going to fight Juno and her minions, but is it an actual thing or just another dead end. I know some say that the MD story was never there, but I had to disagree with that part.
People are too attached to names, the Orders' names mean nothing, it's what they stand for that counts, the names are just there for convenience.
about the MD, up until AC3 the MD was good for me, could it have been executed better? Yes, a 1000x better, (especially from ACB onwards, a lot of missed opportunities there, ACB and ACR being the worst offenders) but at least what we used to have was good enough to keep my interest in the franchise as a whole and create expectation about the next game, now, I just wish Ubisoft had the balls to drop it entirely because IMO it has become an anchor to the series where they are just purposely dragging out the story to put out more games.
If that's the whole reason why the MD exists nowadays I don't think it's needed anymore since the Assassin x Templar conflict happening through time is good enough to stand on its own. They should either tell a story with a beginning, a middle and an ending or drop it.
To be fair, you would only know that if you played AC2's Truth puzzles, which a lot of people apparently didn't. In the main storyline they barely touch on this. Every time someone in the story has to explain the Assassins vs. Templars war, they basically say it all started with Altaïr.Originally Posted by ze_topazio Go to original post
> CasualOriginally Posted by SixKeys Go to original post
so point proven
I watched the cutscenes for the MP again and no where does Vidic imply ignorance on the origin of the Templars. The inner sanctum simply reveres the first grand master of the order because he was the one who took them public and gave them an official presence.Originally Posted by Mr.Black24 Go to original post
That's really more up to retcon and/or oversight. Really, Ubisoft have dropped the ball with keeping the mythos consistent. It's been that way since AC II. Lots of inconsistencies and mistakes even when it was just 2 games.My concern is that they explain it, but leave more questions and holes than fully answering questions. Kind of like how the Assassins believed that Connor was the first native to become an Assassin, then two games later, they were proven wrong. Or the fact that the Box that was in possession of Ezio, was never explained at all, and why he has it.
My question for those who want to get rid of modern day, is that how will you explain the sudden disappearance of this part of the lore. Like everything we have up to this point so far, just dropped in the next game? How will that work out? Not to mention there are those like myself who are still clinging to the story that you got to explain to why it makes sense. Like the reason we go back to these time periods is because of what is happening in the now. Remove that, at its just random stories of people fighting each other in time, no interconnection whatsoever. I mean I thought the entire game was about the fact that the stories are connected in some way or form, that the events that happened then has great effect to the now, which makes those events even much more important.Originally Posted by dxsxhxcx Go to original post
Some might disagree with me and well thats ok, I guess.
Ah yeah, that prologue with Lucy saying "That war that your ancestor started...it never ended".Originally Posted by SixKeys Go to original post