Your thoughts on Assassins Creed: Odyssey? | Forums

[MageAquarius20]

The Shroud can ressurect people, who died recently from very deadly wounds like being Shoot in the head or simply being stabbed. It's more logical to assume to clone Desmond back to live, but Ubisoft has no interest in bringing him back, after all they have to take care of Lelya.

[joelsantos24]

Try telling that to the devs that actually MAKE the games. They will tell you it's about the hardware too, as that's what determines how much games evolve. Otherwise they are shackled to outdated hardware tech. And that's also what causes many of the AAA games to lag badly on PS4 in places. It takes more than a handful of decent exclusives and scads of indie games to appease those looking to buy a console as a full game machine.

Sony are clinging to outdated gen cycles and complacent security measures even though with their sales they can easily afford not to. I call that pretty bad. Also, as much as I agree with you on exclusives, it's still a matter of personal preference. Many say Microsoft had the best E3 stage conference this year because they showcased the most games, by far.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

As for Microsoft winning E3, I also read about some people considering that Ubisoft won, or EA, for that matter (LOOOOL). The Summary of Microsoft's conference: another Halo; 2 or more Gears' games; another (copy-pasted) Forza; and 95% cross-platform titles. It seems each has a different definition for "winning". Plus, it's not really a matter of personal preference, since people actually buy consoles just to play The Last of Us or God of War.

[Frag_Maniac]

Plus, it's not really a matter of personal preference, since people actually buy consoles just to play The Last of Us or God of War.

I don't see it as any different whether you buy it for 2 or 6 or a dozen games. They're still games you prefer to play, thus matter of preference. Personally I'm put off by consoles in general, too many restrictions.

[joelsantos24]

I don't see it as any different whether you buy it for 2 or 6 or a dozen games. They're still games you prefer to play, thus matter of preference. Personally I'm put off by consoles in general, too many restrictions.

There are countless examples of people who actually bought a Playstation just to play The Last of Us or God of War. It makes all the difference, when you buy a console just to experience one, single game. I think that says it all in terms of the true force that really drives gamers, that is, the games. When players choose Playstation, they do so for a few specific reasons: more games, better games and superior quality.

[Frag_Maniac]

There are countless examples of people who actually bought a Playstation just to play The Last of Us or God of War. It makes all the difference, when you buy a console just to experience one, single game. I think that says it all in terms of the true force that really drives gamers, that is, the games. When players choose Playstation, they do so for a few specific reasons: more games, better games and superior quality.

Yeah I get that many buy them for 1, 2 or a handful of exclusives. It's where you're not acknowledging that is due to preferring specific games that I don't get. By that I mean the purchase is based on personal game preferences, not personal preference of the console system itself as far as hardware spec, features, etc. However by extension that is also true to a degree. Basically I'm saying their opinion of what exclusives are offered drives much if not most of the decision, just like you were saying. That is still a matter of opinion though, and cannot be treated same as a matter of fact.

Some often claim it's a fact Sony has better exclusives by number of consoles sold, but still, even if they're all sold on the basis of exclusives offered, it's just the opinions of one camp vs another. There is no such thing as proving this or that game is better based on opinions, because at the end of the day, what is enjoyable to one person is not to another. And this is also the kind of thinking that makes so many PS customers accepting of the fact that PSN is not very secure, or that many AAA games do not play well on PS. They're so caught up in the exclusives they don't care.

[AnimusLover]

Nothing against that. My point was that, as much as I praise Désilets for his ideas and his talent, he didn't do everything right.

No one said he did though so I thought it was strange that you’ve made this a point of debate.

Well, I love the stories from AC1 and AC2. With that being said, it's important to recognise that it's one thing to love the stories from the perspective of the fan, and it's another to claim those are flawless and perfect.

Again, who claimed it was flawless and perfect? Saying that something is fantastic does not mean it's without flaws as no game is.

Again, not being it's strong feature, nor an aspect admittedly highlighted or that much revered by the company, the narrative drastically and naturally degraded (both the historical and the modern meta-story), after Désilets left the studios. He was probably one of Ubisoft's strongest promoters of the narrative branch.

Come on, you can't say Ubisoft didn’t highlight it, that’s patently untrue. I believe even Jade Raymond at the time said one of their goals was to explore story telling through different cultures, and you can tell.

Let’s look at ACII, the game that went on to define the series for better and for worse. ACII would not be as successful if the story wasn’t as prominent as it was because the gameplay by today's standards is about as generic as it gets. That is why games like Unity, which more or less follow its model, aren’t as well received. What Unity lacked was a strong protagonist and story so there was nothing to carry the player through all the boring repetitiveness. It’s completely soulless.

ACII works because of how seamlessly it integrates story into its gameplay without the player even noticing. The game spends hours getting the player to care about Ezio and his family even before events take a turn for the worse. People forget that it takes ages before Ezio even puts on his Assassin robes, it's mostly just him running errands for his mother and father, and playing with his siblings. The devs wanted us to take the time to know his character, his culture and lifestyle because they realised that was important to making us care about his loss. Ezio's main theme is even called "Ezio's family" to highlight how he lost one family but gained another in form of the Brotherhood. The prologue ends with Ezio’s brother telling him it’s a good life they lead and that he hopes it never changes before the title appears. That’s a very winking line because what comes next is going to shape the course of Ezio’s entire life in a way he does not know yet but the player does.

The devs integrate Ezio’s day-to-day life into the tutorialisation: Ezio blending in with prostitutes serves to teach the player one of the social stealth elements but it's also to stress that Ezio loves the ladies. The free running with his older brother shows the player the parkour basics but it also shows us how close Ezio was to him and simultaneously explains why he is able to climb so early on. Thus, every mechanic ACII teaches us also makes sense for the character and story and it does it in a way that's organic. This doesn’t work if the story is not highlighted or not seen as important by its creators.

In contrast, a game like Origins is more concerned with its so-called Egyptian “mystique” and combat mechanics so much that it simply cannot wait to get the player into what it considers the meat of the game. Thus, we go from a weird opening cut scene which shows glimpses of who the main players will be to suddenly fighting the bodyguard of a man Bayek killed in the desert. This is tonally incoherent and furthermore, doing it in a non-linear fashion means Kemu’s death is telegraphed to the player beforehand so when he dies there is no shock or resonance. The devs probably figured that they needed to use flashback storytelling so the player could get into the combat as quickly as possible but if they had cared about Bayek as a character, rather than just name-dropping his medjay status every 5 seconds, they would have found plenty of opportunities for him engage in combat prior to Kemu’s death. He could have shown Kemu how he fights during a lesson (and get his friend from Siwa as an opponent). At one point, Shadiya asks Bayek where he learns to climb like that and he responds with a laugh. I laughed too because the game never explains it. Again, if the devs cared about the relationship between Bayek and his son they would have had Bayek teaching Kemu how to climb as part of the parkour tutorial and to demonstrate that Bayek's climbing skills comes from his training.

Now, people will argue that this would have annoyed AC veterans who more or less at that point knew how to climb but there’s a problem with this argument: for one, that entire tomb section Bayek goes through before he meets up with his friend from Siwa is one big parkour tutorial. Also, ACII’s tutorials also made the players do things they learned back in AC1 such as social stealth, climbing and combat but the devs weren’t afraid to forcibly teach us again. You know why? Because they wanted us to care about Ezio and his family. That was their main concern during those crucial opening hours.

So yes, the story was very much highlighted. It was highlighted in everything you did as a player in that game. Patrice and his team just did it so well you didn’t even realise it. Origins is what you get when a story is not highlighted - long sequences of Bayek climbing through a cave to teach us parkour mechanics without anything happening at that precise moment to help us care or learn about the character or his plight.

Again, I'm not saying the narratives in the earlier games were perfect but they were still very good in terms of making one care about the lore, characters and overarching narrative so much that it simply couldn’t be divorced from the gameplay. Patrice and Ubisoft were trying back then and it showed.


Ubisoft think they’re being trendy by implementing the choice mechanic but they’re actually making things more difficult for themselves by focusing on an area they’ve deliberately been weakest in. Whenever a game introduces decision making into a story, that automatically puts the story at the forefront. Good luck...

[AnimusLover]

Be careful with that spaghetti, though, you mustn't overdo those carbs.

On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons to go overboard with Playstation. The best first-party catalogue in existence. A company that listens to it's fan-base and doesn't try to alienate any of it's communities. A fan-friendly business model that delivers the greatest single-player experiences, with the best narrative structures ever seen and the most absolutely overwhelming graphics.

Have fun with those empty mechanics and that pointless grind. In the meantime, we'll be playing The Last of Us 2, Ghost of Tsushima and Death Stranding.

To be fair, we can't really compare Ubisoft to a first party console developer. Sony games have to be good because they are essentially glorified advertisements for the hardware, that’s where the money is. Their games aren't allowed to fail because it’s the main distinguishing factor that dictates whether the consumer will buy a Playstation over their main competitor Microsoft. Ubisoft has no competitor when it comes to Assassin’s Creed - no other developer is making a historical tourism games as frequently as they do so they can afford to make mistakes. Sony can’t.

AC fandom has a lot in common with comic book fandom: "We're tired of the same ol' same ol', give us NEW!"

*Gives NEW*

"Boo! Hate NEW, give us OLD!"

Ah, AC "fandom" -- where folks love something so much they hate it.

This is a false narrative. The problem is Ubisoft tend to throw out the baby with the bath water. Yes, we asked for more freedom and choice in the open world but we didn’t ask for dialogue choices that change the outcome of the narrative. There is a difference between adding new features and then adding mechanics that actively contradict the entire premise of the game, rendering the series unrecognisable. If you want an example of how to take a franchise in a new direction without completely changing the core components that make up its identity just look at God of War. From everything I’ve heard from fans of that game, it seems it simply matured but not necessarily “changed”. There is a difference. Nobody asked for dialogue choices but Ubisoft have thrown it in there not because it makes the game better but because they continue to single white female The Witcher 3. It’s all about marketing and buzz words to appeal to casuals, not innovation.

[joelsantos24]

To be fair, we can't really compare Ubisoft to a first party console developer. Sony games have to be good because they are essentially glorified advertisements for the hardware, that’s where the money is. Their games aren't allowed to fail because it’s the main distinguishing factor that dictates whether the consumer will buy a Playstation over their main competitor Microsoft. Ubisoft has no competitor when it comes to Assassin’s Creed - no other developer is making a historical tourism games as frequently as they do so they can afford to make mistakes. Sony can’t.

First-party exclusives may be the shiny flagships of console developers, but third-party games shouldn't necessarily have to display such lower level, in analogy, but they do. They lack tremendously, in comparison, and that occurs due to business policies or the sheer inability of these studios or publishers. How many times have we argued about the (alleged) controversial, graphical downgrades of Ubisoft's games on Playstation? Ubisoft always had a favourable partnership with Microsoft, admittedly. The opposite may also happen, regarding Playstation and other publishers.

Considering how poorly regarded, classified and commercially unsuccessful, games such as Unity or Syndicate were, we all know that Ubisoft can't really afford to fail or make mistakes. As for the so-called historical background games, although with slightly different perspectives, there are other games who visit and approach historical geographical locations and time-periods. Uncharted did that very well, as did (and does) Tomb Raider. God of War gives a much more compelling and truthful insight into Ancient Northern-European society and respective mythology and cultural heritage. Ghost of Tsushima will visit the glorified period of Feudal Japan, etc.

This is a false narrative. The problem is Ubisoft tend to throw out the baby with the bath water. Yes, we asked for more freedom and choice in the open world but we didn’t ask for dialogue choices that change the outcome of the narrative. There is a difference between adding new features and then adding mechanics that actively contradict the entire premise of the game, rendering the series unrecognisable. If you want an example of how to take a franchise in a new direction without completely changing the core components that make up its identity just look at God of War. From everything I’ve heard from fans of that game, it seems it simply matured but not necessarily “changed”. There is a difference. Nobody asked for dialogue choices but Ubisoft have thrown it in there not because it makes the game better but because they continue to single white female The Witcher 3. It’s all about marketing and buzz words to appeal to casuals, not innovation.

Agreed.

As I said before, this series is no longer aimed at fans of AC, but specifically at (the typical, casual) fans of RPG's. On the other hand, many of these people won't be much concerned with how the concepts being applied in Odyssey will defeat the premise around which the entire series was built. Ubisoft dramatically buries the narrative structure bellow layers and layers of optional, secondary-missions, hundreds of collectibles and countless, meaningless tasks. That tends to significantly dilute any meaningful narrative line that there may exist. We already saw some of these casual players write around the Forums, highlighting how uninterested they've always been with the series in general, and how these changes will make them buy the game and play it for the first time.

[AnimusLover]

First-party exclusives may be the shiny flagships of console developers, but third-party games shouldn't necessarily have to display such lower level, in analogy, but they do. They lack tremendously, in comparison, and that occurs due to business policies or the sheer inability of these studios or publishers.

They shouldn't but they do because they can. Human beings are tribal by nature and first party console devs know this. They know they need to cement brand loyalty for the consoles otherwise their competitor will snag them forever. For most consumers, getting a console is an either/or situation because they're expensive and most of the time they fulfil the same functions, so to own both would be considered an excessive purchase. This is unlike video games, themselves, where the player wants to get as many as possible even if they feel more or less the same. That's why you can have Battefield 1 and COD at the same time despite being part of the same genre. They share a consumer base because people will buy games that specifically remind them of other games. Ubisoft knows this which is why they keep trying to copy The Witcher 3 even though they know we know they're trying to copy The Witcher 3... People won't buy the same hardware twice and so the one thing that has to separate Playstation from their competitor are the exclusives. This means Sony literally can't put out bad games because it's the main deciding factor as to whether the player gets a PS or an XBox. You said it yourself: many people bought PS just to play LOU and GOW. Sony would be aware of this so the games need to be good.

Don't be tricked into thinking it's because Sony are this pro consumer, artist driven developer who are "for the people". They have an agenda to sell the hardware and are just as money hungry as Ubisoft. The only difference is that their business model is to make quality games so bugs, failing to listen to fans etc are not risks they can afford to take. The end result benefits us consumers as well becuase it means we get good games but the motives of the company are still as money driven as it gets. If they were really consumer friendly, they'd enable crossplay for Fortnite...

Assassin's Creed can afford to make mistakes because there is no equivalent and even if they did, as seen with Battlefield and COD, people tend to like what they know which is why Ghost of Tsushima will not stop a Feudal Japan AC game from selling a boat-load, if anything it will probably get people more excited for one. Sadly, as long as AC continues to be serviceable and not outright bad they can get away with the bare minimum.

How many times have we argued about the (alleged) controversial, graphical downgrades of Ubisoft's games on Playstation? Ubisoft always had a favourable partnership with Microsoft, admittedly. The opposite may also happen, regarding Playstation and other publishers.

What about it? I've never heard of Ubisoft downgrading for Playstation specifically and looking at the side-by-side comparisons I actually tend to prefer the way their games look on Playstation. You forget that during the Unity/Syndicate years Ubisoft were team Sony, demonstrating their E3 and exclusive footage on the Playstation 4 and locking gameplay content exclusively to Playstation such as the Dreadful Crimes DLC (the best set of side missions this series has ever done imo). It's only recently this gen that Ubisoft has given the XBox One some love, specifically the X Box One X. As a Playstation 4 owner, I have no problem with that. Also the graphical downgrades are done across all platforms so that the consoles don't look lesser in comparison to the PCs. Sad but true. It's not a Playstation versus X Box thing, it's a console versus PC thing.

Considering how poorly regarded, classified and commercially unsuccessful, games such as Unity or Syndicate were, we all know that Ubisoft can't really afford to fail or make mistakes.

Except... even after their failures Origins proved they absolutely can. That's why after winning back people's favour, Ubisoft have gone right back to their old tricks by releasing Odyssey less than a year after the release of Origins. Can you imagine if Naughty Dog pulled a Mass Effect Andromeda with Uncharted 4 or Last of Us 2? That would destroy the Playstation brand overnight.

As for the so-called historical background games, although with slightly different perspectives, there are other games who visit and approach historical geographical locations and time-periods. Uncharted did that very well, as did (and does) Tomb Raider. God of War gives a much more compelling and truthful insight into Ancient Northern-European society and respective mythology and cultural heritage. Ghost of Tsushima will visit the glorified period of Feudal Japan, etc.

I was referring purely to open world historical games. Tomb Raider doesn't do that, it's set in the modern world and it's more of an open hub area (rather than an open world) that takes place in very small corners of the globe. Uncharted is a linear game and again, is set in modern day. The characters make references to history but they're not reliving it. GOW is also a linear exploration game. Even with those games existing, none of them have made a dent on the AC brand and in Tomb Raider's case it sells far less than Assassin's Creed. Ghost of Tsushima qualifies but that game has yet to be released...We have to prepare for the possibility that the game might suck (very unlikely) so let's manage our expectations. Nobody is doing what Assassin's Creed is doing right now. Where else will fans go for their open world historical fix that allows them to parkour on famous landmarks? There's no alternative, no equivalent. The concept of Assassin's Creed is too strong and it's what has got Ubisoft by on what has been mainly average games.

I also mentioned the frequency in which Assassin's Creed is released so even if Ubisoft did have an equivalent out there they would be filling in the gap years that the other developer would typically be taking to make their games better.

[AnimusLover]

The rot in the franchise existed since the first games, when Diselets refused to continue Altair's story in a main game and prettty much decontructed the already established core elements of the plot from the first game with the secound. AC 4 wasn't techincally speaking the beginning of the decline, it was actually Rougue.

Not continuing Altair's story is subjective preference that had no impact on the quality of the lore. Your line about "deconstructing established core elements from the first game with the second" is very vague and can mean anything so I won't comment on that. Altair's story was complete in terms of the information we got from it; we didn't need to see how it ended. Revelations was a nice farewell but that game was filler, both the historical narrative and modern day, in order to milk Ezio's story for as long as possible. It wasn't necessary. Also, if you think the lore was bad from the beginning then why are you even here debating with me?

Sigh IT IS A AC GAME. You play at first as an Pirat-like Assassin, who through seemingly chance got into the whole Assassins vs templar fight after meddliing with forces he didn't understand at first. While he doesn't really join the Assassins in the beginning, he coorporated with them,even forming a friendship with Mary, who was the one that convinced him to join the Assassins, after realizing how wrong he was. He is supposed to learn that his geed doesn't lead the hapiness he longed for. After this change of Heart, he became a devoted Assassin, saving the world from the Templars, becoming a Member of the British Brotherhood, donating the Jackdaw to the Assassins and he even advanced some of the Philosophical ideas of the Assassins, like the Idea that maybe the Creed is a guideline and not the ultimate end of wisdom.

Of course he is not perfect, he is arrogant, snidely and can be very disrespectful but at least he changed for the better in the end, he is in this sense a Assaassin, that he tries to find the place where he belonged to and all what i said here comes from a person, who thinks that he is inferior to the first 4 Assassins we got to play as.

You're basically just recounting the plot without understanding or addressing my main points. It isn't a question of whether Edward felt remorse in the end nor is it a debate about whether he became an Assassin in the end. I accept that both of these things happened. My point is that throughout the game, itself, Edward was not an Assassin and we never get to play as him as an Assassin. Even after his epiphany, we don't get to play him as an Assassin because the animus reverts back to a time before those events take place i.e. when we was a pirate. It has to otherwise plundering and looting makes no sense within the context of the narrative.

I have to agree on you that AC had become way too friendly too newcomers in trying to bring them into the franhise, which came at the expense of Good story telling. The best course of action would have been to just igonre it and leave it to the newcomers to find a way to get into the franshise like i did, via the internet.

Yes, and the result of that is that we end up playing as a pirate in Black Flag rather than an Assassin.

Actually they sort of are: both of them started out as selfish, both learned from their mistakes, both what the Assassins are truly about and both became true Assassins in the end of thier games. In this sense they are similar, the overall execution and way of how it being handled is of course a diffrent matter, but Similiarities between the two are still there.

Irrelevant. The similarities you listed are very superficial. You could find similarities in character traits between ANY protagonist in the series. What I am referring to are the intrinsic goals of the protagonists.

I want you to read the following paragraphs very carefully because I am not going to explain this again: Altair, as selfish and proud as he is, is an Assassin from the start. We can argue back and forth about whether he is a good Assassin but make no mistake about it he is an Assassin. His goal is to regain his title as Master of the Assassins and in that time he has to rethink everything he thought he knew about the Creed in order to be a better Assassin. This is his journey/character arc. After every target he reports back to his superiors to tell them what he has learned and ask for their advice on his job. Everything he does, every conversation he has, every decision he makes is about the philosophy of the Creed. Every single one.

Even his flaws - which you say are parallel to Edward’s – are highlighted only in relation to how it affects his Creed. For instance, let’s take the “never compromise the Brotherhood” tenet. Altair being so proud means he likes to make a show of killing his targets. He wants everyone to know about it. He wants to be feared. This obviously causes problems for the Brotherhood because it means his actions can be traced back to them. As a result, he is called out time and time again on this so Altair has to learn to let go of his pride so he can best serve the Brotherhood. So again, his flaws are underscored directly in how they negatively affect what he is trying to achieve within the Brotherhood, itself, not just in how it affects the people around him.

What I am saying is unlike Edward, Altair’s personal goals and the Brotherhood are one and the same. This is what you fail to understand. You are talking about a man who has his own creed that is independent of the Brotherhood i.e. take what you want, live free etc and then learns at the very end that he should join the Brotherhood versus a man whose entire goal throughout the game IS THE BROTHERHOOD.

Edward wants fame, glory, and fortune to make a better life for himself. His story never becomes about serving a higher power until the very end when he realises his life of backstabbing has left him lonely. The proof of this is that it's reflected in the game's pirate mechanics and activities. Altair behaves like an Assassin in the actual gameplay whereas Edward spends his time chasing sea shanties, women and thieving.

So in conclusion, where their flaws differ is that Edward intentionally screws over the Brotherhood (and everyone else) in his pursuit of fame, fortune and glory. Altair unintentionally screws over the Brotherood in his pursuit of the Brotherhood. They are not the same.

You should look past behind the hatred you have for Black flag and actually begin to analyize the plot, because what you are doing here is making distinctions without a diffrence. You should maybe play Black flag again, because appearently, you don't understand why Edward became a Assassin, i even for you mentioned it here in my post, shall i repeat it again?

Um, Black Flag is one of my favourites in the series... I'm just able to be objective about its narrative. The argument here is not about why Edward became an Assassin. The argument is about whether we played as an Assassin in Black Flag. We didn’t.

He joined the Assassins because he realized that his Greed for Money and his Egotism didn't gave him what he wanted from live, he saw how all of his work was for nothing as many of his Pirate friends either died ( like Blackbeard and Mary) or outright betrayed him like Roberts(ok he wasn't his friend, but you get the point) or Hornigold. He sought to atone for his past to become a assassin, he wanted to make some amends. It's also a promise he made to mary after she died, so that played a role as well.

Again, you’re just recounting the plot.

Also Evie is not some gospel of truth you can use to make him look like ****, he wasn't really a fighter, even in his own words, he is a terrible fighter, which realistically makes sense, Assassins aren#t always experts in fighting. Despite of this yeah, fighting isn't his thing.

Evie goes on to live into grandma age unlike Edward so what she says has some merit... Hell, even Jacob outlived Edward.

You are right that the execution was terrible, worse is still the fact that the setting they choose for Egypt wasn't even the best one, Bronze age Egypt would have been Golden. As flawed as Origins was, the point of the story was to tell the Origins of the Brotherhood, which it did, albeit terribly. You can condemn them for how they handled it, but trying to deny that they put effort into something is actually a disservice towards them.

Nope, I maintain that the narrative is lazy and having just completed my second playthrough of Origins a few days ago it's even worse on replay. The breakup with Aya at the end comes out of nowhere. His Brotherhood members are not prominent throughout the main narrative so you never feel the connection during his big speech to them (in fact, the huntress could easily be missed seeing as you only encounter her in a side mission). Once again, it was Ash and his team trying to make the game accessible by not making it an Assassin's Creed game - they were probably directed to do that by the suits. The concept being the origins of the Brotherhood is a complete tack-on to justify retaining the brand name but they have now tipped their hand by making Odyssey… a game that takes place before the origins of the Creed. They've dropped all pretence because fans enabled them to with Black Flag and Origins. The devs were seeing what they could get away with in those games. That's why we find ourselves in the situation we are in now with Odyssey.

Thier Goal was to make Bayek important, so that's why they made him the founder of the Brotherhood, to make him more interesting. Origins has actually the third worst Storytelling, because Rogue was much worse,becasue it made even less sense.

The story of Rogue was quite good in the first half. Unlike Origins, we at least play as an Assassin for a portion of the game. It even makes sense that Shay would leave the Brotherhood and try to stop them and it would have been so cool to see an Assassin killing his former Brothers because he believes they have lost touch with the Creed. Where it falls apart is that Shay becomes a Templar... It makes no sense to side with their enemies who are even worse. That's like if Altair's colleagues decided to get revenge on the entire Syrian Brotherhood and join the 9 Templars just because of his dumb actions. When Altair broke the tenets of the Creed he was called out on it and punished. The same should have happened to Achilles. you could have got the same result by having Shay plead with his brothers to get Achilles kicked out for good and then have them side with Achilles but instead, he turns against the entire Creed without any attempt to do this which makes no sense. So yes, Rogue is poorly written but at least the writers were trying to make it an Assassin’s Creed game, unlike Origins.

With the marketing, with the adverseting, with the Graphics, the production of the game, but the writing is still done by others. A Producer isn't the ultimate Authority on how the game is developed, they merely care about how to adverse the game rather than actively making the lore. You should rather blame the designers and the writers for the plot, they are the ones that make the story, not nessesarly the Producer, who is merely caring about marketing.

Ash was the creative director. Do you know what means? That means he is the director of the creative aspects of the game e.g. story, gameplay, mechanics etc. He oversees everything and ensures everyone is doing his or her jobs properly. He doesn’t deal with the marketing… Ubsioft have their internal marketing people for that.

The other one is denying the fact that they failed to adverse the true heroine of thier own story and instead made her look like secound fiddle to Greek Gerald.

No, I didn’t. My original statement is that the devs told Radbrad they were most proud of Kassandra… You felt the need to argue that Ubisoft are not proud of her because of the marketing even though I explained to you that it is the marketing team that deal with that, not the actual devs. That means how the designers feel may not reflect in the marketing but then that makes sense because these things are managed by two different job roles.

The whole choice between a Female and a Male Character was to just copy with little to no innovation RPG Elements, for no other reason but to try to make AC more appealing for the masses, it's what most franshises do, when old mechanics didn't appealed to the masses, they change them. No matter how much they try to damage control the Greek Aloy and Geralt fiasco, they still got attacked by the dudebro`s for making the Female Character Canonical instead of uhm i dunno, just making her the sole main Protagonist for the Ancient part of the game.It's like with Bayek, without his role in founding the brotherhood, he is just some random Assassin, nothing more.

I’m not interested in why you think they added the male/female option. They may very well have done this for the reasons you suggest but that’s not what we we’re arguing about. You claimed the devs aren’t proud of Kassandra and used the trailer as proof of this. I am inclined to believe them because the game was built with her in mind and she is confirmed to be the canon protagonist (which is why her animations look better). The only time when they don’t show her is in the CGI rendered trailers and promos which, again, is not handled by the devs so your point is irrelevant. That is handled by marketing professionals who are trying desperately not to P-off the dudebros. The narrative director, Mel, did an entire interview talking about diversity and explaining why they didn’t have NPCs react to Kassandra in a way that addresses her sex. It’s a really good read that shows that they really put a lot of thought into her character. Trust me, the devs love Kassandra. It’s the suits and marketing people who don’t but then as explained to you these are not the same people.

Honestly AnimusLover, just stop trying to make me look like as if i didn't got anything here, i adressed all of your points here and even corrected you on some stuff, but you mistook it as an attack towards you and saw it as me defending Origins storytelling, i didn't, i just explained what the plot was about and why they did what they did here, i never said that this was awesome, like what you seem to believe about me.

Hopefully we can continue this discussion lateer on.

I don't see anything you say as an attack. I see it as someone who has failed to address my points over and over again and has gone off on a completely unrelated tangent to the point where I have had to repeat my points over and over again so you can understand. You can’t correct me because you haven’t actually addressed anything I've said directly. Some of what you have said I don't even necessarily disagree with but they're just so irrelevant to the discussion.