==... that the tone of the story has shifted?(WARNING - DIRECT SPOILERS!)
==
Well, this may be obvious, but recent installments of the game has got me thinking.
Desmond really has died, huh? AC3 was the turning point.
Used to be - from AC, AC2, ACB, ACR to AC3, stories were told by Assassins(with a capital 'A'!), who are referred to as "guardians of Humanity's free will", and they speak of Templars, their arch-nemisis, like they are heinous criminals.
The first few installments always portrays Templars like demons, especially in AC2, ACB and AC3. The stories never spoke a single good word of the Borgias or Charles Lee, and don't get me started on Vidic. They always talk "Templars are evil", "Templars want world domination", "Assassins good, Templars bad", etc. And while the Templars are getting the significantly-upper hand, the players always take the Assassins as the good guys.
However, since AC3, the main tone of the stories are completely reversed. Ever since Desmond sacrificed himself and Templars got hold of him, the total perspective of the story changed dramatically. For example:
> The Abstergo Entertainment logo following the Ubisoft logo(did Ubisoft really found that company? They should.)
> In ACBF, while Edward Kenway assassinates Burgess and Cockram, in memory corridor, one of them said these words:
"... the Templars are our family! Where are yours?"
... signifying that the Templars are being depicted as good guys and Assassin brotherhood have no sense of family.
> While in AE building, there were marketing reports obtainable by hacking into certain computers. And those reports are all saying that the previous protagonists are unfit for AE games(though we know it was because these were used as Ubisoft's previous installments, simple as that) except for Aveline de Grandpre's character, and giving bad words to all the previous main men: Saying Altair's character "renegade", Ezio's creed "corrupt", and Connor's stories "uninteresting", and only Aveline's Templar education is fit for player markets. Not to mention the big mispronunciation of those names("al-TARe" for "a-ta-EE(r)", "EN-zio" for "E-zio", and "ra-tona-TAN-kon" for "ra-doon-ha-GE-doon"), making them like they got beef with those guys and they were saying them on purpose because, Templars!
> In ACU, the shift was complete when Arno faced off against Pierre Bellec, who firmly believes that cooperation with Templars are never possible - and kills the open-minded Assassin mentors to frame Elise for it - claimed that he saw Templars "massacre an entire village full of innocent people", and Arno retorted that he saw Templars "adopt a helpless orphan and raised him as his own son", completely depicting Templars as the good guys.
> Also, ACU's version of Assassin brotherhood was like old-fashioned feudalism or something, and lack careness and warmth, while Templars(especially Francois de la Serre) are decent and caring, clearly a non-arguable father figure.
> The entirety of AC: Rogue.
All these signs made me feel like that, although the game is still on "Assassin hunting Templars" routine and the name "Assassin's Creed" has a nice ring to it, the game name can clearly change the topic to "Templar's Creed". With the storyteller changes, Assassins are fast becoming bad guys that nobody like. Maybe one day even the "Great Purge" can become a feature length game...
Thoughts?
Harbinger3781 (talk) 08:09, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
I don't completly agree. Sure AC 3 was the turning point but not like you said. You did mention in BF the moment when Reckham which is Vane as Reckham did commit a mutiny on Charles Vane which did leave them stranded on the island.
Charles Vane did lose his mind on the island but he was not alligned with the Templars. I think you mean Cockram and Burgess. Trust is earned is the memory you are refrencing to.
But Edward is at that time not alligned to the Assassins that happens near the end of the game(seq 11). They Kenway saga did change my avarage opinion on the Templars as they are the bad-guys sure they are not good either and the same counts for the Assassins.
Where the Assassins aim for Freedom and Peace --> they create chaos and they act on the actions of the Templars
Where the Templars seek Order and Peace --> They do create a structure and hierachy while they archieve peace.
But over the decades both did forget their goal and did pursue the pieces of eden which made them lose their way and their ultimate demise in an era.
The Templars under Rodrigo Borgia can be considered cruel and power hungry & The Assassins under Mackandall could not be called Assassins as they did forget about the brotherhood.
The ones under Achilles were against the Templars but were ignorant as well thinking that every Piece of Eden was an apple like Ezio's or Altairs. The Assassins support a brotherhood so are the Templars.
Their fight is a grey area because neither one of them is actualy a typical hero or good guy as they murder people for their own ideals.
Nevadaprince (talk) 18:33, January 20, 2015 (UTC) Nevadaprince
Correct. Assassins and Templars do controverse themselves in their own ways. Still, the overview of Assassin/Templar shadow war gives lots of food for thoughts.
Not saying I'm starting to like these Templars(believe me, I call 'em 'Templar Renegades', meaning they are like, good guys gone rogue and dream of total domination, apart from a few good ones like Francois and Elise de la Serre), but sometimes I feel that they are in the right here. And even as they die, they dish out the hard truth: The world requires more order and discipline than freedom. Surely freedom is equally important and we all crave it, but if too much, people would start abusing it. Order and liberty need to be balanced. And the terrorist attacks across the globe... that is looking more like a lack of discipline and/or order. And in Templar's view, even the World Trade Center attack would probably never happen if the Templars were in control.
And furthermore, in ACBF, when Torres was assassinated, he spoke out another hard truth: Kenway DOES INDEEED has NO ONE left. Almost everyone he ever knew were gone. Rackham, Vane, Hornigold, Thatch, Cockram(or Burgess), Caroline, Read... his daughter was pretty much enstranged, Adewale left him to join the Assassins, and I don't think Ah Tabai's Carribean Assassins would give a jack about Kenway's loneliness. Only Anne Bonny remained, though I doubt for long. This time, it's really different people tell the same tale in different ways.
And I know I said before, I'm not starting to like the Templars - really hate that Vidic and Rikkin. But after ACL, ACBF, ACFC and ACU, I'm serious feel that they are more and more becoming like the good guys, bringing clear structure and well-arranged order to the world, while the Assassins - especially the Assassins in ACU - are like those high-ranked politicians during the Chinese Empire in the 19th century: close-minded, not open for wild possibilities, not flexible. I know this is a grey area fight, but these recent games are tearing down everything the previous games established: Templars Bad, Assassins Good. So, uh... who are supposed to be the baddies again?
And also, after playing though ACBF, I almost cried. It's the only time I've been almost brought to tears since Assassin's Creed: Embers. In a sense, Kenway is very similar to Aidan Pierce: Particular set of skills, hunting specially set of targets, and in the end, both were left all alone with no one by his side... seems like these two have a lot to chat about(and ACBF is the one game with the Watch Dogs Easter eggs!).
With this trending, wonder how long will it take before Daniel Cross and the Great Purge gets their own feature length.
Thoughts?
Harbinger3781 (talk) 12:09, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
I can agree with you though but the end of Black Flag sure , Edward was left alone in the sentence that everybody he knew was dead. But he did join the brotherhood unofficial after the second attack was over.
Only after he did murder / wounded
- Woodes Rogers
- Black Bart(sage)
- Loreano Torres he was inducted in the brotherhood and did offer them his mansion as Edward did leave for England and did join the brotherhood there officialy , Edward was the one who started researching Temples for the assassins. (as mentioned in Rogue)
But he was murdered by the Templars after they found evidence of the grand temple(Mentioned in revalations , III , IV)
I think its more an opinion but both factions are shown to have good members and rogue members who did forgot about the rules of their respected faction.
Sure in BF/Rogue/III the Templars are show more sympathy to their enemies and the citizens they govern but in the end there fall innocent victims due to both factions.
Example : American & France revolutions
I don't think they attempt to make the Templars the leading factor but I think they are gonna scale their battle more into the grey area neither good or evil / good or bad as there are no good guys.
Nevadaprince (talk) 17:17, January 28, 2015 (UTC) Nevadaprince