16,484 Pages

  • Hey Aymar!

    My name is Marco, and I am a major contributor to the Assassin’s Creed Wiki, editing under the name of Sol Pacificus.

    We really appreciate all the hard work Ubisoft has put into this franchise all these years, and you guys have always been exceptionally well at maintaining consistency in lore in the past, but when we heard about Ubisoft’s decision to declare Assassin’s Creed II: Discovery non-canon in light of the film, many editors were in an uproar over this. In this case, we found the decision to be so problematic, we couldn’t help but to contact you about it and inform you of our perspective.

    Prior to this news, we had hosted our own extensive discussions regarding inconsistencies between the game and the film; one of the many threads on the subject can be found [here]( We came to the conclusion that the two are not as irreconcilable as may appear in hindsight.

    As one example, although it is heavily suggested that Tomás de Torquemada is not actually a Templar in Discovery contrary to the film, Ezio only draws this conclusion based on his probing dialogue with Torquemada rather than any hard proof, and so it can be written off as a mistaken assumption. Much of the conflict between the film and Discovery stems from the fact that Ezio and Aguilar’s respective groups do not cross paths in the final stages of the Granada War. However, given that Ezio had proceeded directly from Aragon to Granada while Aguilar operated in Andalusia, as well as the immense Templar presence between these two areas and the ongoing purge of Spanish Assassins, we think it’s entirely probable for communication between the two groups to have been limited. Moreover, it’s not necessarily impossible that Ezio, for whatever reason, was needed elsewhere during the ransom exchange, especially given that on the same day, he was preoccupied with rescuing Granadan civilians from the Inquisition and assassinating Juan de Marillo. Ezio’s rescue of Sultan Muhammad XII coincides with the last battle of Granada in November 1491, but the ransom meeting most likely was set on January 2,† the date of the formal capitulation, so there is no overlap between them. The explanations to resolve some of these inconsistencies are a little shaky, but they’re not entirely unbelievable and still lie in the realm of the possibility. I want to really emphasize though, that our misgivings about Discovery being made non-canon isn’t from the fact that we think that it’s entirely reconcilable with the film per se. Rather, there are a multitude of reasons extending from that.

    The first—and perhaps most important—point is that we fear what the retcon would mean for the integrity of Assassin’s Creed lore. Subtle references to Discovery, or connecting to the game, have been repeated throughout the other works. Luis de Santángel features in the Contract missions linking Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood and Assassin’s Creed: Project Legacy. Raphael Sánchez plays a prominent role in the backstory of Assassin’s Creed: Identity—as much as we recognize that this game itself seems to be of dubious canonicity. In the database entry of “North Atlantic” in Assassin’s Creed: Rogue, Violet da Costa mentions that Abstergo insists on spelling Christopher Columbus’s name by “Christoffa Corombo”, which seems to harken back to Discovery’s practice of using the native form of his name. While it is possible to retain all of these references while excising out Discovery, they show that the game had previously been well-integrated into Assassin’s Creed lore, at least better than the film. The film, on the other hand, still contradicts some other elements of lore. An authority higher than Alan Rikkin, the Council of Elders led by Ellen Kaye, is introduced in the film despite recent sources such as Assassin’s Creed: Unity and Assassin’s Creed: The Essential Guide clearly stating that only the three Guardians stand between the Inner Sanctum and the General of the Cross, and Rikkin, himself, is not just a member of the Inner Sanctum, but a Guardian himself. There is also, as I’ve noticed some have mentioned in your Reddit AMA, the issue of there appearing to be only one Apple of Eden in the lore of the film. We totally respect that the film is canonical, but in light of the fact that Discovery has simply fit better into the larger lore, with less conflicts, the outright removal of the game from the lore has left many of us feeling like it has blasted a hole that didn’t have to be. We strongly believe that such a move disrupts the overall integrity of Assassin’s Creed lore, something that is so vital to maintain as much as possible given that in recent years, the franchise has been criticized for a loss in direction and cohesion. An attempt at reconciliation between the game and the film, which is possible in our analysis, would have fewer ramifications for the franchise and the lore as a whole, as well as for the faith of fans in Assassin’s Creed’s attention to continuity.

    It need not be said that another reason why we at the Assassin’s Creed Wiki were so disappointed at Discovery being declared non-canon is simply because of the tremendous amount of hard work we have put into the game’s content. Check out [Mission to Aragon](, [Helene Dufranc](, and [Luis de Santángel]( as but a few examples. Although these articles can be relabeled as non-canon—as we would obviously not consider deleting them outright, this admittedly still leaves the feeling that the significance of our labor on them is diminished. Moreover, there are still many examples of articles where we merged the content of the game with the film. For a prime example, check out the article [Granada War]( which also gives an idea of our reconciliation between the two. We are loathe to have to radically rewrite or dismantle articles such as this, and others like [Christopher Columbus](, where we had dedicated so much time and energy compiling a complete and well-written text accommodating both the game and the film’s lore.

    Aside from pride in our efforts and dedication, accommodating Discovery’s new non-canonical status would be disruptive to the wiki. For instance, we would need to create entirely new articles for characters such as Christopher Columbus, Tomás de Torquemada, and Muhammad XII to reflect the canon version of events. While normally non-canonical information only has to be explained in the Trivia/Behind the Scenes section, Discovery content on these characters far eclipse that of the film, which would mean that using this approach, the body section would become stubs awkwardly outweighed by the Trivia. Having multiple articles on these characters is manageable, but it could be an additional source of confusion for readers. Such a complication is entirely unnecessary given the way we have seamlessly merged content between the film and Discovery. Our resources are already strained in keeping up to date with the great volume of new content in comics and novels released by Ubisoft this year, as well as revising older content that needs improvement; we are averse to diverting time and attention away from these projects. I must be clear that it is not that we are unwilling to do so to keep in line with Assassin’s Creed lore, but that we would find such endeavors to be wholly unnecessary when the problem is better solved—and continuity better preserved—by retaining the canonical status of Discovery and reconciling it with the film. I might also add that we fear this may set a precedent for capricious retconning by Ubisoft for other parts of its lore set aside in side-games and supplementary material. Altaïr’s Chronicles is one example, being one of the oldest Assassin’s Creed spin-off games ever made. Though the game is littered with improbable, “malevolent”, architecture typical of classic platforming games—elements that are obviously non-canon—its plot and one of its main characters, Adha, are referenced not just in Assassin’s Creed: The Secret Crusade, but by an informant in Assassin’s Creed, in Altaïr’s codex in Assassin’s Creed II, and in Assassin’s Creed: Memories. I am sure you guys do take care to weigh these decisions in fruitful discussions, but I would like to urge nonetheless that retconning or blatantly designating a formerly integrated work as non-canon should mainly be reserved as a last resort. It is rarely looked upon favorably by fans, who are always thrilled when the developers of a franchise show their astute attention to continuity to the most minute of details.

    It is the view of the Assassin’s Creed Wiki that this last resort, which invites a host of other complications, is not needed in resolving the implied conflict between the film and the video game Discovery. We understand that Ubisoft has likely discussed this issue already in-depth, but having spent so much time writing articles merging the two subjects together without much trouble, we cannot help but disapprove of this decision. There has been quite a bit of protest in our community over this, and the majority believes that it’s far more respectable of Ubisoft to make a show of effort in resolving any issues in continuity, as we have, rather than taking the simpler, yet more extreme, route of irrevocably retconning away content.

    I, myself, am genuinely concerned for the future of Assassin’s Creed, and I don’t believe that this move helps with the integrity and reputation of the franchise. We hope that you take our concerns into consideration.

    Sol Pacificus

    P.S. For reference, [here]( is another link to one of our discussions.

    † We noticed that in the movie, the date of “January 6” is given for the second regression which contradicts historical sources of the formal capitulation of Granada occurring on January 2. We’re not sure if this was a script error or not.

      Loading editor
    • So here is my draft to a letter to Aymar.

      A couple of things:
      I'm a little wary that it might be too long, or it might be too formal. I wonder if I should've adopted a more casual, friendly tone.

      I also tried to refrain from being too aggressive or pushy with my tone, but I'm not sure if you guys would prefer that I be more insistent.

      The links are formatted by Reddit's formatting.

        Loading editor
    • I'm really liking this. I would suggest breaking up some of the longer paragraphs into smaller ones, to void staring at a wall of text, as well as putting the names of the titles into italics (i.e. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood instead of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood).

      I've also mentioned this on your talk page, but I think Ezio's whereabouts are better explained by saying that he didn't get to Granada until after (or, at best, during) Aguilar's escape.

        Loading editor
    • The Wikia Editor wrote: I'm really liking this. I would suggest breaking up some of the longer paragraphs into smaller ones, to void staring at a wall of text, as well as putting the names of the titles into italics (i.e. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood instead of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood).

      I've also mentioned this on your talk page, but I think Ezio's whereabouts are better explained by saying that he didn't get to Granada until after (or, at best, during) Aguilar's escape.

      Thanks for the feedback. :)

      Yeah, I originally wrote this in Microsoft Word, and all the titles are italicized, but I forgot to re-italicize them when I transferred them over here. The larger paragraphs are actually broken up into smaller paragraphs by indentations, but this didn't carry over when I pasted it here either.

      I'm not sure what you mean about Ezio arriving after Aguilar's escape. I think earlier we talked about how Ezio's rescue of Granadan civilians and assassination of Juan de Marillo might be placed after the ransom meeting, but Ezio most certainly would've already been in Granada for a while given that he was there in November 1491 to put an end to the war.

      EDIT: Actually, now that I look over it, I remember now that I hoped that my wording actually meant it was a bit ambiguous. I meant to say that he was preoccupied with rescuing civilians and assassinating Juan de Marillo (sometime) during that day (i.e. be it after the ransom meeting or during it). I thought the more important matter is that there's a way to explain what he was doing around the time.

        Loading editor
    • I sent the message. I actually went over the 1,000 character limit for Reddit private messaging, and it took me a while to trim it down. Even when I was at 9,995 characters, it won't let me through.

        Loading editor
    • We'll have to wait and see for now.

      As for Ezio, the way I see it, him being in Granada on November 25, 1491 and January 2 1492 does not necessarily mean that he didn't go anywhere else between those 2 dates. He could have had various errands given to him by Luis and Raphael, and returning to Granada on January 2 upon hearing that Benedicto's faction had been captured by the Inquisition/Templars.

      It helps that the dialogue between Ezio and Luis at the beginning of Discovery's Memory Block 7 doesn't really specify that Ezio had been in the city the whole time. He could just as easily have just arrived back from another mission moments earlier.

        Loading editor
    • Hey guys :)

      I heard you have something waiting for me, and I just talk about that thread on an interview I gave to AC Univers a couple of days back, so I am very aware of the thread and your concerns.

      So first thing first, allow me to give a bit of context, to what I said on reddit AMA. I said that we considered AC Discovery to be non-canon, specificaly for the purpose of the movie development. 

      You can all imagine, that we add a lot of draft, and options when it came down to locking a time period. Turns out that we love the Spanish inquisition for multiple reasons, and on top of the characters and historical events, the visual contrast that a colorful period like that could offer to the cold tone of our modern day Abstergo was a great match also.

      So when we ended writing different scripts, the question about being tied to AC Discovery came on the table, and I took the shot, choosing between a game we like, and that is part of universe, yet a DS game, not as major or known as the others.

      It turns out that nothing was done to harm the franchise, and jeopardize your work (imagine our work on the other hand ;)).

      So not only do I respect and love your work guys, I want to thank you for your thoughts, and that second lecture you are offering. Your proposition could fit, and by benchmarking the current movie script (and not the one that made me took this decision months ago), I could say that I don't see any major differences or inconstitancy.

      And hereby, (yes I can be formal too :)), I declare that thanks to the light you put on the matter, that AC Discovery should be considered as canon in the AC lore.

      Thank you for your dedication, nothing is true, everything is permitted!



        Loading editor
    • Thank you so much for your attention to our concerns Aymar! ^_^ I can't tell you enough how much we appreciate it and all the work you've done!

        Loading editor
    • Thank you very much for answering Aymar. We appreciate you're response and are very happy that you listened to us. Thanks again and keep up the good work. :)

        Loading editor
    • Nice! Thanks to everyone for their hard work and research, and thanks Aymar for responding!

        Loading editor
    • Abelzorus Prime
      Abelzorus Prime removed this reply because:
      18:32, July 5, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+