Dalisclock said:
But apparently it was too edgy for ubisoft to actually show the Assasins as taking things a bit too far and making things worse.
Funny that, if you read up on the expanded lore you see a pattern emerge:
Everything remembered as generally good thing, assassins did it, everything remembered as bad, templars did that.
Despite it's claim of multiculturalism, it feels very American to me, because in every game you are always fighting an oppressive regime and return power to the common folk, even when the common folk historically were largely uneducated and an alphabetic, leaving them unable to effectively govern their own cities in the first place, let alone a nation.
The assassins are always the underdog, every time, how come an order of omni-competent badasses gets trounced off-screen so often? what are the templars doing right as opposed to the assassins?
I like the first AC because of it's nuance, especially when your master tells you "I don't oppose their goals, I share it, it is the method I disagree with." , which paint the templars in a more sympathetic light, as opposed to their megalomaniac baby-eating counterparts from later installments.
There is great potential here for nuance and historical reflection, but instead we have this.
