Ezio and the animus theory

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
I have always been dumbfounded at how much of a boss Ezio was in ACB. He demonstrated NO kind of intelligence, open mindedness or initiative in AC II--He was constantly babysat by the Assassins until he was 40 years old. He wanted to enter the doge's palace using the front door, he had no grasp on anything useful other than women(not a single woman sees Ezio without swooning and randomly wanting to go to bed with him) he's an all around moron, so...how does he suddenly become so intelligent in ACB while everyone else around him becomes an idiot? well, subjective memory recollection.

The animus is supposed to render the memories how the ANCESTOR lived them, right? so it's the subjective memories of the individual--my theory is that Ezio was as dumb and idiotic as he ever was but he was so insecure about it that he decided to delude himself and make it feel like he's the **** and most important thing ever.
in AC II, EVERYTHING revolved around Ezio. "We all love you, Ezio" "We were all training you, Ezio" "You are special, Ezio" "You are important, Ezio" and on and on--it never went down like that, it was just the exaggeration of an insecure child who wanted to feel special and important and then by his 40s, decided that he wanted to be intelligent as well so he GREATLY exaggerated his capabilities and skills and degraded the intellect of everyone around him.

Needless to say, Ezio wised up by his 50s, he finally realized that the world does not revolve around him and that he's only a conduit for a more important message than he can ever comprehend and I think this is the real character progression of Ezio Auditore throughout his trilogy--at first, his memories were that of a spoiled child wanting to seem important and then his memories were that of a broken man who wanted to have the skill and then finally, his memories became a realization that he does not matter.

Feel free to discuss.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
This would also explain the extreme evilness of the Borgia compared to the more ambiguous Istanbul Templars--it's when Ezio started to wise up in Revelations, which makes sense and make Revelations the accurate representation of Ezio's memories--it's why Revelations had the most human and realistic representation of Ezio
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
I hope that people are impartial and not blinded by fanboyism or bias when they discuss this. I know it's hard to accept that Ezio was a pretty generic character but you just have to learn. He was nothing special and this theory is very solid.

I like Ezio too (true, only in Revelations when he was actually well written) but even I can admit that his character was very one dimensional unlike characters like Haytham, Edward and Connor who were far better written with much more consistent character arcs.

I hope that people would look past their fanboyism and blind love for Ezio :)
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Maybe you should look past your blind hatred for a fictional character. You're so obsessed, you even created a senseless theory trying to justify that hatred. And it doesn't make any sense. You don't experience someone's subjective interpretation of memories, because that's not a memory. You experience their memories. That's it. You even get points for perfect sync. It's really that simple. You're basically creating a theory in order to justify another theory to feel better about yourself. Why do you feel the need to do that unless you're a fanboy?

And for the record, Borgias actually were were pretty evil. And a lot of their evil deeds have been documented. That's why they were perfect for the role of the Templars. They're responsible for the portrayal of Jesus as a white dude. It's actually Cesare's face that they used. So they did what the Templars want to do. They tried to control people and what they believe in.

And FYI, Connor and Haytham don't have character arcs. Once again, you don't know the meaning of the terminology. Connor is the same guy from start to finish. He's no different as adult than he was as a kid. He doesn't evolve at all. Not even after he meets Achilles and learns about Assassins and Templars. Which is exactly where his character ark was supposed to jump forward. But nope. Another example of bad writing. Probably caused by all the mess with gazillion studios working on the game. Something had to go wrong. More than one thing did, apparently.

Haytham can be forgiven because he's introduced to us as a 40-something year old man. He's already a fully developed character. And he's not the main character. So he doesn't have an ark and doesn't need one. As a villain with a specific purpose, it would be weird if he had one.

Edward has a character arc. A pretty typical one, but it's a good one that works well. It's actually my favorite because they managed to accomplish it in one game.
 

Soxafloppin

Coxa no longer floppin'
Jun 22, 2009
7,918
0
0
Its been a while from I've played an AC game, AC3 was my last so I may be wrong. BUT towards the end of ACII isn't there like a 10 year time skip? Pretty sure thats pretty ample time for Ezio to Mature.

Also Ezio is one of my favourite gaming characters from last gen. Its over the course of three games and short film we see him literally be born, grow up as young man, to middle age, to being an old fart, and we see his last days and finally his death.

R.I.P Ezio Auditore da Firenze.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
The answer is really quite simple...it's a little thing called maturity. He starts out as a carefree aristocrat who knows nothing of templars or assassins...which is why he's babysat by the rest of the assassins. He's the newbie, the fresh blood, the pup. All he wants is revenge for his family's murder and the Assassins are teaching him the skills needed to do that. Fast-forward to Brotherhood and now he's older and wiser. No longer the boyish rogue of his youth, he's become a Master Assassin. He has learned from his experiences and is now much more worldly.

Sooooo, yeah...in ACII he was a young whelp, in ACB he's much more of an adult because, you know...he kinda got older.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
Maybe you should look past your blind hatred for a fictional character. You're so obsessed, you even created a senseless theory trying to justify that hatred. And it doesn't make any sense. You don't experience someone's subjective interpretation of memories, because that's not a memory. You experience their memories. That's it. You even get points for perfect sync. It's really that simple. You're basically creating a theory in order to justify another theory to feel better about yourself. Why do you feel the need to do that unless you're a fanboy?

And for the record, Borgias actually were were pretty evil. And a lot of their evil deeds have been documented. That's why they were perfect for the role of the Templars. They're responsible for the portrayal of Jesus as a white dude. It's actually Cesare's face that they used. So they did what the Templars want to do. They tried to control people and what they believe in.

And FYI, Connor and Haytham don't have character arcs. Once again, you don't know the meaning of the terminology. Connor is the same guy from start to finish. He's no different as adult than he was as a kid. He doesn't evolve at all. Not even after he meets Achilles and learns about Assassins and Templars. Which is exactly where his character ark was supposed to jump forward. But nope. Another example of bad writing. Probably caused by all the mess with gazillion studios working on the game. Something had to go wrong. More than one thing did, apparently.

Haytham can be forgiven because he's introduced to us as a 40-something year old man. He's already a fully developed character. And he's not the main character. So he doesn't have an ark and doesn't need one. As a villain with a specific purpose, it would be weird if he had one.

Edward has a character arc. A pretty typical one, but it's a good one that works well. It's actually my favorite because they managed to accomplish it in one game.
Your post is pretty inaccurate because you have not payed attention to AC III. Connor had an actual character arc and so did Haytham but his was a little more vague than Connor's but as I was saying, Connor goes through a full character arc. He starts with a strong sense of right and wrong, which at first he applies only to his people but eventually (due to Assassin influence) extends to everybody, and by the end discovers that the world doesn't work that way. Some might say that his soliloquy is needed, but I've always felt Connor's emotions in the epilogue tomahawk sequence are enough. But it's a finished character arc. He started one person, went through an ordeal, and emerged another person.

Speaking of Ordeals. AC really likes to use the Hero's Journey paradigm (well, Vogler's version, which is essentially a bit more generalized Campbell's but all the important elements still remain the same), and Connor's Hero's Journey is unique in a sense that, a) as an archetype, Connor is the only Hero of the AC series so far (Altair, Ezio and Edward are all anti-heroes, at least at the beginning of their journeys), and b) it's a subversion of the Hero's journey as it applies to the real world. In short, the Hero's Journey sets out a person on an adventure, makes him go through things to emerge a different person at the end of that Journey, and it's a story paradigm that can frequently be seen almost everywhere, as it runs back to the myths that have inspired people generations before us.

Let's see how Connor's story applies to the Hero's Journey. Now, I'll be short here for the sake of, well, not writing too much, so some details may be omitted but it doesn't mean that they don't matter.
1. Ordinary World - Connor living in his village.
2. Call to Adventure - Juno speaks to Connor and tells to seek the Assassins.
3. Refusal of the Call - usually the heroes are a bit reluctant to accept the call, not Connor though, so this step is absent from his journey.
4. Meeting the Mentor - Connor meets Achilles who's going to help him throughout the Journey.
5. Crossing the First Threshold - the step where the Hero shows commitment to the Journey and fully leaves the Ordinary World. In AC3, this is a bit of a long-lasting step rather than a single event, beginning with Boston Massacre (Connor's first visit into the Special World), which also acts as the Threshold Guardian I suppose (Connor's need of training is a Threshold Guardian of its own I think) and is set in stone with Connor receiving the robe and being officially inducted in the Order. He has left his Ordinary World. Now an Assassin.
6. Tests, Allies, Enemies - This is the biggest step of the Hero's Journey, which is in essence most of the adventures that lead up the character to the main goal. In Connor's case, this is where the subversion starts as his journey is going to get much more tragic, he is betrayed, forced to kill his friend, and all that crappy stuff.
7. Approach to the Inner Cave - basically, Inner Cave is the place where the character has to stop ignoring an inner conflict and face it head on, to reflect on their journey and find the courage to continue. In this case, it's Fort George - where Connor has to face his Templar father.
8. The Ordeal - confronting death or darkest fear in order to survive and for the world of the character to continue to exist. Fight with Haytham, essentially.
Now, usually, here comes the Reward/Seizing the Sword gained by the Ordeal, but since the Reward is the key that Haytham gives to Charles, the steps are changed up a bit. But, hey, this is a paradigm, not a strict rule set that has to be followed.
9. The Road Back - to bring the reward from the Special World back to the Ordinary World, Connor, now changed, sets up to kill Charles Lee and end his Journey.
10. The Ressurection - the point where the character shows his new colors, and determination, in myths it's literally be death and resurrection, but here it's by Charles shooting Connor but Connor being determined to finish his goal for the greater cause. And in the case of AC3, this is also where...
11. The Reward. Already explained. The key.
12. Return with the Elixir. The final part of the character's journey where they, already transformed, return home with the treasure. Only in Connor's case it's kind of tragic, as the treasure he found hasn't helped to achieve his desires, but he still went through a full Journey.
and lol, I don't understand why it's so unbelievable that I don't think Ezio is the best thing ever since sliced bread. I like Ezio, he's cool--you're in so much disbelief that you're trying so hard to implicate me with obbsession and being a fanboy, it's so hilarious.

Connor was a child. a normal child. He lived his life as he should--playing, learning and growing. You feel the Innocence which is something that was absent from Ezio, because you`re quickly thrown in with the line "Your sister seemed quite satisfied with the handling I gave her earlier". I never expected another Ezio and I`m glad that I was not disappointed. Connor`s Innocence is quickly stolen by the ensuing events. He grows into a humble, powerful young man that seemingly has no weaknesses but his Naivete.
In a way, Connor is still a child. His reactions to some of the actions of others` make any one laugh, but he simply finds it disgusting--moments such as his arguing for going to the authorities and claiming his innocence. His solutions to very complicated matters is pure. "i`ll tell them I`m Innocent". His view of the world made him unable to comprehend the racial prejudice that Achilles suffered from but in time, he grows and learns the world's ugly truths.

His Gestures when Talking to people is what drew me to like him. Call me dumb or "scratching at the bottom of a barrel" but it's subtleties like these that are missing from video games these days in my opinion--standing and holding his 2 hands together when talking to Homesteaders politely, labeling them as his friends and not his townsfolk, BUT THEN he just barges into a certain character`s house, shoving that certain character`s arm away, not once, but thrice--it was Hilarious. The contrast was brilliant. He is somewhat like his father, in a way that those he deemed friends would get the best out of him, but those he deemed unimportant or viewed them in a somewhat negative light would be shrugged off. Connor's unfriendliness towards Patriots like Revere is understandable because he doesn't trust them and he's wary of them since they did drag him around on more than one occasion not to mention his native american culture, that disallows strangers from touching him--that point, though is used in Connor's interaction with Haytham...The only people Connor allows to touch him in the story are Achilles and Kanentokon, other than that...nope but a subtle little relationship progression nudge between him and Haytham in NY when Connor steals the mercenary outfit to enter the brewery was awesome--Connor let Haytham touch him without a look of disdain or discomfort.

The thing is that Connor possesses noble qualities, but is not a noble. He`s just so humble and respectful that you cannot help but like him and enjoy his conversations. He has respect to every man and believes that every man is equal and that everyone is entitled respect.
With Connor, I actually tried hard NOT to kill people and coincidentally, it was revealed that he dislikes excessive or unnecessary killing (given some of the optional sync objectives that command limiting deaths and his own regret at killing Johnson). He values rights Immensely that so many moments of anger might seem light to us, but I think he was entitled to every bit of rage he showed at the real world he was thrust into.

The only Emotional face I saw with Ezio, was when Cristina died--Ezio never really shows sorrow too much in AC II but with Connor, I saw that so many times. It connected emotionally with me and every time I just saw that face and those sorrowful eyes, I actually felt it. I hear talk about him being unemotional but I just can't help but feel that people simply played a different game than I did...he showed a lot of emotion on his face and in his voice. When he was angry, it showed--when he was annoyed, it showed--when he was being a calm and collected badass, it showed--when he was being concerned, it showed--when he was being sarcastic, it showed--when he was being happy and/or joyful, it showed--when he was in awe, it showed so really, the complaint about him being unemotional is just non-existent to me.

Connor's sense of humor was dry like his parents'. He'd use witty one liners and sarcastic remarks to sometimes make a point like when he talks to Adams and he tells Connor about people taking a stand against injustice, Connor replies with "says the man who owns a...slave".
Connor's progression as a character centered around his romanticized view of the Assassin order and his mission. He started out believing that white-men like Lee are encroaching on his land, then Achilles tells him that these white-men are called Templars and that they seek to control everyone--Connor then makes it his mission to stop the Templars by any means necessary and with that, he'd have saved the world and granted freedom and peace for all of humanity but he soon realizes that life is not so black and white and that he alone cannot solve all of the world's problems--that the Assassin-Templar war WILL go on FAR after his death.
His initial quest was to protect his people, only his people but then he saw that the colonists were also being oppressed and terrorized so as an Assassin, he includes the colonists in his mission of freedom and peace for all and thus aids the Patriots in their bid for freedom.
Some people say that Connor's decisions and choices throughout the story made him out to be dumb and unintelligent but I don't see that--People argue that everything Haytham said was true, that Johnson wanted to keep the land safe, that Pitcairn wanted to encourage diplomacy but really, if you look at it...what were the Templars actually doing? When the natives refused to sell their lands, Johnson raised his muskets--when Pitcairn wanted to reach Sam Adams, he created a massacre in Lexington and Concord. Connor's decisions were not ideal but the Templars are not saints--their methods are cruel and brutal and ensure only a soulless haven. Connor's choices ending up driving his people west but if you think about it, it was a FAR better fate than what befell other Mohawk tribes and Iroquois nations..they're away but they're alive and that's what Connor ensured..and he accepted the fact that it's only inevitable for his people to never be safe.

He grows and learns from experiences. He at first assists the Patriots in Lexington and Concord instead of focusing on his true target but then in Bunker Hill, he's focused on Pitcairn and lets nothing get in his way.

In a lot of ways, Connor personifies the Assassins Creed--The Creed's center lies in hope in humanity, that they'll one day overcome their differences and find peace through free will. Even though the Patriots betrayed him, he still maintained hope that they'll forge something new that was better than what came before--even though his people left, he still fought the Templars till the last one, why? because no one else will and during Haytham's funeral, Charles' makes a speech afterwards where he describes the Assassins as a vermin that strikes from the shadows--that they're a disease that takes life without mercy and that they're demons who'd go so far as to murder their own fathers--Connor did not putting up a fight. That was a gesture from Connor saying "here I am, you old liar...here I am, right in front of you..no sneaking and no stabbing from the shadows" He instantly proved Charles wrong and salvaged his pride in his allegiance to the Assassins.
Some people might look at those things as Connor being "dumb" but I look at it as determination and fieriness. He was not content with silencing Charles Lee and proving him right but he wanted to send a message and in the end, he managed to kill Lee as well.
His entire mission was selfless--never did he fight for a goal that was for himself, he was even prepared to let go of his revenge against Charles Lee for a chance at unity with the Templars and when it was shown that GW was the one who murdered his mother, he was put in an impossible situation--murder Washington and risk Charles Lee taking the helm of commander in chief thus negating all the work he was doing? or spare GW for the greater good and to preserve his work? I will admit that the game did not do a good job of showing this struggle but I think that's how the situation was to be honest.

In the end, in terms of Connor, you find yourself killing your best friend in the same site you played hide and seek in and it proves for nothing. He is Imperfect, he made mistakes, he has flaws, he does not Joke, he is a jerk to some, but as soft as a teddy bear to others. he rages and sorrows. He made me ask questions, HE asked questions. and THAT is what makes this character such an awesome vessel to play as.
I really adored the story of AC III because of its complex layers, subtlety and recurring themes with Connor's character being the fine topping, I will admit it has faults with missed opportunities and the gump factor but all in all, I think it was an emotional tale of loss, tragedy and then silent, bitter victory.

Soxafloppin said:
Its been a while from I've played an AC game, AC3 was my last so I may be wrong. BUT towards the end of ACII isn't there like a 10 year time skip? Pretty sure thats pretty ample time for Ezio to Mature.

Also Ezio is one of my favourite gaming characters from last gen. Its over the course of three games and short film we see him literally be born, grow up as young man, to middle age, to being an old fart, and we see his last days and finally his death.

R.I.P Ezio Auditore da Firenze.
Except he didnt really mature nor change from 1488 till 1499. He's the same guy--he's still being babysat by his friends, he was still not beyond revenge (i thought i was beyond this but i'm not) and he's not even a proper dedicated Assassin. He was the same guy from beginning to end.
RJ 17 said:
The answer is really quite simple...it's a little thing called maturity. He starts out as a carefree aristocrat who knows nothing of templars or assassins...which is why he's babysat by the rest of the assassins. He's the newbie, the fresh blood, the pup. All he wants is revenge for his family's murder and the Assassins are teaching him the skills needed to do that. Fast-forward to Brotherhood and now he's older and wiser. No longer the boyish rogue of his youth, he's become a Master Assassin. He has learned from his experiences and is now much more worldly.

Sooooo, yeah...in ACII he was a young whelp, in ACB he's much more of an adult because, you know...he kinda got older.
I look back at my time with AC II's story....confusedly, to say the least. I wonder aloud, what happened? what the hell happened with Ezio and his story? it starts well enough untillllll.....sequence 6...barely--nice setup, cool historical conspiracies but then I realize that from the antagonists to the motivation of the hero, there really isn't much....there. The antagonists are a bunch of empty vessels at best and cartoonish, mustache twirling villains at worst. they had no redeeming value--They were cruel, power hungry, dishonorable, corrupt and brutal and that completely removed the grey area in the conflict that made AC I's narrative so great and engaging. AC I made us question our side and our motives because it showed us the other side (templars) talk about their motivations and goals..in AC II, that whole layer was gone..completely gone.
About Ezio, our revenge is finished with the death of Uberto, which is all well and good-- Ezio continues to join the fight because the Pazzi were his enemies and they had a personal hand in his father's death; cool but then earlier he and Mario discuss Giovanni's work and Ezio "takes it up" with no reason or explanation as to why he's suddenly so willing to take responsibility when 5 minutes ago he was going to escape Italy with the remainder of his family.

Going back to Ezio's unexplained sudden "maturity", Ezio really has no reason to fight the Templars in Venice...or Templars at all, for that matter since he makes it pretty clear that he's only after revenge by pursuing Rodrigo. The quest is thus minimized to a list of names on a sheet of paper that Ezio has to eliminate....uhhh why? because his uncle told him so although AGAIN, it was shown that Ezio never really cared for the dribble that his uncle talked about in the office about the Codex pages and Giovanni's work. We are then left with a story of a repoman....except instead of taking your stuff, he stabs you in the face. It's literally nothing more, Ezio said it himself to Salviati who questions why he wants to kill him--Ezio says "Sorry, friend...you are on my list...that seals your fate" That's all there is to it.

Ezio's motivations are also another point of frustration. He joins the Assassins and becomes fully dedicated to eradicating Templar tyranny--which FINALLY brings his actions in sync with his motivations after 5 sequences of aimlessness--No more revenge "Revenge would have consumed me but i'm fine now" GREAT, man...great.
Do you remember Altair's conversation with Richard in Arsuf after killing Robert? when Richard asks why Altair came this far to kill one man? Altair's entire motivations, progression and goals were summarized in that bit. Richard erroneously thinks Altair was here for revenge--and he would have been correct if it was in the beginning of the game--but Altair corrects him and tells him that it was rather justice, than revenge. BOOM, full circle.
Now, with Ezio...he shifts and jumps in the last 5 minutes of the game...we're under the impression that Ezio is only pursuing Rodrigo because he's a dangerous Templar with access to the vault which houses a powerful weapon and the staff of Eden in his hands...no more revenge because he's totally over it, right? No..."I thought i was beyond this but i'm not" is what Ezio says when he reaches Rodrigo. oh....okay then, so...you're still kinda finding your place in the dedication to the Creed, yeah? okay, mate...kill him, one less Templar for the Creed but then..."killing you wont bring my family back, i'm done"--WHAT? so you're not over revenge but wait you're over it and you're a dedicated assassin but wait, you're not because you're...over revenge? how does this make any sense? He's as dumb and carefree as ever, heck even in ACB when he reaches the villa--he considers his battles over and goes to relax...he let the leader of the Templars live and he's acting like all the trouble is gone.

Why was Bartolomeo reduced from an intelligent military tactician to an ogre headed buffoon? How did this happen? when did it happen? He was the one making plans in AC II for Ezio to infiltrate the Arsenal in Venice but now he's an idiot...a complete idiot--He was the cliche Hollywood movie big dumb caveman and it was infuriating because AC is better than Hollywood.
EVERYBODY is toned down so that they could be out-shined by Ezio...La Volpe's cunning, Machiavelli's intelligence, Bartolomeo's genius and Cesare's leadership...all given to Ezio while the others were just put in the background to play catch up. The cast of characters in ACB was LITERALLY there to make Ezio look good, nothing more. Characters are supposed to have qualities that the reader/player/watcher likes..casts should be colorful with lots of these special qualities for their characters, not strip them of all of it and give it to the protagonist, it made any interaction or chemistry with said characters bland, predictable and uninspiring.
This brings me to the cast of villains...they're nothing but mustache twirling vermins...what happened to the ambiguity? to the grey area of AC I? the part where we question our allegiance and actions? none of it was there...the TV show, the Borgias was a lot more ambiguous than AC. it had an amazing depiction of the Borgia family. they were evil, true but the show showed their sympathetic side...AC had that in AC I and lost it in AC II...sympathy with the antagonist but nope--ACB's villains were cartoonish clowns that appeal to 8 year olds.

I just knew this would happen--please, guys..look beyond your fanboyism and be rational and don't try to delude yourselves that there's some sort of "obsession" from me--i'm just a normal guy presenting a theory I thought of.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Mohamed Medhat said:
Correction: you're just a normal guy who doesn't like a fictional character. That's all well and good, but you wanted to know the answer to a question: "Why does Ezio go from a womanizing rogue to a Master Assassin?" And I gave you that answer: he grew up. Also, just a tip: downplaying every possible response to your question as just "blatant fanboyism" isn't really a valid way to defeat someone's argument. Not that I offered an argument to begin with, as I said: I was just answering your question. What I find to be rather humorous is that nowhere in the essay you wrote in response to my answer did you address the simple matter of "he got older", you just flew off into another rant about the problems you have with ACII's plot. I don't know what the opposite of a fanboy is, but I dare-say whatever that is you sure seem to be acting like one. :p

In the end you clearly don't like Ezio's chapters in the AC franchise, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Mohamed Medhat said:
Correction: you're just a normal guy who doesn't like a fictional character. That's all well and good, but you wanted to know the answer to a question: "Why does Ezio go from a womanizing rogue to a Master Assassin?" And I gave you that answer: he grew up. Also, just a tip: downplaying every possible response to your question as just "blatant fanboyism" isn't really a valid way to defeat someone's argument. Not that I offered an argument to begin with, as I said: I was just answering your question. What I find to be rather humorous is that nowhere in the essay you wrote in response to my answer did you address the simple matter of "he got older", you just flew off into another rant about the problems you have with ACII's plot. I don't know what the opposite of a fanboy is, but I dare-say whatever that is you sure seem to be acting like one. :p
Firstly, I thank you for your less confrontational manner of replying to me, I appreciate it and secondly, I really did not dismiss any posts as fanboyism--i'm saying the dismissal and confrontational attitude on PEOPLE'S part IS the fanboyism.
Thirdly, I did not ask that question--Ezio never changed from a womanzing playboy--He still had the hots and flirted with Sofia at 52. I did offer a counter to him growing up--He never actually grew up and I explained why he didn't in my post. Growing up is accompanied with some form of different action that's resulted from a logical progression of a character that can be described as mature--Ezio never did showed any change or maturity till the end of AC II--He was still after revenge as he clearly says to Rodrigo but 2 minutes, he's over it and spares Rodrigo which means he's not a dedicated Assassin because he let a VERY dangerous man live which resulted in the death of his Uncle and destruction of the Villa

That said, even as Brotherhood started, he was as carefree and flirty as ever.

I'm really not a fanboy, either--A fanboy is someone who basically worships something or someone and can so no wrong in what that thing or one does. I don't love ANYTHING blindly, I acknowledged AC III's and Connor's mistakes, unlike most people here with Ezio and AC II.

In the end you clearly don't like Ezio's chapters in the AC franchise, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Thank you but that's not entirely true. I liked Revelations a lot because that's when Ezio actually showed progression and change.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
I should make a separate post about Connor's Hero journey, since people seem to just love shoving him every time Ezio is brought up in negative light.

Connor goes through a full character arc. He starts with a strong sense of right and wrong about what's going on in his world, which at first he applies only to his people but eventually (due to Assassin influence) extends to everybody, and by the end discovers that the world doesn't work that way and that he can't solve all the world's problems in one life time nor end the war with the Templars on his own. Some might say that his soliloquy (the one removed but later extracted from the game's sound files) is needed, but I've always felt Connor's emotions in the epilogue tomahawk sequence are enough. But it's a finished character arc. He started one person, went through an ordeal, and emerged another person.

Speaking of Ordeals. AC really likes to use the Hero's Journey paradigm (well, Vogler's version, which is essentially a bit more generalized Campbell's but all the important elements still remain the same), and Connor's Hero's Journey is unique in a sense that, A] as an archetype, Connor is the only Hero of the AC series so far (Altair, Ezio and Edward are all anti-heroes, at least at the beginning of their journeys), and B] it's a subversion of the Hero's journey as it applies to the real world. In short, the Hero's Journey sets out a person on an adventure, makes him go through things to emerge a different person at the end of that Journey, and it's a story paradigm that can frequently be seen almost everywhere, as it runs back to the myths that have inspired people generations before us

Let's see how Connor's story applies to the Hero's Journey. Now, I'll be short here for the sake of, well, not writing too much, so some details may be omitted but it doesn't mean that they don't matter:

1. Ordinary World - Connor living in his village.

2. Call to Adventure - Juno speaks to Connor and tells him to seek the Assassins.

3. Refusal of the Call - usually the heroes are a bit reluctant to accept the call, not Connor though, so this step is absent from his journey. (which is NOT a detriment to the paradigm--it's not a catalog to be strictly followed)

4. Meeting the Mentor - Connor meets Achilles who's going to help him throughout the Journey.

5. Crossing the First Threshold - the step where the Hero shows commitment to the Journey and fully leaves the Ordinary World. In AC3, this is a bit of a long-lasting step rather than a single event, beginning with Boston Massacre (Connor's first visit into the Special World), which also acts as the Threshold Guardian, I suppose (Connor's need of training is a Threshold Guardian of its own I think) and is set in stone with Connor receiving the robe and being officially inducted inro the Order. He has left his Ordinary World. Now an Assassin.

6. Tests, Allies, Enemies - This is the biggest step of the Hero's Journey, which is in essence most of the adventures that lead up the character to the main goal. In Connor's case, this is where the subversion starts as his journey is going to get much more tragic. He meets people, allies with them, assists them, he is betrayed, forced to kill his friend, and all that crappy stuff.

7. Approach to the Inner Cave - basically, Inner Cave is the place where the character has to stop ignoring an inner conflict and face it head on, to reflect on their journey and find the courage to continue. In this case, it's Fort George - where Connor has to face his Templar father whom Connor wanted to avoid so as to not be forced to kill him.

8. The Ordeal - confronting death or darkest fear in order to survive and for the world of the character to continue to exist. Fight with Haytham, essentially or another view could be his sparing of Washington and continuing pursuit of Lee. Connor is put in an impossible situation when Washington orders the Sullivan expedition--either kill Washington and risk seeing all your hard work of preventing Lee, and thus the Templars, from taking control of the Patriot army be destroyed or spare Washington and let go of revenge for the greater good of the colonies and the Assassins. Connor, unlike Ezio, chose to pursue Lee till the bitter end because he was a dangerous Templar.

Now, usually, here comes the Reward/Seizing the Sword gained by the Ordeal, but since the Reward is the key that Haytham gives to Charles, the steps are changed up a bit. But, hey, this is a paradigm, like I said and not a strict rule set that has to be followed.

9. The Road Back - to bring the reward from the Special World back to the Ordinary World, Connor, now changed, sets up to kill Charles Lee and end his Journey.

10. The Ressurection - the point where the character shows his new colors, and determination, in myths it'd literally be death and resurrection, but here it's by Charles injuring Connor but Connor being determined to finish his goal for the greater cause. And in the case of AC3, this is also where...

11. The Reward - Already explained. The key.

12. Return with the Elixir. The final part of the character's journey where they, already transformed, return home with the treasure. Only in Connor's case it's kind of tragic, as the treasure he found hasn't helped to achieve his desires, but he still went through a full Journey that saw him lead the Revolution to success and rebuild the entire chapter of the Assassin Order.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
I hated Ezio as well. The best part of AC2 was the end when we find out what Ezio's only purpose was. I don't think a theory is really necessary as the AC series has gone through so many creative directors that the story and characters are just made up as they go; you're just giving them too much credit in coming up with some theory. I stopped playing the series because I just hated the change in direction the series went with AC2. When the best part of the game was the Glyph puzzles, it was time for me to just stop playing the series. I did like all the historical fiction in the series though. Then, Ezio was in the next 2 games and it was so easy to totally commit to not playing the series anymore. Plus, it seemed like the purpose of AC2 was that Desmond became an Assassin so that he could go and do whatever they needed him to do in the present.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Connor goes through events, but events alone don't constitute a character arc. You mentioned Hero's Journey paradigm. It's a perfect example of how badly he's written. He goes through certain steps, yes. But those steps alone aren't enough. Something needs to happen on the journey that will transform the man into a hero. Something that will change his thought process and give him unique insight. That doesn't happen with Connor. He doesn't change at all. You can claim otherwise all you want, I played the game multiple times. It's just not true. And the greatest irony is that Ezio and Edward both actually go through the Hero's Journey paradigm almost perfectly. But for some reason you decided to brand them anti-heroes, once again missing the entire point of the terminology because it doesn't suit your goals.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
I hated Ezio as well. The best part of AC2 was the end when we find out what Ezio's only purpose was. I don't think a theory is really necessary as the AC series has gone through so many creative directors that the story and characters are just made up as they go; you just giving them too much credit in coming up with some theory. I stopped playing the series because I just hated the change in direction the series went with AC2. When the best of the game was the Glyph puzzles, it was time for me to just stop playing the series. I did like all the historical fiction in the series though. Then, Ezio was in the next 2 games and it was so easy to totally commit to not playing the series anymore. Plus, it seemed like the purpose of AC2 was that Desmond became an Assassin so that he could go and do whatever they needed him to do in the future.
A like-minded individual, that is awesome. I don't think the problem with AC is the numerous teams or the change of directors. AC I's creative director was Patrice--he was AC II's too. I believe the decision came from the suits to mainstream AC and morph it into a one dimensional, black and white plot with uninspired, B-movie cast of characters and script.

HA! you say that that was the purpose of AC II, to make Desmond an Assassin--it fails at that even, we only see Desmond twice in the whole game and no sort of progression is ever done on the modern day plot or Desmond but hey, it's same reason people will lick any crap R* throw out, no matter how narrow and restrictive their level design is.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
Connor goes through events, but events alone don't constitute a character ark. You mentioned Hero's Journey paradigm. It's a perfect example of how badly he's written. He goes through certain steps, yes. But those steps alone aren't enough. Something needs to happen on the journey that will transform the man into a hero. Something that will change his thought process and give him unique insight. That doesn't happen with Connor. He doesn't change at all. You can claim otherwise all you want, I played the game multiple times. It's just not true. And the greatest irony is that Ezio and Edward both actually go through the Hero's Journey paradigm almost perfectly. But for some reason you decided to brand them anti-heroes, once again missing the entire point of the terminology because it doesn't suit your goals.
I never said that just events constitute a character arc--I used the paradigm and explained what events Connor went through that facilitated the change that happened with his views and his progression as a hero. It's also funny how you say "hurr durr, you can say all you want but that did not happen"I can play that card too and say that " hurr durr YOU can claim otherwise, that Connor goes through no change even though he does, so you're wrong" but the difference between me and you is that I put forth an argument with facts from the source material whilst you just dismissed them because they don't suit YOUR views.
I have played and 100%ed AC III over 10 times and have explained why YOU are wrong and how Connor does change--say whatever you want, it does not change the facts.

Did you actually read my post? you don't HAVE to be a hero for the paradigm to apply--it applies to all protagonists, heck I even said that Ubisoft likes the paradigm and that AC uses it a lot so I don't know where the heck did you get me conveniently not applying the paradigm to them by labeling them antiheroes from my post.

See, like I said...this is the kind of attitude that an Ezio fanboy would have when barging into a thread talking negative about Ezio--they instantly assume that the OP is some kind of idiot, well tough luck, buddy..I know what i'm talking about. At the start of Brotherhood, when Ezio is supposedly mature, he's in the same place he was in 24 years ago when he went to his uncle Mario in Tuscany. He thought his battles were over and he was ready to move on--he was the SAME GUY.
 

CrimsonBlaze

New member
Aug 29, 2011
2,252
0
0
Not sure if anyone got to this theory (too many tl;dr posts on this discussion), but could Ezio's rapid change in both intelligence and demeanor come as a result of wielding the Apple (Piece of Eden). I mean, when Minerva showed up, he was really freaked out and confused, especially when she spoke out to Desmond.

Since Ezio was neither driven to madness or completely engulfed by the Apple's power, I don't think it's a stretch that he might have gained some insight and skills in order to not only bring about an order of assassins, but even uncover and solve Altaiir's mysterious past (after the events of Assassin's Creed).

I actually liked Ezio, primarily because he's got a lot of charisma and is generally more likable and badass than the other two assassins (four if you count Haythem and Avelin) between the first and third installments.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
CrimsonBlaze said:
Not sure if anyone got to this theory (too many tl;dr posts on this discussion), but could Ezio's rapid change in both intelligence and demeanor come as a result of wielding the Apple (Piece of Eden). I mean, when Minerva showed up, he was really freaked out and confused, especially when she spoke out to Desmond.

Since Ezio was neither driven to madness or completely engulfed by the Apple's power, I don't think it's a stretch that he might have gained some insight and skills in order to not only bring about an order of assassins, but even uncover and solve Altaiir's mysterious past (after the events of Assassin's Creed).

I actually liked Ezio, primarily because he's got a lot of charisma and is generally more likable and badass than the other two assassins (four if you count Haythem and Avelin) between the first and third installments.
I'm not sure this theory can work. Altair had the Apple for over 20 years and it helped him make all of the inventions he created--It also showed Leonardo Da Vinci a lot of designs and abstracts that influenced his later inventions and projects, so as far as we know, the Apple only facilitates knowledge by showing what those who came before knew, it does not advance the holders intellect, heck actually, it destroys the holder if their mind is too weak like Abbas.
heck, I don't think even my theory was thought of by the writers, i'm probably just giving them too much credit, I'm just offering a maybe as to how the unexplained dumbing down to characters around Ezio occurred.

For me, charisma is one of the least important aspects of a character. I relegate that to B-Hollywood movies or lakluster comedies where heroes have nothing going for them but charismatic grace and sexual appeal, just my opinion.
As for likability, I thought Connor and Haytham were much more likable than Ezio. I didn't find anything likable about Ezio, to be honest.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Mohamed Medhat said:
I never said that just events constitute a character arc--I used the paradigm and explained what events Connor went through that facilitated the change that happened with his views and his progression as a hero.
What change in views? He's literally the same all the way through. The only thing that changes is the fact that he learns about the existence of Assassin's and Templars. That's it. His goals and motivations remain the same. For a character arc to move forward, the character needs to depart from his primary motivations and accept a different one. Sometimes an entirely different path as well, as was the case with Edward. None of that happens with Connor.

Mohamed Medhat said:
It's also funny how you say "hurr durr, you can say all you want but that did not happen"I can play that card too and say that " hurr durr YOU can claim otherwise, that Connor goes through no change even though he does, so you're wrong" but the difference between me and you is that I put forth an argument with facts from the source material whilst you just dismissed them because they don't suit YOUR views.
That's rich, coming from someone who had to make up a theory to justify why a fictional character is bad.

Mohamed Medhat said:
I have played and 100%ed AC III over 10 times and have explained why YOU are wrong and how Connor does change--say whatever you want, it does not change the facts.
I'd like to see some of those facts.

Mohamed Medhat said:
Did you actually read my post? you don't HAVE to be a hero for the paradigm to apply--it applies to all protagonists, heck I even said that Ubisoft likes the paradigm and that AC uses it a lot so I don't know where the heck did you get me conveniently not applying the paradigm to them by labeling them antiheroes from my post.
I didn't say that you're not applying the paradigm to them. I said that you're labeling them as anti-heroes to promote Connor. Which is just false. Edward could be seen as a bit of an anti-hero at the beginning. But Ezio, for better or worse, is almost like a Disney character. He's a typical hero.

Mohamed Medhat said:
See, like I said...this is the kind of attitude that an Ezio fanboy would have when barging into a thread talking negative about Ezio--they instantly assume that the OP is some kind of idiot, well tough luck, buddy..I know what i'm talking about.
No, you really don't. I'm not an Ezio fanboy. I hold the same opinion about Edward and Altair and for some reason you don't call me Edward or Altair fanboy. But you hate Ezio so much, you see everyone who disagrees with you as Ezio fanboy.

I'm just looking at the story and the facts. And the fact is that Connor doesn't have a character arc. Ezio, Edward and even Altair go through almost cliche character arcs.
Ezio's arc is the story of revenge with a typical gain of wisdom and knowledge along the way.
Edward's arc is that of a selfish man seeking fame and fortune, eventually discovering the error of his ways and trying to atone for his sins.
Altair's arc is that of an arrogant pupil who think he knows best, only to be punished for his arrogance and forced to learn humility that will eventually transform him and set him on the right course.

What the hell happens with Connor? Absolutely nothing. He's just a guy who wanted to save his people but couldn't. He met Achilles and nothing changed. He learned about Assassins and Templars and nothing changed. He allied himself with Washington and nothing changed. He killed his father and nothing changed. Nothing ever changes about him or his views and motivations. He just does things hoping that by doing so he can save his people.

You even had the audacity to say that "Refusal of the Call" doesn't matter in his case. It does. Without it, the character gains no insight. You need "Refusal of the Call" because the character needs to grow and change. He needs to come to a realization in order to accept his destiny. Because he doesn't do that, he seems like just some guy who does whatever anybody tells him. Like he doesn't have a mind of his own. That's exactly why CJ from San Andreas was a bad character. He just did what other people told him.

Mohamed Medhat said:
At the start of Brotherhood, when Ezio is supposedly mature, he's in the same place he was in 24 years ago when he went to his uncle Mario in Tuscany. He thought his battles were over and he was ready to move on--he was the SAME GUY.
Wrong again. He had no reason to think that it wasn't over. And he definitely wasn't the same guy. You're conveniently forgetting that Ezio's moment of maturity was displayed first when he killed Savonarola and gave that speech about freedom. And then he demonstrates his maturity and departure from his primary motivation again when he spared the Pope. He didn't feel the need to seek revenge anymore, which was his primary motivator. He had found peace and wisdom. He was motivated by other, more important things at that point. That is something that Connor doesn't even begin to go through during AC3. He needs another game for his character to develop.

Mohamed Medhat said:
but as I was saying, Connor goes through a full character arc. He starts with a strong sense of right and wrong, which at first he applies only to his people but eventually (due to Assassin influence) extends to everybody, and by the end discovers that the world doesn't work that way. Some might say that his soliloquy is needed, but I've always felt Connor's emotions in the epilogue tomahawk sequence are enough. But it's a finished character arc.
See this here? This is a problem with you. You have no freakin' idea what a good character arc is. Because this ain't it.
That would be like saying that this is a character arc:

"He started with a good sense of what kind of kind of sports car he wanted to buy. Then he bought a car and by the end he discovered that he should have bought a truck."

That's just not good enough to be a real character arc. He never goes through an event that changes his perspective dramatically or that leads him to a greater realization. If all that he's learned from his great adventure is that the world isn't as he thought it was, then he's a moron. He should have learned that lesson when his village was burned to a crisp.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Mohamed Medhat said:
A like-minded individual, that is awesome. I don't think the problem with AC is the numerous teams or the change of directors. AC I's creative director was Patrice--he was AC II's too. I believe the decision came from the suits to mainstream AC and morph it into a one dimensional, black and white plot with uninspired, B-movie cast of characters and script.

HA! you say that that was the purpose of AC II, to make Desmond an Assassin--it fails at that even, we only see Desmond twice in the whole game and no sort of progression is ever done on the modern day plot or Desmond but hey, it's same reason people will lick any crap R* throw out, no matter how narrow and restrictive their level design is.
The problem with AC's narrative is all the creative directors. There is no vision of where the story is going after Patrice left. Same with gameplay mechanics as well, they really just throw paint at the wall and hope it sticks like the tower defense game (didn't stick) vs ship combat (did stick).

Desmond became an Assassin in physical ability as I remember him getting eagle vision, then killing a bunch of guys at the end. Unless I'm remembering wrong (I haven't played the series since AC2), wasn't that the main reason the Assassins had Desmond in the Animus? Then, the whole ending set up the main conflict/struggle in the present time so it just made sense Desmond would be the main character in the next game tackling the Templars and the problem at hand (the message he got from Ezio). After AC2, I definitely felt like the series needed to be done with the Animus were the main game takes place in the present and small parts my take place in the Animus (trying to find pieces of Eden for example), basically the opposite of AC1 and AC2, and that has yet to happen.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
This, then, puts a scary new truth over the Animus Project: how much of what they glean is accurate? How much is creative recollection? Did it really happen, or was Altair just a senile old man?
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
What change in views? He's literally the same all the way through. The only thing that changes is the fact that he learns about the existence of Assassin's and Templars. That's it. His goals and motivations remain the same. For a character arc to move forward, the character needs to depart from his primary motivations and accept a different one. Sometimes an entirely different path as well, as was the case with Edward. None of that happens with Connor.
Did you not read my posts at all? are you intentionally ignoring them? I have explained numerous times how his view changes throughout the story but here, since you seem to ignore it every time (even though I know you're going to come up with some sort of contrived reason as to why the explanation below somehow "doesn't count")

Connor starts out believing that he needs to push all the colonists out of his people's lands because of his past experience with white colonists, he learns from Achilles that those colonists were in fact Templars and that they seek to control everyone so Connor takes up the mantle and agrees to fight them in order to protect his people from oppression--He soon learns that the colonists are also experiencing oppression and thus decides to extend his philosophy of fighting for freedom and justice to the colonists as well, not only his people as he explains to Achilles that the fight now is not only for his people but also for the others that the Templars might have harmed. Connor, because of what he saw the Templars doing to the colonists, decides to assist the Patriots in their struggle for freedom (with a naive hope that they'll also keep his people safe and free when they reach power)
Connor, thinking that it's a possibility, fights to entirely end the Templar order and solve all of the world's problems at once--his optimistic idealism clashed with Achilles' cynical but realistic view of the world.

Connor possessed an impatience in wanting to pursue his father but he calmed the hell down and decided to instead focus on where he's needed most by hunting the Templars one by one and that originally made him think that the Templars are fighting the British because everything he has seen says so but as Haytham explains, that was not the case at all.

As a result of his meeting with Haytham, his view changed completely about the Templars--heartened by the alliance between him and his father, Connor decides to offer unity between the Assassins and Templars and end this ancient war once and for all--He was willing to throw away his revenge against Charles Lee and his father for their supposed roles in his mother's death for the greater good.
Connor discovers that Washington had ordered an attack on his village and becomes disillusioned with the Patriots when he discovers that Washington was actually the one who murdered his mother. Connor realizes that his people will never be free nor at peace because their situation is impossible and so is his, as I explained with the decision of whether or not to kill Washington.

Connor remains resolute in his mission to destroy the Templar Order but he aids the Patriots nonetheless with their Benedict Arnold problem so that the remainder of his fight does not go to waste, freedom and justice for all.
Connor's dialogue with Haytham as they fight in Fort George is the epitome of Connor's changed views. He acknowledges Haytham's view that humanity is flawed but maintains hope that one day, they'll be able to forge something better than what came before and eventually peace on their own, with no one controlling them or guiding them.

Here, steps so that you may understand:

-Connor wants to fight colonists
-Connor understands that the attackers were Templars and thus decides to fight Templars until they're destroyed to save his people
-Connor realizes the oppression of colonists so extends his fight to them as well
-Connor forges alliance with patriots thinking that they'll keep his people safe when they reach power
-Connor discovers that Templars do not back the British as he once thought, with good reason
-Connor starts listening to what his father about the colonists and their hypocrisy and starts to think about forging unity between the Assassins and Templars
-Connor becomes disillusioned with the Patriot cause and realizes that his people will never be truly safe
-Connor nonetheless assists Patriot leaders when the Templars are involved and to ensure that all his work is not for nothing
-Connor accepts his father cynical view that humanity is flawed but maintains hope that they'll find peace and freedom on their own

It's not as in your face as "Ahhhh, I don't want revenge anymore" or "I am a good guy now" or "I am not arrogant anymore" it's more subtle--it's about a boy who saw the world black and white but starts to see all the shades of grey and that's his maturity and progression.


That's rich, coming from someone who had to make up a theory to justify why a fictional character is bad.
Can you please drop this crap? you're the one who's so obsessed with discrediting anything I say with this unnecessary attitude--grow up, man and stop grasping at straws.

I'd like to see some of those facts.
I just listed them for you

I didn't say that you're not applying the paradigm to them. I said that you're labeling them as anti-heroes to promote Connor. Which is just false. Edward could be seen as a bit of an anti-hero at the beginning. But Ezio, for better or worse, is almost like a Disney character. He's a typical hero.
Oh look what's rich, suddenly i'm the one "promoting" by discrediting when YOU'RE the one who shoved Connor into this discussion in the first place.
Edward is an anti-hero throughout the whole story until he becomes an Assassin and oh sure, Ezio's working with thieves, prostitutes, mercenaries to assassinate government officials for revenge is suddenly "Disney hero" material now--unfortunately, you're wrong. Ezio is just as much of an anti-hero as Edward was in most of his game. Damn you, AC II for making the antagonists be so evil and unsympathetic that you made this guy think that Ezio is a hero.


No, you really don't. I'm not an Ezio fanboy. I hold the same opinion about Edward and Altair and for some reason you don't call me Edward or Altair fanboy. But you hate Ezio so much, you see everyone who disagrees with you as Ezio fanboy.
No, I see everyone who comes in with an attitude of "Oh negative opinion of Ezio and positive of Connor? he's an idiot" as an Ezio fanboy.

I'm just looking at the story and the facts. And the fact is that Connor doesn't have a character arc. Ezio, Edward and even Altair go through almost cliche character arcs.
Ezio's arc is the story of revenge with a typical gain of wisdom and knowledge along the way.
Edward's arc is that of a selfish man seeking fame and fortune, eventually discovering the error of his ways and trying to atone for his sins.
Altair's arc is that of an arrogant pupil who think he knows best, only to be punished for his arrogance and forced to learn humility that will eventually transform him and set him on the right course.
Yes, he does..if you want to continue to delude yourself and justify why you don't like him, sure go ahead but don't speak of it as fact. fact is, Connor had a character arc, whether you like it or not and I explained it with facts from the game--I don't care that it's not good enough FOR YOU, I don't care that you don't think it's good enough FOR YOU, it's there...end of story.

P.S. Ezio only gained any sort of wisdom in his third friggin game.

What the hell happens with Connor? Absolutely nothing. He's just a guy who wanted to save his people but couldn't. He met Achilles and nothing changed. He learned about Assassins and Templars and nothing changed. He allied himself with Washington and nothing changed. He killed his father and nothing changed. Nothing ever changes about him or his views and motivations. He just does things hoping that by doing so he can save his people.

You even had the audacity to say that "Refusal of the Call" doesn't matter in his case. It does. Without it, the character gains no insight. You need "Refusal of the Call" because the character needs to grow and change. He needs to come to a realization in order to accept his destiny. Because he doesn't do that, he seems like just some guy who does whatever anybody tells him. Like he doesn't have a mind of his own. That's exactly why CJ from San Andreas was a bad character. He just did what other people told him.
Says so much about how much attention you paid when playing AC III lol, I already explained how Connor changed. As I said, He met Achilles and discovers that the people he needs to fight are the Templars--he learns about Assassins and Templars and decides to help everyone (including colonists) gain freedom and peace because he discovers that they were being oppressed too then in the end, realizes that his people will never be safe.

Because refusal of the call is the only way a character can grow and change, what a narrow minded view. Connor's journey differs in that he's already accepted the call without much refusal because of the situation of his people--he NEEDS to fight, he can't say yes or no..he WANTS to fight and that's why Connor is actually a hero when compared to Edward and Ezio. Altair never refused his call either--Go kill 9 targets to regain your honor and rank, yes sir. See? it's not essential for progression. Connor's spice for the quick acceptance of the call is his inner conflict as he leaves the village and Altair's spice is his inner conflict when hunting his 9 targets.
Oh wow, did you actually bring up CJ to compare to Connor? really? I guess you wasted all your arguments on me being obsessed with discrediting Ezio.


Wrong again. He had no reason to think that it wasn't over. And he definitely wasn't the same guy. You're conveniently forgetting that Ezio's moment of maturity was displayed first when he killed Savonarola and gave that speech about freedom. And then he demonstrates his maturity and departure from his primary motivation again when he spared the Pope. He didn't feel the need to seek revenge anymore, which was his primary motivator. He had found peace and wisdom. He was motivated by other, more important things at that point. That is something that Connor doesn't even begin to go through during AC3. He needs another game for his character to develop.
Oh no, except that the head of the Templars and his dangerous Templar son, who's been conquering all of italy, are still alive, nope...no danger there at all, of course

Yes, he was..he naively thought that his battle was over after killing Uberto in Florence and then AGAIN he naively thought that his battle was over after sparing Rodrigo 24 years later...he makes the SAME decision and comes to the SAME conclusion at 40 as he did at 17 but this time, it proved lethal.

It's so hilarious how you have to bring up a non-free DLC to talk about Ezio's maturity, way to go, Ubisoft--you relegated Ezio's most important progression element to paid-DLC.

Ahh the sparing of Rodrigo as a sign of "maturity" card. Everyone brings it up you know so I don't blame you too much.
Ezio's motivations are another point of frustration. He joins the Assassins and becomes fully dedicated to eradicating Templar tyranny--which FINALLY brings his actions in sync with his motivations after 5 sequences of aimlessness--No more revenge "Revenge would have consumed me but i'm fine now" GREAT, man...great.
Do you remember Altair's conversation with Richard in Arsuf after killing Robert? when Richard asks why Altair came this far to kill one man? Altair's entire motivations, progression and goals were summarized in that bit. Richard erroneously thinks Altair was here for revenge--and he would have been correct if it was in the beginning of the game--but Altair corrects him and tells him that it was rather justice, than revenge. BOOM, full circle.
Now, with Ezio...he shifts and jumps in the last 5 minutes of the game...we're under the impression that Ezio is only pursuing Rodrigo because he's a dangerous Templar with access to the vault which houses a powerful weapon and the staff of Eden in his hands...no more revenge because he's totally over it, right? No..."I thought i was beyond this but i'm not" is what Ezio says when he reaches Rodrigo. oh....okay then, so...you're still kinda finding your place in the dedication to the Creed, yeah? okay, mate...kill him, one less Templar for the Creed but then..."killing you wont bring my family back, i'm done"--WHAT? so you're not over revenge but wait you're over it and you're a dedicated assassin but wait, you're not because you're...over revenge? how does this make any sense?

Connor abandons his initial motivation because he realizes it's futile, which was saving his people--THAT was his realization, except unlike Ezio, there's no shifting nor jumping.


See this here? This is a problem with you. You have no freakin' idea what a good character arc is. Because this ain't it.
That would be like saying that this is a character arc:

"He started with a good sense of what kind of kind of sports car he wanted to buy. Then he bought a car and by the end he discovered that he should have bought a truck."

That's just not good enough to be a real character arc. He never goes through an event that changes his perspective dramatically or that leads him to a greater realization. If all that he's learned from his great adventure is that the world isn't as he thought it was, then he's a moron. He should have learned that lesson when his village was burned to a crisp.
Haha, your oversimplification and petty high horse amuse me.

I apologize for my simplification of Connor's progression, I should have known that you'd use it so narrow-mindedly to say why it does not count.

I have already explained how Connor's character arc works but you dismissed it with no proof or argument at all except "that did not happen" well, buddy..if you want to continue to believe that Connor had no character arc, then sure go ahead...you have the freedom to be wrong but Connor did have a character arc and I explained how and why.