Ezio and the animus theory

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
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.
Again, as I said..the series had problems ever since AC II, not after. Patrice is just as much to blame as anyone else--he abandoned the original formula that made the gameplay loop great (albeit repetitive) for a more mainstream structure.

AC was NEVER going to abandon the historical aspect, it was just never going to happen.

Sure, Desmond fights and stuff but what does he fight with? a hidden blade and baton against baton wielding security guards. It's just so contrived
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Nieroshai said:
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?
Indeed, it'd be very interesting if this theory was actually the case. It would also explain how Charles was a nice guy in the beginning and how he was a racist, cruel douche by the time Connor comes around.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
ilayoeli said:
AC story is shit, get used to it.
Please, if you have no interest in the subject or will not post substantially, then refrain from posting--Why post? why waste your and everybody's time? You're like this party pooper whose sole purpose is to go into parties where everyone is having fun and say "SIIIIILLLLEEEEENNCCCEEE.....this party is crap" and then then leaves....just why? there's no reason for it. Do you feel good about yourself?
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Mohamed Medhat said:
Again, as I said..the series had problems ever since AC II, not after. Patrice is just as much to blame as anyone else--he abandoned the original formula that made the gameplay loop great (albeit repetitive) for a more mainstream structure.

AC was NEVER going to abandon the historical aspect, it was just never going to happen.

Sure, Desmond fights and stuff but what does he fight with? a hidden blade and baton against baton wielding security guards. It's just so contrived
I was saying the narrative lost it's vision after Patrice, not the gameplay. As I said in my first post, I stopped playing AC after AC2 because of the change in direction (which I meant structure) from AC1. AC1 was kinda like Hitman (a lite version for sure) but set in the past and you had to do your own intel gathering. The problem was the repetitive intel gathering, not the structure. In AC2, the assassinations were just so bad, I remember one assassination as I tried to sneak into a target's house, the target spotted me and I chased him in a circle around the house (up and down some stairs), it felt like a Benny Hill skit at that point. With the GTA-like mission structure, the game lost any sort of core gameplay that it had.

I recall Kristen Bell telling Desmond that the main reason he was going into the Animus was for him to become an Assassin at a much faster pace than, you know, actually having to train. Not that it made sense or wasn't contrived, but isn't that the main reason Desmond was using the Animus?
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Mohamed Medhat said:
Again, as I said..the series had problems ever since AC II, not after. Patrice is just as much to blame as anyone else--he abandoned the original formula that made the gameplay loop great (albeit repetitive) for a more mainstream structure.

AC was NEVER going to abandon the historical aspect, it was just never going to happen.

Sure, Desmond fights and stuff but what does he fight with? a hidden blade and baton against baton wielding security guards. It's just so contrived
I was saying the narrative lost it's vision after Patrice, not the gameplay. As I said in my first post, I stopped playing AC after AC2 because of the change in direction (which I meant structure) from AC1. AC1 was kinda like Hitman (a lite version for sure) but set in the past and you had to do your own intel gathering. The problem was the repetitive intel gathering, not the structure. In AC2, the assassinations were just so bad, I remember one assassination as I tried to sneak into a target's house, the target spotted me and I chased him in a circle around the house (up and down some stairs), it felt like a Benny Hill skit at that point. With the GTA-like mission structure, the game lost any sort of core gameplay that it had.

I recall Kristen Bell telling Desmond that the main reason he was going into the Animus was for him to become an Assassin at a much faster pace than, you know, actually having to train. Not that it made sense or wasn't contrived, but isn't that the main reason Desmond was using the Animus?
Actually, even the narrative lost its vision BEFORE Patrice left. Remember all the philosophical themes of AC I? all the complex death speeches with targets? all the internal conflict and arguments between a Student and his mentor? none of that is there in AC II--all of the complexity and ambiguity of the conflict was gone because the antagonists were mustache twirling, one dimensional, cartoony villains.

Agreed about the gameplay and level design.

Haha, yup--that's the reason he went into the animus but if I don't see Desmond enough, how am I supposed to connect with him or his struggle? sure, there's a premise but if I don't see most of it, then the game does not care to develop that premise and if the game does not care, why should the player?
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,084
1,180
118
Country
Argentina
I liked Ezio. He gets a proper narrative arc, changes over time and he has the kind of lively personality I appreciate in a videogame character.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
I liked Ezio. He gets a proper narrative arc, changes over time and he has the kind of lively personality I appreciate in a videogame character.
As I explained above, his narrative arc is poorly executed and he only changes by the last game (Revelations) and his ONLY "mature" moment in AC II was in a paid-DLC. He makes the same poor decisions at 40 (the start of Brotherhood) as he did 23 years ago by 17 in AC II. He's as carefree and as much of a playboy as he ever was in AC II.

I don't consider lively personality a necessity for video game characters, especially if their's no progression or change to that character whatsoever but of course, I respect your opinion--thank you for sharing it.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
You just don't get it. Go read a few novels until you realize what a character arc is. Arguing with someone who keeps ignoring facts is pointless.
 

zenoaugustus

New member
Feb 5, 2009
994
0
0
Mohamed Medhat said:
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.
Dude, Aladdin is LITERALLY a thief and is a Disney hero. That's like saying biblical Jesus is an anti-hero because he chilled with thieves and prostitutes. That dude's story consists of him dying for everyone else ever. If you think that is anti-hero material, then you may need to redefine anti-hero.

But beyond all that, I think you're missing a really simple point which is at the start of ACII Ezio's motivation is revenge for his family's death. By the end of the game, his motivation is to save the world from oppression. THAT'S the point. His actions are reinforced by a differing set of morals, and motivations. (Yeah he still wants to get laid, who doesn't?) And yeah, this is evidenced by him not killing Borgia. But he knows no amount of bloodshed brings someone back; the need for revenge is gone, it's just the need to save the people he still can.

You can say his arc is simple, you can say his arc is a cliche, but saying it is executed poorly or is non-existent or that he is an anti-hero is plain silly. He goes from a kid with everything to a young man with nothing but a desire for revenge to a man with a new family of friends and the desire for peace.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Dude, Aladdin is LITERALLY a thief and is a Disney hero. That's like saying biblical Jesus is an anti-hero because he chilled with thieves and prostitutes. That dude's story consists of him dying for everyone else ever. If you think that is anti-hero material, then you may need to redefine anti-hero.
Aladdin never killed anyone, though did he? You just picked ONE part of my post and started arguing--There's also killing in there, killing for a selfish reason, no less.

But beyond all that, I think you're missing a really simple point which is at the start of ACII Ezio's motivation is revenge for his family's death. By the end of the game, his motivation is to save the world from oppression. THAT'S the point. His actions are reinforced by a differing set of morals, and motivations. (Yeah he still wants to get laid, who doesn't?) And yeah, this is evidenced by him not killing Borgia. But he knows no amount of bloodshed brings someone back; the need for revenge is gone, it's just the need to save the people he still can.
Not at the start, Ezio's motivation for the WHOLE game is revenge and killing people whose names appear on a list of paper(because really, the only ones responsible are Uberto--who ordered the arrest and issued the death warrant--and Rodrigo--who devised this whole plan in the first place)
The game then jumps and SUPPOSEDLY, in the last 10 minutes, Ezio is a dedicated Assassin, right? no more revenge, right? no, he's STILL not over revenge when he gets to Rodrigo as he himself says, so not only was he STILL stuck on his previous motivation but this just puts the fact that "he's now a dedicated Assassin" to the ground and then the developers went and shot themselves in the foot when Ezio spared Borgia...if Ezio was a dedicated Assassin, he'd have put an end to the leader of the Templars but no, really, Ezio? you're over revenge now when 5 minutes ago you were not over it? and after killing 14 GUYS (one of them being a mentally ill soldier) you're sparing the one WHO WAS THE MAIN REASON your father died? It's nonsensical--if he's not over revenge, he failed because Rodrigo lived and if he's over revenge then he should have been a dedicated Assassin and ended Borgia, not for himself but for his duty as an Assassin.

My problem is not him wanting to get laid, it's his playboy antics...Maturity would dictate that he'd stop chasing women after supposedly wanting to settle down now because "his battles are already won" being a playboy and chasing women all over is dictated as an immaturity of Ezio because that's how he was in his youth, that's how most men are in their youth but then they find the right woman, mature and settle down but not Ezio, he was still flirting with a random woman and wanted to sleep with her when he had the hots for Caterina whom the novel says that he supposedly fell in love with.

Come on, guys I already explained all of this above, please read--I don't want to sound repetitive and have to type longass posts every minute.

You can say his arc is simple, you can say his arc is a cliche, but saying it is executed poorly or is non-existent or that he is an anti-hero is plain silly. He goes from a kid with everything to a young man with nothing but a desire for revenge to a man with a new family of friends and the desire for peace.
I'm sorry if my opinion makes you feel entitled to call it silly.
 

zenoaugustus

New member
Feb 5, 2009
994
0
0
Mohamed Medhat said:
My problem is not him wanting to get laid, it's his playboy antics...Maturity would dictate that he'd stop chasing women after supposedly wanting to settle down now because "his battles are already won" being a playboy and chasing women all over is dictated as an immaturity of Ezio because that's how he was in his youth, that's how most men are in their youth but then they find the right woman, mature and settle down but not Ezio, he was still flirting with a random woman and wanted to sleep with her when he had the hots for Caterina whom the novel says that he supposedly fell in love with.
Listen, plenty of others have disagreed with you and explained counterpoints to you which you seem to just dismiss as inaccurate. "NO! It's NOT what I SAID! WAAAAA!" Personally, I don't give a damn what you do or don't think regarding a character from a video game series. That being said, plenty of people who are married are immature. Plenty of people who sleep around are mature; the desire for one partner isn't an indicator of maturity just as much as it is. Sleeping around is just his lifestyle choice; it's superfluous of his maturity level, which mind you, is different (albeit somewhat related, but still different) from a character arc. The title character of the TV show "Archer" is immature as all hell but goes through character arcs in a number of different episodes.

But yeah, I'm sure I'm wrong and missing the point or didn't read your twenty other essays that all indicate the fallacy of Ezio being a character who undergoes an arc.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,084
1,180
118
Country
Argentina
Mohamed Medhat said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
I liked Ezio. He gets a proper narrative arc, changes over time and he has the kind of lively personality I appreciate in a videogame character.
I don't consider lively personality a necessity for video game characters
Oh I don't either, it's just a nice change from the laconically grim.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Listen, plenty of others have disagreed with you and explained counterpoints to you which you seem to just dismiss as inaccurate. "NO! It's NOT what I SAID! WAAAAA!" Personally, I don't give a damn what you do or don't think regarding a character from a video game series. That being said, plenty of people who aren't married are mature. Plenty of people who sleep around are mature; the desire for one partner isn't an indicator of maturity just as much as it is. Sleeping around is just his lifestyle choice; it's superfluous of his maturity level, which mind you, is different (albeit somewhat related, but still different) from a character arc. The title character of the TV show "Archer" is immature as all hell but goes through character arcs in a number of different episodes.

But yeah, I'm sure I'm wrong and missing the point or didn't read your twenty other essays that all indicate the fallacy of Ezio being a character who undergoes an arc.
Plenty have disagreed yes but i'm not the one dismissing the "counter arguments" (which, mind you, were nothing but "No, you're wrong") also, why can't you fanboys just discuss and argue like mature adults instead of resorting to petty insults in an effort to feel good about yourselves? lol.

Obviously, you give a damn...if you didnt, you wouldnt be replying with such a thorough post explaining why i'm wrong. I never said ANYTHING about marriage, I said about focusing on one woman. The maturity of love and sex lies in the fact that you don't NEED to sleep with 10s of women everyday or flirt with every woman you run into--it's what makes a boy but a man decides to look for only one woman (speaking from a strictly heterosexual perspective here) it's in movies, in novels, in stories, series'..etc. 20 something year old chasing women around whenever he sees them and sleeping around but then finds one woman that he wants to spend the rest of his life with. Sleeping around and impregnating every woman you see then running away to leave the woman to raise your bastard child on her own is not exactly mature.
I'm tying maturity to character arc because that's what everyone views Ezio's character arc as: A spoiled brat who grows up. If his playboy antics were not implied in the game to be a part of his immaturity and carefree attitude, I would not be prying on it so much and if the story was not about a guy who matures, as most people say, then I wouldn't be tying his playboy antics with his immaturity.

No, sir...i'm not the one saying you're wrong with no explanation. It's Alex and a few other guys :) Every time, I presented facts and evidence from the source materials for each protagonist whether i'm proving or disproving. please know who you're talking to/about before making absurd assumptions.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Mohamed Medhat said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
I liked Ezio. He gets a proper narrative arc, changes over time and he has the kind of lively personality I appreciate in a videogame character.
I don't consider lively personality a necessity for video game characters
Oh I don't either, it's just a nice change from the laconically grim.
To be honest, these days there's nothing but the "lively" personality archetype but yeah, Ezio was a nice change from Altair but unfortunately he set a standard for the rest of the protagonists that the fanbase bases around. If the Assassin is not funny or charismatic, he sucks.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Mohamed Medhat said:
No, sir...i'm not the one saying you're wrong with no explanation. It's Alex and a few other guys :) Every time, I presented facts and evidence from the source materials for each protagonist whether i'm proving or disproving. please know who you're talking to/about before making absurd assumptions.
You're like one of those creationists claiming to have the evidence that god exists by pointing at a piece of bread with the face of Jesus on it. It doesn't matter how many times people tell you that you see only what you want to see, you will never understand. Your "facts and evidence" are based on your willful ignorance about what constitutes a character arc and what the difference between a hero and anti-hero is. There is no excuse for this. You have Google, so use it.

For fuck sake, look at your opening post. It's the perfect example of your entire thought process. You don't care about the facts. You don't care about the evidence. If you did, you wouldn't have made this topic. You wouldn't have phrased the opening post the way you did. It's obvious from your opening post that facts and evidence are only facts and evidence if you agree with them. Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You gave us the evidence that you won't accept a different opinion the moment you created this topic. Which makes your credibility pretty much nonexistent. Just look at the kind of crap theory that you had to make up because you can't accept the idea that you might be wrong about a video game character. You're doing the same thing that creationists do. And it's wrong for all the same reasons.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Mohamed Medhat said:
I'm not surprised to learn of your pretentious attitude towards other things such as religion, your first post implied as such.
No it didn't, and I'm not an atheist. If you're referring to the part of my post where I talked about the Borgias, then once again you've just demonstrated your unwillingness to accept facts. Stating facts about the Borgia family was important because it gives us an idea why they were selected to be the bad guys in the game instead of the Medici for example. There's nothing pretentious about it.
There is nothing pretentious about stating facts. There is also nothing pretentious about making a simple analogy. But of course you'd see it that way. You've been unable to approach this topic from a rational and objective point of view so far.

My analogy is spot on, by the way, because you keep denying everything that goes against your beliefs and you keep telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are incorrect. At the same time you're unable to see how little sense your "facts and evidence" about Connor actually make and how senseless this entire theory that you made up makes. And on top of that you're convinced that you're correct despite all the evidence to the contrary. Because according to you, there is no evidence to the contrary. We're wrong and you're right. That's kind of exactly the attitude that creationists have when they're debating scientists. Therefore, the analogy stands.

Deal with it or don't, I don't care. I'm done with you. I even received a private message of apology from a person considering him/herself responsible for unleashing you on this forum. So this post serves as a warning to others. Arguing with you is like arguing with Ken Ham.
 

Mohamed Medhat

New member
Feb 3, 2013
37
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
No it didn't, and I'm not an atheist. If you're referring to the part of my post where I talked about the Borgias, then once again you've just demonstrated your unwillingness to accept facts. Stating facts about the Borgia family was important because it gives us an idea why they were selected to be the bad guys in the game instead of the Medici for example. There's nothing pretentious about it.
There is nothing pretentious about stating facts. There is also nothing pretentious about making a simple analogy. But of course you'd see it that way. You've been unable to approach this topic from a rational and objective point of view so far.
Yes it did. "You don't know what good characterization is" because if that's not pretentious, I don't know what is. I apologize for assuming that you're an atheist, though...I guess you're just pretentious.
The Borgias were NOT the only bad guys in the game, though as I stated but EVERYONE who was against Ezio was an evil, one dimensional, mustache twirling villain. The Medici's systematic destruction of the Pazzi bank, the Medici's eviction of the family of Uberto Alberti would have ALL been used as points of sympathy for the antagonists but nope...none of that was brought up at all in a substantial manner and lol about implying that the Medici were "good guys" The Medici were one of the most violent and power hungry families in Italy.
-Violence - they clawed their way to the top and wouldn't stop at anything to get to the top.

-Caused Humiliation and revenge - in the 1430?s when the Medici family were fighting with the Albizzi family , a friend of the Albizzi family, a poet called Filelfo turned the government against the Medici and when the Medici returned to power they humiliated Filelfo. Because when they were finished with him they had cut a wound on his face from ear to ear.

-Torture - when the Pazzi family tried to kill Lorenzo de? Medici and failed Lorenzo had the family strung up and flung from the windows of the Palazzo Vecchio. Where they were left to swing in the hot sun and he even tortured those who had nothing to do with the conspiracy and wiped them from history.

-Murder- When Isabella Medici decided to have a lover and when her husband found out, he garrotted her, strangled her, at the dinner table when pretending to kiss her.

The Medici stabbed in the back and killed their way to the top of Florence and other states. They could have EASILY made them the antagonists but they instead made them holy saints because of course, Ezio is allied with them. The game even has you act as Lorenzo's personal assassin to eliminate competition and political rivals around Italy.

Your arguments are not pretentious, it's how you put forth said arguments.

My analogy is spot on, by the way, because you keep denying everything that goes against your beliefs and you keep telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are incorrect. At the same time you're unable to see how little sense your "facts and evidence" about Connor actually make and how senseless this entire theory that you made up makes. And on top of that you're convinced that you're correct despite all the evidence to the contrary. Because according to you, there is no evidence to the contrary. We're wrong and you're right. That's kind of exactly the attitude that creationists have when they're debating scientists. Therefore, the analogy stands.
I don't JUST say they're incorrect (you're the one who does that) I say so AND provide evidence from the source material. Ezio matured--No, not really, he was the same guy personality wise from AC II till ACB and he made the same decisions when he was 40 as he did when he was 17, such as thinking that his battles are over when he spared Rodrigo Borgia (as he did 23 years ago when he killed Uberto)
Again, I can play this game too--this whole game of "You just don't see how little sense this makes" or "You're just wrong" or "that does not exist" You thinking Connor's arc makes no sense is YOUR opinion, you thinking it's not their is YOUR denial. It does not change the facts--you're to stay in as much denial as you want.

Deal with it or don't, I don't care. I'm done with you. I even received a private message of apology from a person considering him/herself responsible for unleashing you on this forum. So this post serves as a warning to others. Arguing with you is like arguing with Ken Ham.
I received a private message too telling me that you think you're some big know it all and that I should avoid you--sounds accurate.