I don't like or dislike Desmond. I am completely apathetic about him. When a game has characters such as Altair and Ezio that have been characterized well, and the player spends the bulk of their gameplay time with those characters, having a Desmond type character/sections is very jarring and doesn't fit well with the gameplay or narrative. Desmond had a lot of potential, but was just done terribly and has been continually used as a contrivance to keep the game series going.
Poll: The Hate Train: Desmond Miles
- Thread starter ejrocksthisworld
- Start date
I can't hate Desmond because there's no character there to hate. He's too bland for me to care about. As for the modern day story, while I'm not a big fan of the overall story itself, I do think the stuff you get to play of it is pretty decent. I mean, I rather like the Abstergo facility stuff in Assassin's Creed and II, the warehouse in II is a fine interlude, running around Monterrigioni in Brotherhood was kind of neat and all three of the modern day levels in III were pretty enjoyable. So yeah, the modern day sections of the game are all fine, it's just the overall story I'm not fussed about.
I said I hate Desmond in the poll, but I don't really hate him - I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other for him. The modern story is saved by the presence of Danny Wallace and John de Lancie though.
The entire modern day story is completely pointless and the series would be stronger if they simply didn't bother with it. Nobody cares about Desmond, we spend about 10 whole minutes with him each game, all 10 of those minutes are spent wanting to return to the interesting stuff in the Animus.
Desmond is a completely bland character yes, but that's just the result of him never getting any time for character development.
Desmond is a completely bland character yes, but that's just the result of him never getting any time for character development.
Karoshi said:
The modern day story isn't bad, but I HATE the dumb ancient aliens/"those who came before" story line. I would have preferred a story about assassins and templars having their modern war without the world ending, or racing to find ancient technology.
Desmond is a more boring version of Nathan Drake. He has the same voice, and some of the same types of witty comebacks with his companions, but without the charm. They tried to make him more interesting as the series continued, but they failed miserably.
Desmond is a more boring version of Nathan Drake. He has the same voice, and some of the same types of witty comebacks with his companions, but without the charm. They tried to make him more interesting as the series continued, but they failed miserably.
I really don't get the hate. I don't like Desmond, but that's only because we hadn't been given any reason to. I didn't see any reason to dislike him either.
As for the modern day story, I didn't mind that at all, but I didn't properly play past Brotherhood, so yeah. I can see why the occasional sudden shift from renaissance Italy to post-modern America would take a lot of people out of the game, but personally I didn't have a problem with it.
As for the modern day story, I didn't mind that at all, but I didn't properly play past Brotherhood, so yeah. I can see why the occasional sudden shift from renaissance Italy to post-modern America would take a lot of people out of the game, but personally I didn't have a problem with it.
How does one feel emotions towards a dull character.
I might feel angry because he's the framing device to a series dedicated to faffing about and a dull character doesn't suit that I suppose. I hate him because we could get a better character.
I might feel angry because he's the framing device to a series dedicated to faffing about and a dull character doesn't suit that I suppose. I hate him because we could get a better character.
Hate Desmond? I guess I can see why people don't like him, and while I don't think he is an AMAZING character or anything, he alone was the reason I got through AC1. I didn't care for Altair (thought he was insufferably boring), and I just couldn't wait to get out of the Animus, talk to Lucy, and read some of Vidic's emails.
And while I loved Ezio in AC2, I was actually pretty sad when you really aren't forced out of the Animus to talk to your friends that often. Even when you left after a few segments, they still didn't really have much to say. I loved how important they made Desmond seem with that game's twist though. Brotherhood fixed most of the modern day problems I had with Desmond, giving his friends a lot more to speak about and seeing some Abstergo enemy footprints through eagle vision while walking around was especially creepy.
Then Revelations came around and didn't give us much of anything. Oh sure, we explored his backstory in some nice rooms that dealt with his past and stuff, but he didn't interact with anybody of consequence. In AC3 he once again had a lot more to do which was nice, except for the end that just sort of left a sour note about him. Connor had a tendency to be boring and not boring, switching back and forth for me, so it was nice to take a break and do something else, even if it was only for barely 20 minutes.
So yeah, I actually like Desmond though I don't place him on a pedestal. I mean, the past stuff was nice, but I wasn't really attached to much of the characters. I saw AC as the story of Desmond, and trying to piece together what was going on, who was friend or foe, why he was so important, was the main draw for me. That's why I played the games. The other gameplay stuff sucked me in too (Must get every Bank, Tailor, destroy ever tower, Codex pages, etc), but I kept coming back for Desmond/the modern day stuff.
Though I will wait a bit on AC4. A bit too soon for me, especially since I played Revelations and AC3 almost back to back. I'm actually really interested to see where they take the modern day stuff next.
And while I loved Ezio in AC2, I was actually pretty sad when you really aren't forced out of the Animus to talk to your friends that often. Even when you left after a few segments, they still didn't really have much to say. I loved how important they made Desmond seem with that game's twist though. Brotherhood fixed most of the modern day problems I had with Desmond, giving his friends a lot more to speak about and seeing some Abstergo enemy footprints through eagle vision while walking around was especially creepy.
Then Revelations came around and didn't give us much of anything. Oh sure, we explored his backstory in some nice rooms that dealt with his past and stuff, but he didn't interact with anybody of consequence. In AC3 he once again had a lot more to do which was nice, except for the end that just sort of left a sour note about him. Connor had a tendency to be boring and not boring, switching back and forth for me, so it was nice to take a break and do something else, even if it was only for barely 20 minutes.
So yeah, I actually like Desmond though I don't place him on a pedestal. I mean, the past stuff was nice, but I wasn't really attached to much of the characters. I saw AC as the story of Desmond, and trying to piece together what was going on, who was friend or foe, why he was so important, was the main draw for me. That's why I played the games. The other gameplay stuff sucked me in too (Must get every Bank, Tailor, destroy ever tower, Codex pages, etc), but I kept coming back for Desmond/the modern day stuff.
Though I will wait a bit on AC4. A bit too soon for me, especially since I played Revelations and AC3 almost back to back. I'm actually really interested to see where they take the modern day stuff next.