The Assassins and Templars are Idiots

[Random Argument Man]

I'm wondering why we don't get a game with a Templar protagonist. There are any number of ways to explain it away, and it would give perspective to the whole conflict. Personally, I'd rather have the Templars be in power than the Assassins. At least in AC1, the Templars were shown to be trying to work towards the good of everyone, but the Assassin's felt they were misguided so obviously the thing to do was stab them in the throat.

Then in AC2 and beyond, the Templars are cartoonishly evil, sitting atop their castles while twirling their mustaches as they exploit the unwashed masses for power and profit, which is...boring.

Have you played AC3? Have you killed one of the big targets in AC3? If there's one thing that bothers me about Connor, he lacks the ideals of the Assassins. "BWAR THEY WANT CONTROL" . The Templars were right in AC3.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

I quit the series after AC2, so maybe they pick it up again later on, but it seemed Ubisoft had already completely ditched the freedom versus order element by that point. The reason the Assassins were fighting the Templars in that game wasn't anything to do with ideological differences, it was because they had always fought the Templars. And the Templars only wanted power for power's sake, it had nothing to do with ensuring peace and stability.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha.

...Not saying I disagree, but, you do recognize the Republicans are going to feel exactly the opposite is true, right?

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

The conflict was diverse, people representing many nationalities and backgrounds, and was the direct catalyst for the French Revolution. Which you all may get your wish and play in future AC3 titles.

This doesn't change the fact that the French Revolution is still more interesting

Sounds like a pretty subjective fact there, buddy.

 

[Mahoshonen]

Historical America, even around the time of the Revolution, works as a setting for certain games. I'd play the hell out of a game that is centered on the Lewis & Clark expidition. Or a game about survival, like Oregon Trail. But I don't think it works for an AC game until the 1890s, when American cities really started to take their modern form. Part of what I loved in AC 2 was the fact that many of the buildings I was jumping around on still existed. My brain was literally planning out a vacation to Italy while I played.

In the U.S. there are relatively very few buildings that were around during the War of Independence or even the Civil War that are still around today. If you ask me, the ideal time period for an American AC game would be a combination of the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression, but then you'd have to account for the fact that a focus on stabbing people can be a drawback when everyone has Tommy guns.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I'm wondering why we don't get a game with a Templar protagonist. There are any number of ways to explain it away, and it would give perspective to the whole conflict. Personally, I'd rather have the Templars be in power than the Assassins. At least in AC1, the Templars were shown to be trying to work towards the good of everyone, but the Assassin's felt they were misguided so obviously the thing to do was stab them in the throat.

Then in AC2 and beyond, the Templars are cartoonishly evil, sitting atop their castles while twirling their mustaches as they exploit the unwashed masses for power and profit, which is...boring.

Have you played AC3? Have you killed one of the big targets in AC3? If there's one thing that bothers me about Connor, he lacks the ideals of the Assassins. "BWAR THEY WANT CONTROL" . The Templars were right in AC3.

I've not played 3, since the ancestors just stopped being interesting for me. I didn't like Ezio (despite playing all three games of his), and I didn't like Conner.

What do you mean by Conner lacks the ideals of the Assassins and the Templars were right, though?

 

[David Chadwell]

First off:

@CaspianRoach:"So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha." As presented in the article, Assassins are the no-governance and that has always been the conservative (as in less government) line. People who want a liberal amount of government would be the Templar. Equating everyone you don't like to every other bad guy ever is how you get things like the occupied territories of Israel (because Jews couldn't possibly run a concentration camp, that would be ludicrous!), and siding with Chechnyans that bombed civilians and held schools hostage (because they're fighting Russsians and commies are bad like in the Bond movies).

That being said, secondly:

I feel that the point of this article is well examined in Del the Funky Homosapien's "Delton in the year 3030". It's a concept album that starts with the typical music culture vs. corporate domination. The thing is, when he gets the anarchy he wanted it's chaos and destruction and victimization. So he ends up being forced by circumstance to become the very enemy he was fighting.

 

[sageoftruth]

Definitely agreed about the order vs. chaos argument. However, I'm not so certain that he'd enjoy Assassin's Creed in the Civil War as much as he thinks he would. My main argument is his misconception about the supposed antagonists of the civil war, the south. We all agree that slavery was wrong, but if Connor were to fight for the North, we'd have the same problem that Yahtzee always complains about in Modern Military Shooters (Spunkgargleweewees?), which is that the enemies are the underdogs. Sure, it's not like mowing down stone-throwers with a battle mech, but the North had a government-funded, well-equipped military, while the South had a local militia. Then there's the fact that throughout the war, they were the ones getting their homes and farms sacked and burned, due to General Grant's total war tactics. Even if they did support slavery, I'm pretty certain Yahtzee would feel the same discomfort cutting up armies of southern peasants that he felt mowing down middle-eastern peasants with machinegun fire in various Spunkgargleweewees.

Of course, it's an honest mistake. The Civil War had even less relevance to the rest of the world than the American Revolution.

 

[sageoftruth]

First off:

@CaspianRoach:"So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha." As presented in the article, Assassins are the no-governance and that has always been the conservative (as in less government) line. People who want a liberal amount of government would be the Templar. Equating everyone you don't like to every other bad guy ever is how you get things like the occupied territories of Israel (because Jews couldn't possibly run a concentration camp, that would be ludicrous!), and siding with Chechnyans that bombed civilians and held schools hostage (because they're fighting Russsians and commies are bad like in the Bond movies).

That being said, secondly:

I feel that the point of this article is well examined in Del the Funky Homosapien's "Delton in the year 3030". It's a concept album that starts with the typical music culture vs. corporate domination. The thing is, when he gets the anarchy he wanted it's chaos and destruction and victimization. So he ends up being forced by circumstance to become the very enemy he was fighting.

Agreed. Personally, I think the roles switch every time a new president gets elected.

 

[Frontastic]

I actually quite like that idea of a third secret society keeping the war going because it's the only state man can really thrive in. Would be quite happy with that going forward as a twist.

Although wasn't it implied that was what was going on anyway? That Juno had been manipulating things from the start so that everything would happen in a way that would allow her to escape? That was the impression I got.

Also (despite being very left wing) I've always found more sense in the Templars ideology. Humanity is bunch of selfish, horrible creatures that must be kept on a leash. And no, tyranny can't be sustained but the point was they had the Apple satellite that would guarantee humanity would be kept under control. You wouldn't miss freedom if you didn't know what it was so if the satellite was full-proof, I would be on board with that.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Ah, Team Sensible. They're usually called "Balance", seeing as we're just looking at a classic Chaos vs. Order fight here. Moorcock's Eternal Champion, certain D&D druids and others who are big into True Neutrality... hell, the entirety of Ultima VII Part Two: Serpent Isle took place in a land where Balance had dropped the ball and everything went to hell.

 

[Random Argument Man]

SNIP SNIP SNIP

What do you mean by Conner lacks the ideals of the Assassins and the Templars were right, though?

Connor's views and *raison d'être* is to defend his village and the people that he cares about. Yet, before questionning and understanding the situation where his village and people are threathened, he acts. In otherwords, he's the "shoot first, talk later" guy. When it came to the moment where he had to defend his ideals and those of the Assassins Order, he comes up short.

In AC3, The Templars are like the ones in AC1. They were bastards who wanted to work for the good of everyone. At least, in AC1, the Assassins defended their ideals and why they killed their targets with reasoning. In AC3, we just have Connor who doesn't seem to grasp the ideals of his order completly. He doesn't prove that the Templars are against freedom. He beleives they just want control despite their reasonnings behind their acts. He isn't a strong advocate for "everyone deserves a fair chance and the end shouldn't justify the means".

Oh sure, Ubisoft tried, but the Assassin ordeals didn't seem to be strongly reflected in Connor unlike Ezio and Altaïr.

 

[xdiesp]

AC in the french revolution would have been awesome. So many possibilities of targets and grand locales. Why do we have to fight in an underpopulated colony which only existed to massacre the natives and give a home to slavers?

 

[J Tyran]

The French revolution had a massive impact on politics, hell we still use terminology from the political fallout from it. You have probably heard of the term right and left wing policies, well that came from attempts to form a government during the revolution. The more extreme group sat on the left side of the chamber and the more conservative politicians and militants sat on the right.

Also in Ass Creed III, if the assassins stand for freedom and public autonomy why where they supporting the Freemasons? Masons have their fingers in all levels of public office, economics and industry. Sure they may not be taking over the world but you can bet they have reach arounds and support each others interests. Thats a hidden form of control.

 

[TheNaut131]

Ya know, I'm glad that Yahtzee mentions the French Revolution. I really think THAT would have been a far more appropriate setting for AC3. Colonial America is piss-boring to look at and the American Revolution is as boring as this article says. Maybe it's because I'm American and this is all stuff I know. I get the appeal of learning what 'really happened' and not seeing things through rose-colored glasses, but it's still boring.

Yahtzee said what I and everyone's been fucking saying since the game was announced! Hell, to be fair, maybe they should've had Desmond bounce between relatives during the French Revolution and the American Revolution. There are multiple Assasins and Desmond apparently has relatives fucking everywhere, so why not?

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

"The French revolution had a massive impact on politics, hell we still use terminology from the political fallout from it. You have probably heard of the term right and left wing policies, well that came from attempts to form a government during the revolution. The more extreme group sat on the left side of the chamber and the more conservative politicians and militants sat on the right.

Also in Ass Creed III, if the assassins stand for freedom and public autonomy why where they supporting the Freemasons? Masons have their fingers in all levels of public office, economics and industry. Sure they may not be taking over the world but you can bet they have reach arounds and support each others interests. Thats a hidden form of control." - J Tyran

First off, the definition or origin of the term has no bearing on modern understanding. Secondly, bugger off with the conspiracy nonsense.

On the topic of Ass Creed, I enjoyed the second game the most because I was in Italy. The architecture was fun to climb on while being very photogenic (for a Canadian who's never been at least). I enjoyed it because it allowed me to escape to a time that was grand, opulent, and fun to explore (or perhaps fuck up). With the American Revolution, all there is are forests and wooden huts. There is no elaborate architecture and no real evil force. At least if they went with the Civil War, there would be clear assholes.

EDIT
Also, with the ancient architecture, there comes the implication of interesting events that have occurred there, especially in very interesting buildings. I had fun with AC2 (and admittedly Uncharted series) because I was imagining being there and investigating my surroundings. Perhaps it's the inner archaeologist, but I find myself enjoying a movie or game better when it's in either a location with a lot of history or a lost civilization.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

A third party pulling the strings of both the Assassins and the Templars sounds like an actual revelation that could've justified that sub-heading.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Sounds like a pretty subjective fact there, buddy.

As are the vast majority of facts. Take it or leave it.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Sounds like a pretty subjective fact there, buddy.

As are the vast majority of facts. Take it or leave it.

Skirting the issue doesn't change that there was nothing factual about your sentence. Believe me, I could argue about subjectivity vs objectivity all day since it's a *major* pet peeve of mine, but I'm not sure if you're even being serious, not to mention it would be way off topic, so...

 

[[REDACTED]]

Sounds like a pretty subjective fact there, buddy.

As are the vast majority of facts. Take it or leave it.

I'm pretty sure there's a difference in objectivity between "The Earth orbits around the sun" and "American history is boring".

 

[Terminal Blue]

Believe me, I could argue about subjectivity vs objectivity all day since it's a *major* pet peeve of mine, but I'm not sure if you're even being serious, not to mention it would be way off topic, so...

If it's a pet peeve, I'd suggest checking out the actual definitions of those terms before calling other people out on technically incorrect but colloquially acceptable use of language which you were clearly more than capable of understanding the meaning of.

Peace out.