The Assassins and Templars are Idiots

[Warachia]

I disagree but maybe that's because I've only fully played through the first one, the control the Templars wanted was complete control, control over what these people say, do, how they live, who they live with, and what they do in life, and damn you if you are in the way, the Assassins don't want anarchy, they believe somebody should be able to live their life as they want, without that control I mentioned.

 

[bjj hero]

...Ive never understood how someone can say "our country has more perspective because its been around longer." when YOU SPECIFICLY have not been around that long. Sure, the US has only been around for a couple of hundred of years, but countries are not hive minds that learn based on how long they exist. its a collection of individuals with ever so slightly differing viewpoints. /end rant (sorry if it was a bit long lol)

I've not. 32 short years here. It shapes the culture though. History shapes the culture and we have a lot of history. It doesnt make American history less important, there is just less of it.

Have you ever lived in another culture? There are some things that dont seem to make sense and its cultural differences. Many Americans huge distrust of big government seems odd if you've grown up in (reletively) left leaning Europe with a welfare state, national health service etc. The same with the attatchment to fire arms, issue with nudity in the media etc.

I'm sure there are plenty of things about the UK you would see as "odd", they just seem normal to me because its my culture.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Y'know with the increasingly morally relativistic characterization the Templars have received in the recent games, combined with Ubi's love for padding the franchise out, I was thoroughly convinced AC3 would give us the biggest cockblock ever and stop the finale right when Desmond meets a Templar telling him to stop doing X because it will doom everyone ever.
And then we spend another three games with a Templar splinter group discovering the other half of the story in their animus until we finally have one huge finale where the two factions have to compromise and work together for the first time since the beginning of everything.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I'm wondering why we don't get a game with a Templar protagonist.

They'll probably have to continue from another family's perspective if not reboot entirely in order to keep the francise gameplay intact any more than a century after this point. Once things like handguns enter the picture the idea of a guy running around with a couple of hidden blades and swords successfully killing dozens of people will be kind of ridiculous.

-cough-

Anyway, why do you say that? Is it completely inconceivable to think that one of Desmond's ancestors became disillusioned with the Assassin way and joined up with the Templars? Wasn't Conner's father a Templar anyway?

Well, I guess Desmond's story is over anyway. Which makes it the perfect time to go further back into time with a Templar! Woo!

That's a good point, but why would Desmond be going into that?

Besides, that was besides the point I was making. I'm saying that the sword fighting, assassination, climbing, etc. is pretty important to the AC series, it's pretty much what the series is known for and what people play it for, and it'll be impossible to maintain that after the point when handguns and effective rifles are invented.

BTW, I haven't even gotten to AC3 yet, so I don't know if things have changed much. I'm working on getting caught up these next few weeks.

What about another Ubisoft franchise? Splinter Cell Conviction is pretty much modern-day Assassin's Creed anyways.

 

[hermes]

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.

True, although he does have a point. Most of the conflicts before the actual revolution were pretty tame in comparison... Some soldiers killed less than ten people in a justifiable defense during a riot because of some legislation, some people throw away some Tea boxes to protest against some tax. It felt like the script of Phantom Menace all over again. By comparison, the storming of the Bastille was down right brutal.

Another issue is that the factions in revolutionary France where not black and white but black and grey. Even the "good guys" were corrupt and bloodthirsty. Instead, this game bends backwards to present some characters as gooder than good. Everything revolves around "fighting for freedom" and "standing besides the greatest" while presenting Washington like he was some messianic figure.

 

[Sonofadiddly]

I was actually glad that they chose a setting where the line between good and bad was blurred. I get pretty tired of bad guys who are Darth Vader evil. Not even that, because Darth Vader turned good in the end. More like Andross evil, just being complete dicks all the time about everything and instead of telling you how they were just trying to help when they die they?re all ?YOU?LL NEVER DEFEAT ANDROOOOSSSSSSSS!? I enjoy moral gray areas. Makes for deeper thoughts.

The plot still fell flat, though. They should have fleshed out Connor?s confusion over the colonials vs. the British way more. I would have liked him to totally say fuck it to the patriots in the end instead of just whining at them. I mean, George Washington is partially responsible for the death of Connor?s best friend. He should have tried to kill George Washington too, and of course failed (for the sake of historical accuracy), and then that would explain why your supposed best buds the Patriots try to kill you all the time after the British are gone. That would have been a WAY better epilogue than Connor seeing some black people being sold into slavery and shaking his head with a little smile like ?Oh, you silly whiteys, claiming to love freedom while slaving at the same time.? Fuck that, he should have been ?fuck all you whiteys!? and actually made effort to drive them away and protect his people.

I do massively agree that the American Revolution is BORING. You can?t even imagine how boring it is to American kids who have to learn about it 13 years in a row in school. I mean, battles, ok sure dodging cannon fire is pretty fun. But the Declaration of Independence? So boring. Oh yay, you made up a piece of paper whining about how you don?t have to listen to the British anymore, and one guy signed it really big. Can I please KILL SOMEONE? French Revolution would have been awesome, and wouldn?t have made me feel all that white guilt. Sorry, Native Americans.

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone?s minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don?t think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like ?uh, well, maybe let people make decisions.? The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I?m worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

 

[Falseprophet]

I had concerns when the American Revolution was announced as AC3's setting. And my biggest was the American Revolution was one of the cleanest wars in history: a few isolated incidents and pseudo-historical crap like The Patriot notwithstanding. How the hell do you have a game about running around stabbing dudes in the face during a war that had less of that than almost any other war in history?

The whole reason why I as a Canadian love US history is that it's actually interesting. Ours beyond our part in the Second Hundred Years' War, the War of Independence, War of 1812 and our military involved in the Empire during and after the Second Boer War (All being only footnotes in Canadian curriculum) is a yawn fest about the fur trade, Indians, French-Canadians and Metis.

It only seems that way because a) there's this prevailing History Channel notion that wars are the only exciting parts of history and b) the official history curriculum in most Canadian schools is shit. 19th century Canadian history is full of rebellions, riots, political scandals, and at least one high profile assassination. It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.) Also, they don't seem to want to teach about those incidents of martial law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike], but instead preach our national mythology of tolerance, compromise, and order without accounting for all the bruised knuckles and bloody noses it took to reach those compromises.

 

[kommando367]

There are a few problems with that though.

1. The assassins and templars are so evenly matched that a third organization would be kind of redundant.

2. the pieces of eden already grant balance-shifting levels of power

3. The Assassin have highly resourceful killers on their side. The Templars have killers and resourceful people on their side. If a third organization has been keeping the balance and ultimately preventing one side from winning, they would've more than likely been killed within a century or less.

 

[DracoSuave]

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

Ironicly, in the Civil war era, the Democrats were the party supporting slavery and the Republicans were the ones supporting abolishment.

 

[DracoSuave]

I had concerns when the American Revolution was announced as AC3's setting. And my biggest was the American Revolution was one of the cleanest wars in history: a few isolated incidents and pseudo-historical crap like The Patriot notwithstanding. How the hell do you have a game about running around stabbing dudes in the face during a war that had less of that than almost any other war in history?

The whole reason why I as a Canadian love US history is that it's actually interesting. Ours beyond our part in the Second Hundred Years' War, the War of Independence, War of 1812 and our military involved in the Empire during and after the Second Boer War (All being only footnotes in Canadian curriculum) is a yawn fest about the fur trade, Indians, French-Canadians and Metis.

It only seems that way because a) there's this prevailing History Channel notion that wars are the only exciting parts of history and b) the official history curriculum in most Canadian schools is shit. 19th century Canadian history is full of rebellions, riots, political scandals, and at least one high profile assassination. It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.) Also, they don't seem to want to teach about those incidents of martial law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike], but instead preach our national mythology of tolerance, compromise, and order without accounting for all the bruised knuckles and bloody noses it took to reach those compromises.

In your province perhaps.

I got to learn about the Interment camps, Residential schools, using HBC blankets to spread disease, the FLQ, and oh yes, Louis Real.

 

[A_Parked_Car]

It only seems that way because a) there's this prevailing History Channel notion that wars are the only exciting parts of history and b) the official history curriculum in most Canadian schools is shit. 19th century Canadian history is full of rebellions, riots, political scandals, and at least one high profile assassination. It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.) Also, they don't seem to want to teach about those incidents of martial law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike], but instead preach our national mythology of tolerance, compromise, and order without accounting for all the bruised knuckles and bloody noses it took to reach those compromises.

A men brother! I have a deep passion for history, and I really want to teach it someday, but not in a high school. The curriculum is beyond terrible. It is more political indoctrination than any meaningful attempt to teach history.

Ahem. Speaking as a Canadian military history major, I agree that the American Revolution certainly wasn't the most interesting place to set another Assassin's Creed. However, that is simply down to personal preference. My American history professor is so utterly fascinated by 19th century American social history that she devoted her life to it, but just thinking about it almost puts me to sleep.

I have devoted my life to studying various military conflicts, particularly the Second World War, and even more specifically the war against Japan. Yet I fully understand that many people out there have absolutely no interest in that.

 

[barbzilla]

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone?s minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don?t think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like ?uh, well, maybe let people make decisions.? The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I?m worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

I agree with most everything in your post, except one. I think you might have the wrong idea about anarchy. Anarchy is actually a style of rule (sort of). It isn't about chaos and fire and death like people seem to think. Anarchy is actually implies a system of government that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. This is not ruled by a central government, but more by a system of individual governance, kind of like if states had all the power in the US and we did away with central government.

 

[cricket chirps]

"I feel as an international company, Ubisoft should have realized that no-one besides Americans cares about American history"

Honestly most american students want to get the hell away from all of that. They teach us the same boring crap for about 8 years in a row. It is not interesting in the SLIGHTEST way.

Which is why i don't understand why this AC game is doing well at all. To me the best part of AC games that you can always appreciate through-out the game is the interesting historical time period.

This game does not have that. Actually it has the exact opposite, i would put money down that there isn't a less interesting time period they could have chosen.

 

[Zydrate]

Heh while I agree the "secret war" in assassin creed is really poorly written especially when it tries to tell us stuff off screen(for exemple how they pretty much have templar motivation change in every game) this article seem to boil down to trying to tell us "The american revolutionnary war sucks as a setting" .

The Templar's goals change because they change with the times, with the whole "domination" thing being a constant. They just change their methods.

The war as a lot of inconsistencies, that's not one of them.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

*reads thread*

Wait, am I in the right place? This is the escapist, right? So where did all these intelligent posters appear from?!

On topic, French Revolution would be awesome, except... don't most Americans (the primary market) still hate the French because TV told them to?

 

[Sonofadiddly]

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone?s minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don?t think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like ?uh, well, maybe let people make decisions.? The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I?m worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

I agree with most everything in your post, except one. I think you might have the wrong idea about anarchy. Anarchy is actually a style of rule (sort of). It isn't about chaos and fire and death like people seem to think. Anarchy is actually implies a system of government that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. This is not ruled by a central government, but more by a system of individual governance, kind of like if states had all the power in the US and we did away with central government.

Yeah I was asking for that. Sorry, I know that not all anarchists go to peaceful protests just to try and make it go awry so they can smash windows. I still disagree with the actual basic principles of anarchism. I don't think we as a society are smart or reasonable enough to get rid of central government.

 

[barbzilla]

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone?s minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don?t think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like ?uh, well, maybe let people make decisions.? The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I?m worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

I agree with most everything in your post, except one. I think you might have the wrong idea about anarchy. Anarchy is actually a style of rule (sort of). It isn't about chaos and fire and death like people seem to think. Anarchy is actually implies a system of government that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. This is not ruled by a central government, but more by a system of individual governance, kind of like if states had all the power in the US and we did away with central government.

Yeah I was asking for that. Sorry, I know that not all anarchists go to peaceful protests just to try and make it go awry so they can smash windows. I still disagree with the actual basic principles of anarchism. I don't think we as a society are smart or reasonable enough to get rid of central government.

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

 

[Sonofadiddly]

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

Like I said, we're all too stupid for that shit. Wink face to make sure you know I'm trying to be clever.

 

[freakonaleash]

Or it ended when, you know, one side was surrounded and defeated by the armies of two countries? Also, I could make the argument that when the french revolution happened it only affected the people of Europe, not the whole world.

 

[Yosarian2]

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).

Well, not really; liberals are more in favor of a government involvement in economic terms, but they are also more in favor of individual rights, while conservatives tend to be much more pro-authority, pro-police state, tend to be in favor of more harsh punishment for crimes, tend to be more in favor of a strong military, ect.