Assassin's Creed Franchise: ASM Rants!

Alright, look, I used to be a fan of Assassin's Creed. And I STILL don't think that they're bad games. In the contrary, Syndicate was a very good game. I really did enjoy exploring the city of London, I loved Evie Frye, I thought it was great fun. The grappling hook was a nice addition, the carriages added great chaos to the game... but the game's still missing something. After a TON of installments, I think I've been able to put my hand on what's missing in recent Assassin's Creed's in comparison to the earlier games: Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed II, Brotherhood, Revelations, III. One could say that the series rebuilt itself with Black Flag, & that it found it's footing with that game. While Black Flag is a fun game (I 99%ed the game), it suffers from the same problem that the newer Assassin's Creed games, even the really good ones like Syndicate and Rogue. Here's what's the problem!

While the Assassin's Creed games are still good, it doesn't feel as wholly of a game as the older ones. And that's not because of bugs, it's not because the game isn't "innovate" enough. The problem is that there's a huge disconnect between the games in the franchise. Basically, what they'll do is give you a game. Then, you explore these huge settings, get immersed in the world, maybe even 100% complete the game. You'll meet this new character. You'll get this modern day on the side. They'll probably throw in a funny reference of Juno and whatnot. Then NEXT year they'll give you another game, you'll explore this new setting, you'll be promised this new world, you'll meet this new character, you'll meet this new modern day story, you'll get these new Juno references. And then they'll rinse, and they'll repeat again and again. You know, I really want them to announce an Assassin's Creed game where they give us the game, however you meet an old character, you continue an old modern day that has an arc etc.

THAT is what they did in the older installments in the franchise that's missing now. You'd return to Ezio, you'd return to Desmond. You'd return to a modern day arc. They don't care anymore. Ubisoft just doesn't care anymore. And I don't know why. They don't care about continuations for some reason. They don't care about following on what they've already built up. And when they do, it's so poorly done. For example, in the modern day filler... I mean "arc", of Assassin's Creed: Syndicate, you meet Rebecca and Shaun. Example they are f*cking INTERCHANGEABLE! You could've replaced them with different characters and it'd be THE SAME! It's like bringing back you make a continuation to The Dark Knight Trilogy, and you show Alfred Pennyworth and Lucius Fox, but you absolutely do not build on them from the previous installments, you hardly even reference their past. They're just there. And listen to what Ubisoft said before Syndicate's release:

"The Assassin's Creed series story is still going somewhere, absolutely," he replied. "The overarching story is divided up into cycles. So we had what we called the Desmond cycle, which ended with AC3. Black Flag was the transition point between the Desmond cycle and the new cycle."

"[Assassin's Creed 3] was the end of the Desmond cycle. And then we started up the new cycle, which I think will become much clearer with Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, without spoiling it," he explained.

"I can’t go into details about the present-day story, other than to say it is coming back, it is going to make sense for our players, and they’re going to understand the conflict between the Assassins and the Templars."

"One of the things that’s been super important for me and for the team is to make sure the player feels in the present-day story that he or she has importance."

I don't feel at all like the modern day protagonist. I hate that Ubisoft are saying that we are the protagonist. When I actually have a face, I have a voice. And above all, I actually move. In Unity and Syndicate, you're watching modern day cutscenes through a nameless first person view. In Black Flag and Rogue, I at least play as a floating Ipad. In Unity and Syndicate, you're not even a floating Ipad. You aren't anything. You're watching cutscenes as they play out. They're so rare, so inconsequential, they hardly even matter. Yes, the modern day ending to Syndicate is epicly made, but there is no actual setup, so you don't give an actual shit. It doesn't have time to pay off the set ups. Or set up the payoffs. So what's the point?

The modern day is so tacked on, you'd swear that you're playing a game that someone tacked on parts of Watch Dogs, into an Assassin's Creed game. Watch. Dogs.

Where's the relatable modern day story? Where's the modern day story in which I actually do shit? You know, I changed my mind. The modern day in III is just phenomenal. It's a masterpiece. At least III left me asking something about the story. Yeah, it might've had a terrible ending, but I was actually asking questions regarding the content of the story. Right now, I'm questions... why the [frick] it exists? Are they just making the modern day story to shut our mouths? I'm going to assume that's what you're going at, Ubisoft. But No... nobody's shut up. Nobody's pleased. Nobody's happy. You know you have completely messed up your game when I'd rather play or watch the modern day story of Assassin's Creed III.

But oh, it gets worst. Ubisoft refuses to make a follow up protagonist game. They refuse to make another trilogy. They refuse to make at least a duo. We want to know what happened to Connor Kenway after the events of III. We're actually interested in that. But guess what? Too bad. You're not going to get a follow up. Because we're going to jump into the Caribbean Pirates era, and you're going to play not as Connor, but as his Grandfather. BUT you're going to fall in love with him. Trust me, Edward is the most fantastically developed character in the franchise. You want more of him? Too bad, because you're going to play as an Irish Templar called Shay! And he's pretty interesting. Want to see what happens to him next? Well don't you get the memo by now? Too. F*cking. Bad. You want a follow up to Arno's story? I'm sure you don't: His story sucked ass.

People are going to tell me, "hey, TAS, if you don't like the game, just don't buy it. There's no need to change it! Don't like, don't buy!" But I actually care about this franchise. I care about it more than Ubisoft cares about it, apparently. I've been playing this franchise since '08. I've followed the stories of Altair, Ezio, Desmond. I really want the franchise to because a whole, connected experience again. I'm not saying this to hate, I genuinely want betterment for this franchise.

Rant over. I'm out.

I'll be completely honest, ac2 was responsible for screwing up the modern day. I also found modern day in ac3 as pure garbage that only proves a AC game probably shouldn't take place during those times. Ac4 is still the best modern day story since ac1, as it ties into the theme of the game, and it has more of a ac1 feel (before ac2 turned it to crap).

Also, we do know what happens to the protagonist m, they died XD

In all seriousness, I don't think we really need a follow up for every character, the relevant part of their story was told.

I also didn't think you need a follow up to a character. But when your alternative is jumping in and out of characters in otherwise thin stories: I'd prefer the former.

OT, but what's your ranking of the games.

@theamazingspidey:

I don't know, the characters fates are usually revealed

Ac4>ACS>AcB>Ac2>Ac1>ACU>ACR>

AcRo

I always hated the modern day segments.

Beata

I was about to write a review on Assassin's Creed Syndicate and detail this exact same rant in my introduction. But I decided to scrap it considering you've done both.

The last game I've played was Black Flag, which I consider a semi-reboot of the franchise. It opened exploration up immensely, it had stunning visuals, the gameplay was a tad familiar to Assassin's Creed 3 but it worked, and the narrative was a compelling. In fact, I deem it one of my favourite games in the series, second only to Assassin's Creed 2. However, I can't help but feel that the game was lacking. It didn't feel like an Assassin's Creed game. It felt like a standalone pirate game.

Why? What's missing? Well, you can't just slap an iconic weapon and hood on someone and have them chase around an ancient artefact from Templars and call it an Assassin's Creed game. What I found missing was the Creed's lore. In the original game, that's what gripped the audience. It was cool to think about an army of assassins who train and dedicate their lives to fighting a discreet war with the Templars who seek control. That their endgame is the same but their methods are different. That whole concept was engaging. With the newer games though, that concept has become a mere afterthought.

Those were my thoughts.

@monsterstomp:

"It felt like a standalone pirate game."

This part I admit I still do not get, how was the creed's lore missing when it was discussed in the game?

AC Unity I can understand, but ac4? Even AC Syndicate (mainly because it gives the idea that the Templars were NEEDED to keep the economy stable) upholds to the lore of the creed

It was an afterthought in AC4. The story was more about Edward's journey from desiring wealth to seeking a more noble outlet. The lore was merely brushed upon.

@monsterstomp: how was it an afterthought?

Like I said, it's literally discussed in detail, along with the fact that Edward made the exact same mistake that Altair made by taking the "everything is permitted" part of the creed literally. The story itself is about having a creed to live by (black Bart, hornigold, read, ade, thatch, etc.).

When you say lore, are you referring to actions? Or mentions of the past? Or what?

When I say lore, I mean their education and practices.

As I said, the whole "Creed" thing was merely brushed upon somewhere in the final act of Black Flag. Which is why it didn't feel like an Assassin's Creed game for me. It literally felt like a pirate game with a bit of Tomb Raider influence.

@monsterstomp: but the time I'm referring to them discussing the creed in detail happens early in the game (sequence 3 I think, when Edward is traversing that area with read)

Quick question though, what do you think of ac brotherhood? (In terms of brushing upon the lore of the creed)

@mike_fowler: How was the lore brushed upon in Brotherhood? Its a direct continuation from Assassin's Creed 2, and the narrative is already established. Ezio is fully aware of what war he's fighting. By comparison, Edward isn't. Like I said, Edward didn't seek to join the Order until the final act, nor was he aware of the underlining war both Order's have fought for decades. Therefore, that part of the lore was mostly absent during Black Flag. Thus, it didn't genuinely feel as part of the franchise as opposed to a mere tie-in.

@monsterstomp: because besides just saying, "nothing is true, everything is permitted" repeatedly, the creed WASN'T dwelled upon at all in the game (no discussion about what it is or what it truly means) I don't see as to why Edward being unaware of the war means the lore is mostly absent, when the game itself delves into the creed itself more than the games before it (excluding obviously both ac1 and ACRevelations)

@mike_fowler: Care to elaborate? Because all you've been saying is Black Flag is more of an Assassin's Creed game then the games before it. The games that basically established its lore.