For news, discussion and more about Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed franchise.
A Critique of AC Storytelling
In my opinion,most AC games have been far from ambitious in the story department.They take no risks nor do they try to delve into the conflicting philosophies of the Assassin Brotherhood and the Templar Order.Instead,they usually offer simplistic stories.But,the thing is that even then,the characters are still shallow and there's not much going on,as the protagonist kills target after target and eventually reaches some kind of illumination.
Here are some big mistakes the AC games tend to do,mostly regarding the main antagonists,the Templars:
Black&White
In most AC games,the assassins are viewed as paragons of virtue,while the Templars are depicted as monsters who would have all humanity enslaved just for the laughs.This is completely wrong,or at least should be completely wrong.In the original game,Assassins and Templars are depicted as two different sides of the same coin.They are both fighting for peace,they just use different methods.The Assassins believe in free will,while the Templars believe in order and control.In other words,both factions should be "good",the player should be conflicted about which one is right in each situation.Lunatics,psychopaths and tyrants shouldn't be exclusive to the Templars and,in the meanwhile,heroes and honest people shouldn't be exclusive to the Assassins.Good and bad people should exist in both sides.
Instead,what we usually get is a pure "Good vs Evil" story,as i previously mentioned.Some of the Templars are:men who support child labor(eg Ferris) or slavery in general(eg Prins),blood-crazed psychopaths(eg Roth,Rouille,Shahkulu),corrupt politicians(eg Twopenny,Sivert,Juan Borgia,De Valois,Uberto),straight from the cartoons evil guys(eg Thorne,La Touche,Lee,Leandros,Cesare) etc.Of course,there are also some decent people in the Templar Order,like Haytham,Torres,Brewster etc but these are the exceptions.
The Templars don't fight back
In every game we get this familiar scenario: The Templars have the upper hand,they control almost every aspect of society,while the Assassins struggle to fight back,until the "chosen one" ( /s) aka the protagonist comes along.As the protagonist we kill dozen of Templars until almost no one is left.We practically destroy the respective local Templar Order every single time,but magically the Templars have the upper hand again in the every next scenario.Anyway,my point is that the Templars never really fight back against these mass murders.They just stand there waiting to be exterminated.In AC1 all they do is (after the initial siege of Masyaf) put a decoy for Robert de Sable.In ACB they let one man take control over a fucking city,while they could find his hideout fairly easily.In AC4 they attack the island twice,but that's all they really did.In ACU and ACS,the situation reached new standards,as the Templars do absolutely nothing to defend themselves against the onslaught.Deploy assassin hunters? Nope.Kill an assassin or two? Nope.Increase the number of guards? Nope. Nothing.What i'm trying to say is that the Templars are supposed to be ruthless,but this happens only off-screen.
What about the state?
I understand that back then the state wasn't like nowadays.There wasn't any formal "police",not to mention services like FBI etc.But surely,there must have been some kind of law enforcement.I mean,Jack the Ripper killed like 4-5 women without being found and he is still infamous today.What about the assassins?Why are they allowed to roam freely,killing everyone they please,without consequences?I guess that most AC games take place in turbulent times,with mass killings,so nobody gave too much attention.But,come on,if 10 public figures (along with hundreds of guards,thugs etc) died in a span of a few months,then there should have been some kind of resistance,of public unrest,at least some kind of acknowledgment of your actions.
Moral dilemmas?
I get that both the Assassins and the Templars do what they think that is the right thing to do,but there should be some kind of moral dilemmas.We barely see the protagonist question his actions or feel any kind of guilt or remorse."Did this man deserve to die?","What about his family?" or "Is this action really going to help the society move a step closer to peace?".No.The Assassins usually kill the Templars because they are Templars and they deserve to die. Or because they blindly follow orders...
Assassin civil war?
Like every organization,both the Assassins and the Templars consist of people with different beliefs and backgrounds.Naturally,in these situations, conflicts between the members frequently arise.Different people have different goals and different beliefs about the organisation,how to interpret the Creed and what is the right thing to do. We see it all the time in real life.Well,in the AC universe,conflicts or even civil wars rarely ever happen.In the post-AC1 period,the Levantine Brotherhood is divided,but only due to the Apple.In the Ezio trilogy,everyone works happily together towards the same goal.In AC3,Connor and Achilles have some differences,but they never really fall out.In ACU we got a perfect opportunity for an Assassin Civil War (the radicals led by Bellec vs the moderates led by Mirabeau),but we never got to see that.In ACS,the twins have vastly different beliefs and attitudes,but again,nothing really happens.
That's it for now.I really hope that ACO will deliver a more complex and morally grey story.Assassin's Creed has a massive potential in the story department,we deserve better IMO.
Cheers.
Archived post. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Interesting analysis. I always considered AC games that have morally grey stories or have a more focused interpretation of the titular Creed my personal favorites.
Hm...medallion's humming
r/gamingcirclejerk
PRAISE GERALDO!
You're linking to this subreddit on almost every occasion. What is up with that?
Here's a sneak peek of r/Gamingcirclejerk using the top posts of the year!
#1: fuck /r/consolegaming/ if this post gets 13,383 upvotes this will become a PCMR themed subreddit | 477 comments
#2: I fucking did it, Reddit. I did it. | 79 comments
#3: FUCK THE AAA INDUSTRY if this post gets 1000 upvotes this will become an indie games themed subreddit | 143 comments
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact ^^me | ^^Info | ^^Opt-out
In unity the templars don't do anything for 3 reasons
they are a small group, don't actually control the city, only vaguely manipulating a number of radicalist groups
as far as germain is concerned his allies have served their purpose, remember that he ultimately wins at the point of the Kings execution, he doesn't really care what happens after, and hence wouldn't bother telling his allies or even explicitly stopping the others find out about assassins attacking, even then, they're in the middle of a chaotic time where communication is hard and people getting killed in broad daylight is common
Germain explicitly says sivert and the roi de thunes were meaningless to him
Rouille could have been killed by the police
Marie could have been killed by any number of unhappy poor people
Le peltier could have been killed by whoever poisoned his wine
This isn't a syndicate situation where by the end the entire city has been taken over by assassins, germain could easily think that there either isn't an issue, or his fortress and sword would be enough
3)the assassins as a whole aren't actually after him, it's almost exclusively Arno and elise, and because of that relatively minor threat he organises an almost impenetrable fortress inside the temple
They manipulate Robespierre,who as far as i know,was one of the most powerful men of the era.
The rest of the points about Germain are valid though.What about the rest of the Templars though?
The templars are using a less direct approach, they don't just have an army at their disposal like starrick did, and so don't have such an easy job getting security
The rest of the templars do what Germain says, he leads them to believe the assassins are no threat and can be easily dealt with (which is how lafreniere ended up dead)
AC stories always been lackluster imo they care more about the setting
I really feel like every point of this argument was addressed in AC Rogue...
Yeah I feel the same way. I didn't enjoy Rogue particularly much, but it did address a few of my own personal quarrels with the storytelling.
Plus it tied up a lot of loose ends regarding the Kenways, and it linked into Unity nicely too.
You have some good points. I've always wanted to see an Assassin civil war. It's bound to have happened at some point, especially with different rites or brotherhoods being divided along national lines.
I need to argue against your point about the Templars not fighting back though. Of course, the Assassins' methods are designed to not give their targets a chance to fight back. Let's look at the tennets:
Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent. By killing only their targets and those guarding them, they avoid detection on a greater scale, in theory also eliminating you "What about the state?" point.
Hide in plain sight. This one is obvious. If an Assassin stays hidden, then there is nothing for the Templars to fight back against.
Never compromise the Brotherhood. Similarly, the point of this one is to never give the Templars an opportunity to strike at the Brotherhood. Altair's reforms really got to the heart of this, dispersing the Assassins from a very visible castle to in and among the people that they protect.
This leads to my larger point which is that the Templars do fight back, whenever they can, and they are ruthless about it. At the beginning of AC2, Templars arrest and execute a prominent Assassin, and if Ezio had been present, all of the males of his immediate family would have been dead too. In ACB, Monteriggioni has essentially become a new Masyaf, an Assassin castle that shines like a beacon to the Templars, so they sent an entire army to destroy the place and the Assassins within. Revelations introduced Templar assaults on Assassin dens, which are examples of direct retaliation for Ezio's activities being too high-profile. Not to mention [the end where a den is attacked and Yusuf is killed] (/spoiler) AC3 starts with the backstory of an Assassin cell that has been utterly wiped out by the Templars with the exception of Achilles. Okay, I honestly have to admit that Unity is a failure on this front. I can't think of any real success that the Templars had against the Assassins in that game. In Syndicate the Templars have complete control of London and from some reason Henry is the only Assassin left. I have to admit though that Syndicate's setup and execution is terrible, so there's no real depth to it.
Regarding the first part of your post,i agree that the 3 Tenets protect the Brotherhood.But,the thing is that the in-game actions rarely follow the Tenets by the book.Besides,even if the protagonists follow the tenets,even then the Templars are perfectly aware who is behind the killings.This is when they should strike back,in some way.I mean,there are many ways to strike back,like the ones you mentioned.
The thing is that,while all these examples are valid,all of them either happen off-screen or at the very beginning of the game.The execution of the Auditores happens at the beginning of AC2.The siege of Montereggioni takes place at the beginning of ACB.They serve as incentives for revenge for the rest of the game.The Colonial Brotherhood was destroyed before the beginning of AC3(in ACRo.Well,the thing is that once again the protagonist is the one who gets the job done).I want the Templars to react to my actions,not only to something that happened before my time.The only games that did this are ACR and AC4.
Yes that's true. I can see your point of wanting the Templars to be more dynamic and adapt to how the player is affecting their organization as the game progresses.
For so long, I've been looking for someone who thinks about the series in the same way as i do. Finally you post this critique and i dont have to feel alone with my opinion about the series anymore. Thank you so much, you probably dont know how satisfying this is !
That idea for Unity would have been more better.
I agree with this but my compromise to solve it is more Templar stories and of course having equal about of gray and black and white games from both perspectives.
If you want a good neutral story on the assassin's and templates check out the Assassin's creed last descendants book series. The main characters give vastly different opinions on both sides and the pluses and minuses of siding with ether or staying neutral.
The best understanding, in my opinion, between the feud of Templars and Assassins in AC3. Crazy, right? Connor is an arrogant protagonist but his father, Haytham, really makes great arguments. In fact, every enemy in AC3 (except for the stupid DLCs) make amazing confessions right before death. Too good in fact that at one point of the story I was actually sided with the Templars and their philosophies instead of watching Connor constantly yell "WHERE IS CHARLES LEE?"
I would like more grey areas in the stories too. That would make the missions like tailing someone more interesting.
Did you play every game?. Most things are addressed in some form.
To be fair all these problematics are handled in such shallow ways that they might have as well been ignored.
The focus of the narrative in the game is always the same, then they throw in some side mission or hidden file to bring some manufactured nuance.
Unless you consider the existence of Rogue enough to put everything else in the series into a better and more complete context.
I must admit that i kinda miss the austere and grounded feel of the narrative, the design and the characters of the first game. All we got after that is a bunch of quirky historically-themed superheroes designed to be one step away from being Final Fantasy characters.
I've played every main game,except for Rogue,which isn't much better from what i've heard and watched.They just reversed the roles of Assassins and Templars.
Sure,some games fare better than others.For example,AC1,AC3 and AC4 are not as black&white as the rest of the games.Still,these stories had other flaws(although i consider AC4's story one of the best in the series).
I just think that AC has a great potential to deliver stories that are both thrilling and more sophisticated than the average game.Instead,so far we either got completely boring stories,or,at the very best,some glimpses of greatness.
How many games delved into the philosophy behind the Creed?Only AC1 and to a lesser extent ACR,AC4 and maybe AC3.
How many protagonists have questioned their actions?I'd say only Altair and Edward.
The protagonists are usually driven by the death of a loved one,yet they don't give the damn about the misery they bring to others' lives.
Others are driven by a feeling of self-righteousness,yet we don't get to see WHY the Assassins do what they do or believe in the Creed.Why a death of a Templar will help the society?
We just get a man-hunt,just because they Templars are supposedly evil,until no one is left.
So you didn't play the most morally grey game in the franchise? It's the only one that makes this the main point. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you but you make it sound like they didn't even touch on some things. I agree that the stories in the games are shallow. Hell, they are not even engaging anymore, but the "grey-ness" exists since the first game. The thing I love the most about AC1 is that Altair talks to the bureau assassins about what his targets said before they died and it is always something that confused him. And then we have the modern day. In AC2 when Desmond says that it's nice to be with the good guys Shaun says "In case you forgot we're assassins. Technically we 'assassinate' people". We have Subject 16 that said to Desmond at the start of Revelations in the recap "You are an assassin. One of the good guys, isn't that nice?" in a sarcastic way. Haytham found out that Edward was an assassin and chose to remain a templar. Shay shouting "YOU MADE ME SLAUGHTER INNOCENTS" to Achilles is the most powerful argument against your post. Now I agree that Unity and Syndicate were child stories about heroes, villains and loved ones but the others are not so simple.
There's no moral greyness at all to Rogue's story, AC3 and 4 both have Rogue beat in that department by miles.
The trick is making both sides be relatively close to one another and that's where Rogue falls apart because the Assassins of Rogue were at best tunneled vision ignorant idiots or blindly followed one and ironically not stopping to take their own advice and think for themselves.
The Templars in that game were sane, rational, and pretty normal folks which kinda kills the entire story because it's hard to write grey morality when one side is a complete dunce. It's like pitting Steve Hawkins against a sixth grader failing science class in a sciencebowl, it's no contest.
Agreed about the ignorance of the assassins. Achilles finally realized that Shay was right at the end though.
It has the same gray area but presented differently, not hard to understand unless you ignore all the dialogue and actions. Because so far you're spreading a misconception. Two of the first targets was standard villains as one bend the law and slaughtered natives and another was a slaver. The third was simply a Templar doing the financial aspects in the colonies. As a Templar Shay most questionable action is standing a heist that resulted in the killing of the gangs released from prison by the Templars. There's also his Templar fleet where he does a lot more shady Templar work, like for instance standing a rebellion in India. Adéwalé isn't potrayed as evil but rather a legendary Assassin trying to end the purge, he's also the most qualified to do it as well. And Charles Dorian wasn't potrayed as evil either but as your typical Assassin. Because of this it's the grayest of all the black and white games in the series. Now dismissing Achilles Brotherhood as idiots is by itself being in denial as the first memories with Chevalier lays out the extremism to the point of a sucker punch while speaking of blindly obeying the Mentor and Shay's line of not feeling free at the moment. Its presented the same premise of the original by having an entire Brotherhood being corrupt with an Al Mualim individual leading. The "idiocy" of Achilles is explained as he constantly bring up how dangerous POE's are and lays out the motivation of wanting it from the Templars hands in the Davenport Homestead.
That's how Rogue presents all the perspectives while showing an anarchistic brotherhood that's no different from either Abbas or Jack's corruption/extremism fighting a benevolent totalitarian order that's potrayed no different from when we played Haytham himself. Seeing as we work within the British Empire and expand Templar influence both regionally and internationally.
So Rogue has done what Syndicate, Brotherhood and AC2 failed at. Having sane people on both sides among extremist or corrupt members. And of course to contrast between the benevolence of Haytham's Rite you have the modern day Templar perspective being potrayed the same as it always has. Although Numbskull is to dumb to understand that based on Numbskull's own diary. What does bother me as a wiki member is people intentionally or not stating incorrect information on as a fact.
-sigh- Not this again.
You could point to every little minute detail that demonstrates some notion of "grayness" but at the end of the day, those are just small fries and it's glossing over the big elephant in the room which is that the Assassins of the colonies are simply brainless or suddenly found themselves lacking in brains after Shay came back which is honestly even worst than the former.
When the entire chain of Assassins ranging from the legendary Adewale to the disciples of Achilles couldn't be bothered to stop and wonder "Twice now, we've had a natural disaster followed by one of these artifact expeditions, what's up with that?" it betrays a complete lack of critical thinking that the assassins themselves preach and pride themselves in. Maybe the foot soldiers don't care to but you can't tell me that Adewale with all his experience and wisdom didn't have some reservations. Yes the artifacts are dangerous as we all know, a fact that was repeatedly shoved in our faces but all that proves is just how tunneled vision they were and that in itself is not a viable excuse for not engaging in some critical thinking.
But whatever, i'm not interested in going through this motion again, if you want to stay convinced that the Assassins were a worthy and morally correct group in Rogue then there's nothing stopping you.
Almost every protagonist questioned his actions at some point. Altair did, obviously, Ezio did in ACR, Connor always did, Edward too, Arno of course, too.
When? Yes, he admitted that he killed innocent guy, but that's obvious reaction to that. And he ignored destroying Cappadocia and igniting riot which ended in death of many people
Look like you skipped most game after Ezio Saga.
Oh i sure didn't.Maybe you could elaborate.
You definitely missed rogue which is one of the few games were the assassin's were wrong and the Templar right.
Well,again,the protagonist was right and the villains were wrong.