I've always contemplated how it could've been if Brotherhood and Revelations were expansions. Less bloat on the main missions, less focus on just making collectables and just focus on the main story and a bit of side content. Example: Assassin's Creed Origins. Both expansions had better pacing, better side quest and more focus on the narrative. But Curse of The Pharaoh? They went above and beyond on those levels.
I disagree with this video's praise of Brotherhood. ACII was my first AC, and despite quite a few issues I enjoyed it. Brotherhood felt like a gimmicky cash-in that put me off the entire series until Odyssey. A big part of my disconnect with the general affection for Ezio is that I just don't like him... I think ACII was a strong example of tonal dissonance between story and gameplay. He is mechanically a mass murdering sociopath... Press X to casually end a life, just so you don't have take longer to get to a window, ad infinitum, for example. It doesn't mean anything, it's just gameplay. And Ezio remains glib, smug, even. This isn't unique to Ezio or AC by any means - it's a problem with games culture; slaughter as casual fun, with the story never confronting the psychological consequences of killing. But as a result, I found it quite a disturbing, uneasy experience. In cutscenes, especially at the start, Ezio is likeable. I played it in Italian, and jeese, it's so much better than the English dub. But the disconnect between gameplay and story wasn't reconciled. I didn't think Brotherhood had a story worth telling, or mechanics to justify it (the titular feature is awful... 'press X to just not play the game'), and compared to the intricacy of II's often superb maps, Rome felt almost like a mod overhaul, not a proper, completed, worldspace. So yeah, greater focus would've been a vastly preferable direction for an Ezio arc. I think AC is a series that's been fluffing its potential from II on. I think the money men - as ever - learnt the wrong creative lessons, and that's marred the entire franchise. For me Brotherhood is exactly where that first manifested strongest; a game that shouldn't have been made - which sold well. Ergo capitalists be capitalising... Odyssey is my favourite on the series, for the setting, and Kassandra. But I played it before Origins, and really, AC:O is mostly just a reskin of that... So as much as I do enjoy the modern ACs, I don't think they should've really been made, either. They're just not really ACs, they're Witcher 3-very-lite. The sole 'ideal' AC doesn't exist... I feel that experience is scattered across ACII, Unity, Syndicate, Odyssey (for the main story/stories characterisations, scene direction, and a few other elements), etc. Concepts never truly realised, potential unfulfilled. I think the 'when did AC get bad' video had a similar conclusion, if I remember correctly. Despite my massively on/off relationship with the series, I'm still glad it exists. Valhalla was a catastrophe of feature overload... It's almost like a parody of bloat. But I still love the world they created, and it's still fun to play, even if it's just not really the core AC experience anyone wants.
I strongly disagree. Excluding collectibles brotherhood and revelations aren’t that bad with bloat. With Brotherhood, every mission ties into the main narrative of the game and the main story itself is about Ezio’s ultimate test in taking down the Borgia and becoming the leader of the assassin. Revelations kind of has issues with some plot points but I wouldn’t say that game is “bloated” especially since it has less content than brotherhood. If anything, Origins is more bloated since that game not only has a bunch of meaningless and dull side quests, but it also somewhat forces the player to play them due to level gating.
Part of why I like Brotherhood (and a reason I didn't like it as much at launch) is that it is simple. It is written more like an expansion than a middle chapter of a story because at the time that's all it was, Revelations wasn't planned yet. It builds on existing character development, expands gameplay systems, and doesn't feel a need to give us the emotional kind of story that AC2 had. It is AC2 but more, while Revelations wanted to retroactively turn his games into a trilogy with a three game story arc.
@@sosaysjayindeed, Brotherhood feels a bit like max level quests in an MMO. Your character has reached their peak, now have fun knowing that you can chain kill, gun, crossbow, poison dart or arrow storm your way through any situation :p
This is a very controversial take. I 100% agree. AC should've been Desmond's story, really. Release a Desmond trilogy of AC1, 2, 3 - then wait a few years, and soft reboot with a new character and a new trilogy. I do like Ezio's full story, not my favourite but I like it - but it did kind of ruin what AC, I feel, should've been and what AC1 and 2 were building.
You can see the decline in the main antagonists you fight in the Ezio trilogy. Rodrigo Borgia is a cunning villain who's always one step ahead of Ezio and has to be confronted when he's at the height of his power and all his plots have come to fruition. Cesare is an idiot who has all of his power stripped away without him noticing and dies long after he ceased to be of any relevance. Prince Ahmed...OK, they didn't even try with him and Ezio helping the rather violent Selim to ascend the Ottoman throne is really a rather questionable choice that the game doesn't seem to comment on. Maybe Selim could have been the bad guy and Ahmed an ally and him losing his life a flat failure on Ezio's part, but alas, that's not what we got. Ezio being all proud about his life despite the hundreds of murders he committed also honestly feels terrible, it marks him as a bona fide fanatic or sociopath. Let him justify that all those murders prevented greater evil from happening, but have him still be conflicted of his hands dripping with so much blood.
I think the problem with the newer titles, even the new one now, is that they portrayed them as “assassins creed” when in actuality they’re not correlated except for giving you a hidden blade. The exception being origins. What they could have done, is made Valhalla and Odyssey standalone (in the aspects that they’re connected to the Assassins creed games, but not actually assassins creed) having the hidden blades for Ivor be a side quest would have been a smart decision, because he’s not fighting the Templar order, but more or less being a Viking. For odyssey, idk if you’re fighting an early version of the templars, but it doesn’t seem like it. They could have had them connect with the main Assassins creed with the isu artifact that you become in possession of. After all, we know the modern day assassins and templars want them, so the easy explanation would be “I was waiting for someone to find me yada yada yada here ya go”
Me personally, I separated the idea of it being an assassins creed game and I LOVED those two. Yeah they’re not perfect, not great. But they are genuinely good games.
Ezio is popular because of who he is. Ubisoft, being Ubisoft, is just being Ubisoft for good for once. A situation pretty similar happened with Edward Kenway, Black Flag, and Skull and Bones.
Ezio was a really good character but we also need to remember that Altair only had one game to shine, then they ran through his story, Ezio was the only person we actually got to have a relationship with. I wish we had got more games out of the later Assassins and protagonists because they never focused on character development that much later in the franchise, great video ;)
This the Biggest Pile of a Hot take I think anyone could've thought of, but dare not say... And I Agree. I enjoyed the Ezio Trilogy, grew up on them in fact. But when I thought about the series and how it became what it is now, I can't help but also think it all started with Brotherhood. For as great of a game that it was, the ending of it never sat right with me. And after seeing later games and upon learning everything this video has touched upon, it only solidifies this for me. As soon as Ubisoft thought they can milk this franchise for all it's worth, that's when the seeds were sown to the predicament they and the franchise saw themselves today. Had they taken the time to nurture this series properly and not factory produce the living shit out of it immediately, I think it could've been at least an even more respected franchise than ever, with a fantastic and fleshed out narrative to boot; giving Desmond, the central character to these initial games, the proper story he could've had. All this to say that I'm not necessarily saying the Ezio trilogy shouldn't have happened at all, let alone Ezio getting more games about him. We saw Altair, the first Assassin from the first game, get side games on the DS and PSP, Same with Ezio on the DS; Similar to how Kingdom Hearts gets side games on portable consoles, with Main Numbered games being focused on console. Now, I think they deserved better than having games on Portable consoles, but I digress; it was possible to see more of these characters and have their stories continued and concluded. I will say they had the right idea with Brotherhood, but the fact that it got in the way of AC3 as it should've been and which also led to the unnecessary existence of Revelations, just devalues these games for me even further and wished they never happened as they were.
I just wanted a new assassin every year, the novelty of a new character with a new hood and outfit was something I always looked forward to, and I secretly wanted a fighting game with a ton of assassin characters
I liked both AC II and Brotherhood yet never really bothered playing Revelations. I'm content with Ezio ending as the master assassin in assassin-dominated Rome; he worked so hard to establish the Creed there, finally building a true Brotherhood. That was pretty much the perfect ending to me.
Guys... I hate to say this... But the Golden era of Assassin's creed has gone ... Those were the good old days... The good old games... I don't think we could connect with characters as good as we connected in the initial games... AC-2 , Brotherhood, 3 and black flag... The characters had depth.
Revelations was my entry into the series, and so I feel it holds a place in my estimations of the AC series that’s higher than most other peoples. I beat it about 6 times and then played the rest of the series before it.
Good video. As for the trilogy I do enjoy it. I understood your points on Brotherhood and Revelations. Ubisoft really got greedy, look at where they are now. Still I enjoyed hearing your perspective on this
I feel sales numbers are disingenuous. Revelations sold 7 millions because nobody thought it would be worse than Brotherhood. Suits use that metric to say their game is successful, but really they just ripped off 7 million people
In my opinion even if you are right, the way they took was the better one. They took CoD as an example and it's the perfect example. If they wouldn't release game after game they would have ended like Medal of Honor. It's sad but it's true.
They made a few mistakes with AC Revelations. It should have been set in Spain, during the Spanish Inquisition, with Ezio travelling to and exploring Madrid for most of the game before visiting Altiar's Vault in Syria during the climax of the narrative. Spain was teased as a setting during Assassin's Creed 2, when Ezio and his remaining family escaped Florence and moved into their new home. AC Revelations should have been AC 3, instead of the AC 3 we actually got, which is unfortunate. It would have been a much better and fitting ending for that trilogy. That way, we would have gone from Ezio straight to Edward Kenway in AC 4
The height of the Spanish Inquisition had actually already passed before the end of AC2 (there was a spinoff game for the DS released alongside AC2 called Assassin's Creed II: Discovery, where Ezio actually does go to Spain during the Inquisition. It's set in 1492, between two sequences of AC2 lmao). I think that's probably why they teased Spain in AC2 itself, because the spinoff released alongside the main game. Now, the Spanish Inquisition did last for several centuries, so they could have had Ezio return to Spain for some kind of Inquisition-related storyline in a sequel (either retconning the narrative of AC2: Discovery or acknowledging it), but most of the most famous parts of the Spanish Inquisition (like the expulsion of the Jews from Spain) happened between 1492 and 1502. AC2 ends in 1499 and Brotherhood in 1507, and nothing particularly interesting happened in the Spanish Inquisition between 1507 and 1512 (when Revelation ends), so while they definitely could have made an Inquisition-themed game set within that time range, it wouldn't have been during any iconic moments of the Spanish Inquisition. Also, if AC3 had not been made, Edward never would have been created and Black Flag never would have been thought of. ACIV was originally pitched as part of a "Kenway Family Saga" during the development of AC3 to follow on from that game in the same way Brotherhood and Revelations followed on from AC2, the idea of making a pirate game only came to them because the ship combat they were developing for AC3 was so fun and because they realized Connor's grandfather would have lived through the Golden Age of Piracy, and Edward's personality was influenced by the characters of Haytham and Connor because Darby McDevitt wanted him to have parallels and contrasts to both of them, since he was invented to be their father and grandfather, respectively (he had in fact already been created, albeit in a much less fleshed-out form, as part of Haytham's backstory). There is no universe in which we go straight from Ezio to Edward Kenway in AC4, because AC4 and Edward never would have been thought up without AC3 and Connor.
@@unicorntomboy9736 ...Well I'm telling you the facts as reported by the developers who actually created AC4, it's really not a matter of opinion. AC4 doesn't rely on AC3 to make sense, but the devs wouldn't have come up with AC4 without the things from AC3 that prompted them to come up with AC4, simple as. Cause and effect, get rid of the causes and you don't have the effects.
@@SomasAcademy My mind doesn't work that way, sadly. I only see these games in isolation Also there is this thing called fan decanonisaion, which happens a lot. It is a retroactive thing
I disliked Brotherhood so much it made me stop playing AC until Odyssey... So I agree (the Ezio trilogy shouldn't have happened), and disagree (because I think Brotherhood is a fairly bad, gimmicky game).
You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong. Also, imagine making content with the sole purpose of shitting on a beloved character, who deserves that love and has a great arc. May your pillow be warm on both sides.
What a needlessly rude comment. The whole point for making the video is that I care about the character and think he deserved better than having the original creative team behind him broken up and having his story passed around to an assembly line of different studios tasked with making his games in under a year. You don’t think he deserved a full arc that was planned from the beginning that was allowed time to go through the full editing process? That is the kind of question I interrogate, but instead you see a title and insult someone without even watching the video, where I never once say Ezio is a bad character. I hope your pillow is cool, because I’m an adult who doesn’t wish bad things on people on the internet.
@@KoylTrane No I didn't. I just find it irrelevant. Who is at fault that Ezio didn't have closure? Ubisoft. Who is at fault that the subsequent games were cash grabs? Ubisoft. Again, nothing to do with Ezio.
@@koragg4193 > Who is at fault that Ezio didn't have closure? Ubisoft. You've just confirmed that you were listening the video with your butt. Ubisoft gave Ezio an entire trilogy + an animation depicting his demise. Of all characters, he had closure. Jay argued that it would be better if AC2 was the actual end of Ezio's story, because while his character arc was completed, the game left him in conflicted state which was bold.
Ezio was the only character in the entire series that mainstream gamers hold in esteem. Maybe Edward Kenway too. Ubisoft's problem is that they don't know how to write good main characters. In fact they can't even write a competent story anymore.
No, all their characters are memorable on some level. The issue is that Ubi has a bad habit of tackling complex themes (that require several/longer games) through a single narrative-driven story.
No, Connor and Haythan are great protagonists. People want every assassin to be fun, light hearted and charismatic, and while it did work in AC 2, Ezio got more and more stoic in his other games, but people seem to miss that fact
@Nikolai1939 Uh, I didn't. I flat out think Connor is fucking boring as fuck. He's uncharasmatic and uninteresting. I don't even remember either character's names from Black Flag, or much else besides fishing in that game. Which is the only fun I had with it. Ubi focuses on stupid story elements or mini games rather than character growth. This is why Ezio is still my favorite.
In my opinion, the story of Desmond could have easily been handled so much better even with the messy production schedule. Revelations actually has a very interesting premise when you think about it. Desmond is in a coma and tries to survive INSIDE the Animus in an unstable simulation before he's erased. There are so many cool things you could do with this premise! The obvious idea would be to use this opportunity for introspection and character development. Desmond didn't have a lot of characterization in previous games, so Revelations would be a perfect opportunity to flesh him out as character before the big finale in ACIII. Each door on the Animus Island should lead to a unique story mission that shows Desmond's memories. That way we'd be able to learn more about his life, his character, his motivations and the circumstances that led him to where he is. Each Desmond mission should be a 15-20 minute-long sequence where we get to play as Desmond in 3rd person. One mission would show Desmond's life on the Assassin farm, his training with his dad and interactions with other memebers of this 'cult'. Another would be about Desmond's escape from the farm. Then we'd see Desmond's life in the city, him trying to evade the Templars and the last mission would show us how he was captured by Abstergo. What we got was a set or boring FPP missions with simple environmental puzzles and some narration. Just imagine how much better these missions would be if they let us play through Desmond memories in TPP, just like the rest of the game. On top of these Desmond missions, Revelations could give us a lot of mind-bending Animus-themed moments that expand on the lore of the Animus, the idea of bleeding effect and the danger of going insane just like Subject 16. For example: one sequence could end with an Animus glitch where the entire in-game world starts to collapse, Ezio glitches back into Desmond and we have to frantically run through the collapsing city to avoid deletion. We could have a sequence where Desmond starts jumping between memories of his different ancestors and time periods. It would be a great way to give us an exciting set piece that also gives us a taste of possible characters and time periods we could fully explore in future games. I'd also use the premise of AC Revelations to give the players some fun side activities like combat and stealth challanges. Imagine if the game had cool trials where we get to play as Desmond and use all the skills he learned. These trials could use locations from all previous games to give us interesting encounters and all of that could be explained by some Animus anomaly or a glitch. Just imagine if we had levels like Acre, Masyaf, Damascus, Jerusalem, Florence, Venice, Forli, Monteriggioni, Rome and Istambul. Devs could even use some of the online maps from the multiplayer mode to create interesting trials and assassination/combat scenarios. This underutilziation of the main premise always annoyed me about Revelations. The idea of Desmond being in a coma INSIDE the Animus just begs to be explored. It was a perfect opportunity to give us more classic 'WTF' moments, creative side content and most importantly, characterization for Desmond. The end of his story in ACIII would have been so much more powerful if only we had learned more about him in Revelations.
I would also add that the first time Assassin's Creed felt 'off' to me was when they killed off Lucy. The modern day gang were pretty likable and it just demonstrated to me that they were making up the story as they went along. Since AC3 there's been a lack of focus and that's the result of this casual attitude to the overall story. Without it the game is just History Simulator, and that's what it's become.
i was really enjoying the chemistry between Lucy and Desmond. it was a shame that they killed her off, but thats far from being the worst thing they did. Seeing William, Shawn and Rebecca today is sad.
It seems like the character arc of every AC fan is to slowly go from thinking AC is the best game story ever to realizing the AC narrative was always doomed to fail
It's doomed to fail as a franchise. The original modern day is impossible to stretch over a period of time. To be honest it's mostly Ubisoft's fault too. They had the chance to change course after making a mess of it but decided to make the modern day almost non-existent for several games and not also not using Desmond's son storyline (which had potential but they decided to put it in a graphic novel). Even though it gave the franchise something unique that can hardly be replicated, the modern day is ultimately what destroyed the story as a whole.
@@ahmed.hasan_ The original modern day story I meant. Impossible to stretch over a long period of time. From what I've read it was supposed to end at around brotherhood. They gave it 2 more games, and it's clear from how messy and directionless it felt. After that it went absolutely nowhere with the 1st person modern day then came Layla. My point is it wasn't meant to be this long running franchise but they stretched it out way beyond its original intention.
Patrice left Ubisoft in search of more creative freedom, he wasn't fired. If he'd stayed on, it probably wouldn't have done much to help the franchise, because ultimately all the creatives at Ubisoft are beholden to what their corporate overlords think will make them the most money. The reason Patrice left was because his voice wasn't being heard, so staying wouldn't have let it be heard more.
@@SomasAcademy He worked for another dev which was bought by Ubisoft. After they took over Ubisoft sent some security guards to escort him out of the building... They treated him and many other devs like crap.
@@nikitos3558 Well yeah, but that happened in 2013, 3 years after he'd left Ubisoft over lack of creative control, so it isn't connected to the direction Ubisoft pushed AC in with Brotherhood and Revelations.
I think I even heard Patrice Désilets say he wanted to make just 3 games about Alrair, Ezio and Desmond, but Ubisoft saw how much money the franchise could make
Judging by how Altaïr and Connor didn't get an end to their story, I think it was done on purpose. Altaïr was left uncertain about the apple, while Connor was uncertain about his path with who he was fighting for. Jay mentioned how Ezio had a uncertain ending in 2 as well, but they kept going with him. These ancestors were always supposed to only be stepping stones for Desmond, since he is the main character. I think they were supposed to be left with uncertainty, but Ezio stole Desmond's spot.
@@enzoamore8971it's Ubisoft's fault. Ezio was worthy of a trilogy. But they fucked it all up by killing Desmond. And Ubi has been mediocre ever since.
@@jasonashley9853 yes but like the other ancestors, Ezio should've stayed back. Ezio could've had some games later by then, and not over shadow Desmond's story. Giving Ezio all the spotlight already had most fans think he's the main character.
I appreciate your thoughts on this, but Ezio was fire in a bottle for Ubisoft. If he wasn’t so likable I don’t know if we would even have the AC franchise at all. They can’t seem to write likable characters or good plot lines very often, so when they finally had something, they ran with it. Ezio’s games are really the only ones since the original that seemed to make sense being AC games. I think Unity had the best shot at recreating this feeling and atmosphere,but we all know how that turned out.
Assassin's Creed has always kind of struggled to have a coherent theme and belief, but you make a great point about the ending for 2. One of the things that Assassins say are a core belief is accepting uncertainty. You abandon the idea that you will know all the answers or know the Real Truth, and decide to do what you believe is right in the meantime. You don't help people or fight injustice because someone is going to come in and say that you were right and it was worth it. You do it because you believe. Brotherhood and Revelations are an excellent ending to Ezio - they expand on and complete his story, letting him find closure and something like certainty and Faith. I love his ending from a writing perspective. But that's not an Assassin's Creed ending. Not according to what the games and brotherhood say that they are.
Jay really does make a good point about the AC2 ending. Altaïr and Connor also had uncertain endings in their respective stories, so I think that's what they were truly trying to go for. I think the uncertainty was to show that the ancestors were merely stepping stones for the modern day, but Ubisoft wanted to milk Ezio.
I don't care about Red or Hexe or whatever after it. I want another company to take away the series from Ubisoft, probably bring the Bordeaux team with them, and remake or reboot AC 1. The series is so mutilated and mangled like Unity to have any sort of coherence at this point.
So it's like the MCU, then... But agreed. A reset would be good - however making good art is usually not the same as making good business... and AC Valhalla was a huge financial success. The hierarchy at Ubisoft don't care about the story or distinct game design, they just want a reliable revenue stream. A product to monetise to hell and back.
Exactly, at this point AC is the only thing Ubi can make. They screwed up pretty much every other franchises (Prince of Persia may see a vague future). If they dont milk AC, they're dead or risk being bought by Tencent or others But it's quite hopeless as long as no change in the higher ups
@@Tin_Le Well, sadly it's not just Ubisoft, of course. The same culture of exploitation exists throughout the triple-A space, and in film, and so on... It's the prioritisation of investments and growth returns. Look at the disaster of Embracer Group. Unless the [socioeconomic] values change, then yeah, it's futile to hope for anything better. I feel two Ubisoft IPs have been done very well recently, though; GR Breakpoint, and The Division 2 were both excellent. The former was a disaster on launch... But they really did redeem Breakpoint and turn it into one of, if not the best, military softsims on console. That said, the future of both GR and Division is a bit up in the air, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them screw those up as well. They understood how to fix/improve Breakpoint, and overall TD2 was excellent for most of its lifespan. So if they pay attention to that design history success, we could see those IPs get good new entries.
I got a good company to take AC away from Ubisoft, and their name is Private Division. Private Division has Patrice Desilets there, with his own game studio called Panache. If Panache Studios was able to develop the game, Patrice can finally finish cooking what he started.
So the people who say the issues we face now in the modern industry did in fact start in the 7th gen. Annual releases, rushed games, major focus on dlc and oversaturation. Is the 7th gen also when big business took over the industry as a whole? I can see it with ubisoft and ea.
Judging from their financial situation, if Brotherhood and Revelations never existed then Ubisoft might have disappeared in the 2010s. On second thought, perhaps more Just Dance games and Far Cry games.
19:45 IDK. Just you giving me the synopsis of the Ezio triology and what they set up with Desmond - AC used to have narrative ambitions. While I enjoyed Edwards and Bajeks journey the loss of an overarching meta-narrative shows. And Walhalla and Odysee feel like Marvel movies to play to me. AC used to have shocking and goosebump inducing story moments and a stories people talked about with excitment. - Now I hardly here anything about ACs stories anymore.
Completely disagree with Valhalla feeling like a Marvel movie (Odyssey sure, but Valhalla's vibes aren't quite like anything else, for better and for worse), but 100% agree on the overall point. Desmond's story worked as its own thing; they had to adjust it to add two extra Ezio games, but overall there was still a purpose to his story, an end-point he needed to reach. Layla's story really didn't have that at all, each of her games had functionally self-contained modern day stories, there weren't any goals introduced in Odyssey that she finally completed in Valhalla or anything like that (as was the case with Desmond learning the world was going to end in AC2, figuring out what to do next in Brotherhood and Revelations, and completing the goal in AC3). In each game, she has a new set of goals, introduced within that game; the previous games just feel like backstory, not parts of a continuous narrative. She doesn't have a consistent supporting cast between games either, so each of her modern day sections feel like their own little bubbles; they feel almost like Revelations' modern day, like they were tacked on there to check the "modern day story" box without moving the story forward too much. And the AC4, Rogue, Unity, and Syndicate modern day sections were of course even less meaningful, all completely self-contained with no protagonist to even HAVE an overarching set of goals they were moving toward.
I really dont understand the disrespect that people have for Marvel when its Disney fault for a worse continuity of the mcu, its like blaming DICE for Battlefront 2 being pay to Win when it was clearly EA's fault for the insertion of lootboxes in the game. People disrespecting Marvel makes absolutely no sense for me when the one that pushes the agenda is Disney.
When AC2 came out, it had this air of intrigue and uniqueness about it that I absolutely loved. It just felt special. Then yearly releases just turned me off and I only ever played 4 after 2 because it was a pirate game, not because it was an AC game. It's not that I hated what they were doing but the high release rate looked to be just a way to make money for the publisher. I didn't believe the mystery set up in AC 1-2 would be paid off satisfyingly and looking at videos, it sure wasn't yet the series trucks on regardless, they have micro-transaction to sell so now I look at the Assassin's Creed name the same way I look at Call of Duty : it means nothing. I still think back fondly of AC2 but I'm glad I stopped caring then.
The hologram woman wants Ezio to deliver a message through the Animus, but if she has the power to see the future to such an extent that she knows Ezio will have a descendant named Desmond who will definitely use the crazy Animus tech in the far future and be able to recieve this message, then why can't she just use her clairvoyance in a less convoluted way? Surely being able to see the future can immediately give her the upper hand in whatever conflict she has, making it unnecessary to scheme for who knows how many centuries to achieve her goals. That terrible cliffhanger pissed me off, even more so after the mind control induced death of Lucy which came out of nowhere. The ending of Revelations was the worst of the lot with Desmond arriving at the next super important plot point site to simply face the camera and say "this is it", but we have no idea what is anything just because the camera won't turn around to let us see what he sees before cutting to black. It became clearer with every game that the writers are just baiting the player to get invested in the next game by going "oh look, something crazy is happening and it will definitely be explained in an even greater and more epic story" at the very last second. This also immediately undercuts the achievements the protagonist made. They even put less and less effort into the baitings as the series went on. After Revelations I was so tired of being disappointed with every single ending that I checked out of Assassin's Creed. Finding out that the overarching story of the series was originally going to go bananas in space explains a lot. They were really just writing this stuff as it went along with no actual plan. I agree that there shouldn't have been a trilogy since each game should have just been a self-contained story. Actual grand and epic stories are clearly out of Ubisoft's league.
@@godzillazfriction I can't say what exactly she should have done because the ending doesn't give me the full context of her conflict. However, it *does* tell me that she has the power to see into the future with amazing precision. With this kind of power it's unbelievable that her best course of action is to leave a cryptic message that Desmond has to find centuries later. Even with this limited context there are already so many other things she can do with this power that work way better. If she thinks that Humanity might destroy itself in the future then she should have left warnings everywhere, not just in Ezio's memory. She knows that the Templars will be a problem, so why didn't she warn absolutely everyone ahead of time to not let the Templars come into power in the first place? She can leave specific instructions for what to do and what not to do, but instead she tells Desmond and only Desmond to go to a temple *somewhere* and to beware the Templars. Wow. Seeing the future is a godlike power, but the writers didn't really think about that when they wrote the ending. They just wanted to tell the player that the story is so much greater and so much more epic than it actually is. "Hey, all of what you did in this game is actually just a tiny part of a way bigger story, and if you buy the next game we will *totally* explain all of it! It will be amazing, trust me." As for Ezio's character development in Brotherhood and Revelations, there really isn't much of it and it could have all been done in AC2. At the end of that game, having completed his arc by not killing the last boss for revenge, he becomes the confused carrier of the message. That hasn't changed by the end of Revelations, he's just okay with it now, found a new girlfriend and feels content. He didn't get closure, he simply says that he's fine with not getting it. It seems like the writers wanted to placate the fans who were upset that Ezio got snubbed at the end of AC2.
@@godzillazfriction Her exact line is "beware the cross" which clearly implies the Templars. Whatever plot twists happen in later games are irrelevant to this ending scene. It has to stand on its own and not contradict itself in really stupid ways. Look, I'll try again to get it across to you. If her future-sight is so perfect that she knows the name of the man who will listen to her message centuries later as well as *from what angle her will see her through the Animus* since she directly looks into the camera, then it's only logical to say that everything else she predicts must also absolutely happen. Other conclusions are willfully blind. I wouldn't think the scene was so bad if she basically just said "whoever finds this message in the future, please go to this temple location and save the world". But no, the writers had to make her look into the camera and break the fourth wall from Desmond's perspective. I agree that it's a cool "oh fuck" moment, but it falls apart if you think about it for more than five seconds. That's why it's cheap sequel bait. Considering Ezio's character arc again, wasn't it Cesare's decision to attack Monterrigioni and not Rodrigo's? If Ezio had killed Rodrigo then Cesare would have probably attacked anyway, so Brotherhood doesn't really build on Ezio's decision but instead brings in a new replacement villain. My main issue with Ezio's character development is that he basically arrives at the same point in Revelations as he did in AC2: He lets go of revenge. Brotherhood's premise is that the son of the boss of the last game turns out to also be a villain, so Ezio has to go again for another round. Revelation's premise is that Altair's and Ezio's fates have to be neatly tied up and explained, so Ezio has to get his ass to Masyaf and go for another victory lap. Of course a bit of drama is conjured up to make it seem like characters are going through changes, but ultimately there's little that sticks with permanent consequences. The cliffhanger at the end of AC2 is the only excuse that Ubisoft even had to rope in Ezio for another game. Changing the ending just a bit could have ended the story on a good note while still leaving room for AC3. The best way to do this would have been to give Ezio at least a bit of actual closure while making it clear that the greater conflict between Assassins and Templars is far from over. It's simple, really.
@@godzillazfriction I meant that Ezio ultimately doesn't follow the Assassin's vengeful cause in the endings to AC2 and Revelations. He decides to not kill Rodrigo and to also not pick up the eden artifact in Masyaf which would inevitably lead to more fighting against the Templars. It's still about letting go of revenge, just in a more general sense, meaning Ezio is fine with not pursuing the Templars further. I didn't say that Ezio has exactly the same character in all three games. There is a bit of growth for Ezio in Brotherhood, but Revelations counteracts it. He becomes obsessed with the legacy in the archive. That's the drama. He's not growing but instead diminishing. His quest for ancient knowledge which he took back up after he originally put it down after the end of AC2 has hollowed him out by the time of Revelations. Finally, at the end of Revelations, he puts it down again. It's a clear sign that his quest should have stopped long ago. The story only had to drag him along because the developers needed push out another game. It does more bad than good to Ezio.
@@godzillazfrictionWell, you didn't really engage with what I said about Minerva so I've been trying to clarify my position on her to you in case it was difficult to understand. I've also been adding to my arguments about Ezio, not just repeating things. Alright then, if you think I'm not making any points then I'll be as explicit as possible. Ezio beat the head Templar at the end of AC2. Rodrigo was trying to become the prophet, but Ezio got the message instead. That's the victory. Making Brotherhood about Ezio fighting against another Borgia is cheap. They should have made a new and more interesting story instead. If they wanted to fix mistakes in Ezio's character writing then they could just have given him a little story section at the start of AC3 instead of stretching out his character over two more full games. Why does Ezio go to Rome to fight the Borgias after the attack on Monterrigioni? Didn't he just learn at the end of AC2 that revenge doesn't lead anywhere and won't bring his family back? Why doesn't he flee and hide with his sister and mother? Because the studio needs Ezio to be the main character again so that the game sells better. He doesn't have to "end it all by destroying the Templars" as you said. By his morals at that point he shouldn't even want to. You say that Ezio never wanted to be an Assassin in the first place, but then why doesn't he at least stop after Brotherhood? Instead he continues his crusade against the Templars in Revelations because he really wants to find out how it all makes sense. That's a contradiction. I'll be real with you. It's a pain to try and make sense of your stream-of-consciousness comments. I ignored some sentences because it's legitimately unclear what you're trying to say with them. If I have to keep guessing what you mean then I won't really care to respond anymore. "yes it was Cesare's decision although it is unknown that he already knew the location of Monterrigioni before Ezio defeats Rodrigo or after he defeats Rodrigo but spares him, but then again, it is inevitable for Ezio not undergo the consequences no matter how Ezio approached it..."
"If she thinks that Humanity might destroy itself in the future then she should have left warnings everywhere" I think she did, or at least she left them everywhere she could. That's partly what the pieces of Eden, or at least the Apples, were. But there were three problems. Firstly, that mankind wouldn't be technologically advanced enough to access or understand the warnings and secrets in the Apples until the mid-20th century. Secondly, that the fight for control over the pieces of Eden between the Templars and Assassins obscured the message. And thirdly, that others of her kind had different ideas on what to do, and also had the same awareness of the future, and so they got in each other's way and frustrated one another's plans. Hence the last ditch message through Ezio, to Desmond; an effort to cut through the fog of war, that was only possible because of that awareness of the future.
I can't ignore the parallel with ME trilogy: how the second game, beloved by everyone, ignored what the first game did, which lead to a lackluster third game and disappointing finale.
@@burningbronze7555 If you are referring to the story leaks then no, they absolutely did NOT have to change a bloody thing. If someone is a fan of the game then they either avoid such leaks like a plague OR if they cannot help themselves then they still realize that reading a plot synopsis is not the same thing as actually playing through them and experiencing them first hand. The leaks were nothing but a scapegoat and the reason why it got so shitty after halfway of the 3rd game was because Mac Walters got a little bit too full of himself and wanted to do his own thing instead of continuing the story Drew Karpyshyn had originally visioned and didn't listen to anyone while writing it.
@@MaaZeus IIRC Karpyshyn said himself he didn't write anything substantial beyond the middle of the second game. This speculation is on the level of the 'leaked concept'.
Great video. I can see where you're coming from and I agree with you on some points, but in others I just can't. Firstly, the modern day's only weakness in the Ezio trilogy are some parts of revelations, mainly the lack of expansion into subject 16 as a character and the gameplay the DLC's brought. The story of Desmond's life gave us a better insight into how he views the Assassins and Templars by showing how he was raised and what his life was like pre AC1. The retcon with Lucy being a double agent does kinda blow, but I'm not sure what else they could have done considering how negotiations fell apart with Kristin Bell before Revelations, where she would have definitely played an important part in the modern day. They had to sweep her under the rug somehow since they lost Kristin Bell, and doing so without breaking lore in any way was probably the best we could have hoped for. But the whole situation sucks. In regards to AC2 and Brotherhood, the modern day's were perfect in my opinion. AC2 raised the stakes from AC1, where escaping Abstergo and finding the apple before the Templars were now the goal. Relationship between Desmond and Lucy was expanded as well as giving us more information on what happened to 16 and why Ezio is important in the first place. Brotherhood expands on the relationship even more, and being able to read the emails allowed us to see more of the people that Lucy, Shaun and Rebecca were outside of devices to simply progress the plot and gave more depth to them. Going to Monteriggioni in the modern day and ending in the Colosseum bridged the gap between ancestor and descendant, and once again raised the stakes after one of the best missions in the trilogy to conclude it. Overall, modern day stayed very good for the most part, and without the trilogy, Desmond, Lucy, Shaun and Rebecca wouldn't have been as good as they were and nowhere near as remembered. But I agree Revelations dropped the ball a little. Secondly, Ezio being as incredible of a character as he is was because of having three games, and the stories of Brotherhood and especially Revelations in turn make both Desmond and Altair better characters. You argued that Ezio lost his nuance after AC2, and I couldn't disagree more. Ezio in Brotherhood had yet another complete arc aside from being Mr cool guy Assassin. Being humbled at the start and losing Mario because of poor judgement and not killing Rodrigo showed that he wasn't perfect and that his arrogance resulted in him losing someone he deeply cared about. Throughout Brotherhood he learns to become a leader, becoming mentor and welcoming Claudia to the Brotherhood. This also showed Ezio's nuance, he was naive enough to think that Claudia needed protecting, saying that the trust in people laid at the foundation of the creed, despite not trusting his sister and only admitting he was wrong when Claudia proved she could handle herself. By the end of the game, Ezio has humbled himself and lost the blinding arrogance from the end of AC2 and start of Brotherhood, becoming a wiser and more skilled Assassin shown through the set pieces and has understood what his role is during the Da Vinci Disappearance. The ending of AC2 becomes something he kind of understands with him being a conduit for Desmond. Moving into Revelations is where Ezio reaches his peak as a character whilst making Altair better as well, in my opinion improving AC1 since we know who Altair becomes after the events of that game. He still holds the nuance you argue he loses after AC2, his feelings for Sofia dragging her into a mess she shouldn't have been part of for example. He also kills Tarik, only to realise he was not the enemy, showing Ezio still isn't perfect and is prone to making mistakes. Then there is him disregarding the creed over and over over the course of the game, showing his disillusionment and desire to put it all down and move on with his life, which embers showed. It's the perfect end to his story in my opinion, one we wouldn't have gotten without a trilogy. Regarding Altair, his memories in the Masyaf keys expand his later life, showing how much he had developed from who he was since AC1. His arc perfectly mirrors Ezio's (other way around I guess), being a skilled but arrogant Assassin in his early years, then becoming a leader and mentor of the brotherhood while building it up again, and finally learning to let go in his old age and understanding that he has seen enough for one life. Revelations allowed Altair, Ezio and Desmond to become as in tune and as connected as they should be, all part of the same story with their own part to play. Altair as a character has a big impact on who Ezio becomes, and both of them leave their mark on Desmond as well. I think I've covered everything. All in all, the Ezio trilogy was needed in my opinion. While AC2 could have stood alone I guess, Brotherhood and Revelations make Ezio and Altair the characters they are, and the two most iconic characters in the franchise would have been severely worse without those two games. Desmond while having a disappointing end in AC3 would have been made way worse without what we got in Brotherhood and Revelations, someone without any meaningful relationships with any other characters, and without any more content past AC2 to flesh him out into the most iconic character the modern day has ever had, regardless of however good or bad people think he is. Didn't realise I had this much to say until I said it, fuck me is this comment long, I salute anyone who read all of this. Anyway, good video Jay, keep up the good work :)
Awesome video Jay. I agree ac2 was probably one of my favourite endings to a game ever and its a shame that the series felt the need to gratify their fanbase rather than challenge them.
@@godzillazfriction listen you jabroni ac2 and last of us 2 definitley arent masterpieces. I just enjoy the bittersweet note ac2 ended on as none of us can truly understand the meaning of our lives.
Man,just imagine that you could played all the ezio's life(from his father to embers and even the dlcs and the nintendo ds game) in just one single disc!.,it would be great because it would be like the connor's story but well done!
Great video! You put a lot of care into it and I'm impressed! However I must admit I totally disagree with you about Ezio's closure, I think in fact the entire trio of games we got with him for all the trouble they gave us later was totally worth it and it was in my opinion a lighting in the bottle, I don't think Ubisoft will ever make anything as good or impactful, the only thing that came close was Black Flag and maybe Origins to an extent. EDIT: Also you could see as Ubisoft playing themselves in a way, they rushed to get to AC 3, and yet they never and will never make anything as good as Ezio
This is a sad story, but a great video anyway. Do you think there is still hope? Hope of a franchise where all the games are correlated, hope that the story of the present will be relevant again, hope that every game will have something of valour to say about the general Assassin-Templar conflict? I do not know what to think. Valhalla had some great connections, but the game was so long that it wasn't worthy. Mirage is so irrelevant overall that my enjoyment at playing it was shadowed by the fact that it tell us nothing. What do you think? Will this franchise be saved or it won't be the same never again? Maybe that question deserves a video of his own.
I think the bigger overall issue is Ubisoft as a company and their unwillingness to put the necessary work into making games like that. The thing about AC is that since it’s an anthology they wouldn’t need a hard reboot to make something totally fresh and interesting. They have the space to do whatever they want, and so any mistakes made in the franchise thus far are easy to erase. Creating a new and interesting modern day and pairing it with unique historical settings is totally possible. The problem is that the version on Ubisoft that exists, with a half dozen planned AC titles on the way to keep the company afloat, doesn’t feel capable at this time.
The different studio for each separate title certainly doesn't help for its continuity, and consistency in theme from game to game.. Origins-Odyssey-Valhalla are supposed to be rpg trilogy of sorts with layla as protag.. but each game is so much different thematically.. I personally don't think there is any more hope for the series to ever return to its philosophy or grounded approach. Its become too big to crawl back to its past.
It’s actually crazy I was thinking about this last night. I haven’t watched the video yet so I don’t know the points but I never really thought Ezio was as great as everyone was telling me. The most interesting part of Ezio to me is we get to see his growth, but this could’ve been done with any character really.
They killed this along with Desmond bro. When he died and they refused to go on with an overarching narrative and something we were connected to as players. It could never come back
Amazing video!!! I really like the Ezio games but they’re not my favorite. My favorite is AC Origins and I hope they make a sequel for Bayek. 😄😄😎😎💯💯💯♥️♥️♥️✨✨✨
That's a tough thing to say, to say you wish they hadn't been made. I can't say the same. It's all I have of AC. Them and Unity are my faves. Everything else but them and AC1 I could do without.
I don't think that Revelations showed Ezio turning infallible. He is made very powerful and self-assured, but in that situation he makes equally big mistakes like depopulating an entire city in Kappadokia just to reach one guy.
I don't think the game really frames those things as mistakes, though; like, we as players can look at that and say, "Jeez Ezio, the ends were not worth the means there!" or "Ezio, you're literally breaking the single most important tenet of the Creed you swore to uphold, wtf," but to the game it's just an action set piece where lives lost are nothing more than a bar at the top of the screen you have to keep from getting too high, not a meaningful narrative consequence. The story doesn't explore the idea of Ezio going too far for his quest, or of his self-assuredness being a character flaw that leads him to make life-shattering decisions without thinking about who he hurts along the way, we have to read that into it. He faces no negative consequences by making that choice, the themes of the game don't revolve around questioning the rightness of his actions, none of his philosophical speeches go into the cost of his quest in innocent blood, and we aren't left lingering on the horrific consequences of an action like that, the narrative just moves on with Ezio continuing to be the "good guy" fighting against the "bad guys". And in a case like that, the game IS treating Ezio as infallible, because the actions we're identifying as terrible mistakes are, in the framing of the game, the right calls for Ezio to make, choices that are just necessary steps to get to the next stage of the story.
I did have a long section about how Ezio’s morally grey actions are presented as outright heroism in the writing of the game, but I decided to save that for a later video on Revelations alone. That said, I basically say what you say here. Ezio burns ports because it looks cool, smokes out a city because it looks cool, starts a riot that endangers civilians because it looks cool. We never see a second of somber music or collateral damage, only music that swells in triumph. The rebels of Cappadocia actively aid Ezio, and putting all those lives at risk is never presented as a mistake. Setpiece took priority over narrative, and I would have liked a story where Ezio is actually held accountable. Instead, the story reads as if he had nothing to be accountable for at all.
I fully believe that AC Brotherhood was supposed to be a second phase of AC2, like a dlc or expansion, and not another game. Having them release these games probably disrupted what Patrice wanted to cook, and made him want to leave. Just like you said, since Brotherhood was the third game now, Lucy had to die. Ubisoft did not let Patrice finish cooking. Giving Ezio three games, sidelined Desmond. Just like Altaïr, Ezio was supposed to be another stepping stone for Desmond. Desmond Miles is the main character, yet Ezio became the poster boy now. When you think of AC, Ezio is the one on the cover. Many think the conclusion of Desmond and Lucy going to space may sound silly now, but that's because Ubisoft changed the direction to it being Historical Tour simulator games. Of course it sounds weird now, but there wouldn't be no friction if it had happen then. Patrice always had said that Assassin's Creed to him is a scifi. What you also said about Ezio's ending in 2 is interesting, since Altaïr and Connor kind of both have that uncertain ending to their stories, so it might be true. It only strengthens the idea that the ancestors were stepping stones for Desmond.
I would have liked to see the original ending. This series creatively could benefit greatly from dropping the animus entirely, which brotherhood and revelations would have also benefited from. After the original ending for 3 they still could have milked the series as they have. They have an out for the modern storyline and could now pick a historical setting without worrying about awkwardly forcing a magical artefact into the story. Creatively this series is truly a baffling fumble by ubisoft, but financially it seems to have worked out. Ubisoft needs to allow for more creative freedom, like that thing about Aya originally being the player character for origins was a really interesting idea (assuming mechanically the game wasn't mimicking witcher 3 yet)
Nah never let bro cook again LOL . Nah but fr, interesting conversation topic and I never considered it in some of the aspects you brought to light, but I honestly still feel that the trilogy was the right move (at least at the time) since 3 was supposed to be the final game anyway, with a different ending than the one we got. Plus they're such fantastic games, it's just Ubisoft learned the wrong lessons from them with the yearly releases and all that.
I do appreciate you watching. One of my biggest issues is that I wish Brotherhood and Revelations could have had longer dev times and the same dev team, especially given how far they had to scale back Revelations to put it out in time
@@sosaysjay that's 100% true. Ubisoft took the games being a success as a sign to keep swinging for the fences, and, while that's not inherently wrong, when you throw things at the wall to see what sticks you're still leaving a lot of it up to chance instead of really taking a step back and understanding WHAT made your formula a success. So we have that problem and the problem with Desmond's storyline which was most prominent in revelations and three :( thank you for the response by the way, I love your vids so it's really nice of you!
I’m currently playing ac2 now and that’s what hurt me about this franchise the most. It started off so good with both the modern day and past with the animus, and it just jumps off a cliff. AC started to go stale for me when it hit Revelations. I still love this franchise and play it but for different reasons than when I started. I like new AC games as it’s own thing but I feel those games are vastly different experiences than the experiences I had playing AC1,2 & Brotherhood.
Ubisoft just fell off. I got me a PS5 and started playing Horizon. Guerilla Games is doing what Ubisoft fell off with. Write a very likable character inside a really fun game to play. Aloy is my favorite main character since Ezio easily.
I don't know how to express the feeling I got when AC3 ended. This is when I lost interest in the series, even though I eventually played almost every game after, too, and was almost always let down ever since one way or another. Ubisoft just mismanaged the series, and it is a miracle that we got AC4 at least.
With you on this. They lost their way. There's a soullessness that the majority of their newer games are plaqued with. There's a lack of heart and cohesive narrative.
FINALLY someone made their research. I've been talking about how Ubisoft Konami'd Patrice Desilets for years and people were always shocked to find out about this. Patrice didn't choose to leave. He was let go mid Brotherhood development. He started work on 1666 AMSTERDAM (find the trailer on YT) and UBI stole it from him out of fear
I just grow weary of stories with no ending. Any time a big franchise moves from a concise story to an endless model I feel disappointed. But like Desmond’s comment in the AC4 audio logs, it’s about choosing when to end the story. To me personally, AC ended when it moved from the 360 & PS3 era. That was the beginning of my loss of interest in following every game in the series. To this day I’ll still play new ones that seem interesting but I just don’t care about the meta narrative anymore.
What if instead of acb and acr they were just expansions like originally intended, and people loved them so much that SoSaysJay made a video about the trology that couldve been
The interesting thing is that Brotherhood 100% reads as an expansion. It wasn’t written like the middle chapter of a story, because at that time Revelations wasn’t planned. Part of the reason Brotherhood works so well is that its scope is down to earth; it is the culmination of Ezio’s growth, not the second half of it. It retroactively became a middle chapter of a trilogy when Revelations was made, and it wasn’t until Revelations that Ezio wasn’t just expanded upon, but actively had his character arc transformed.
I hate that you are right in so many ways! When I saw the title I thought "you are a mistake!" Because I loved the Ezio Trilogy, and I love Ezio. But as I watched your video I remembered how I felt about the ACII sequals when I first played them when they were released. I played AC1 about 7 times I think, AC2 close to 20 even before AC Brotherhood was released because I was so captivate by the story an it's setting AC Brotherhood I played about 10 times I recon. It improved in almost every way on AC2 mostly Graphics and gameplay. But something was missing in it for me. The story was good but it should have been better, I mostly blamed this on the ratio of main storyline missions versus side quests. I lost track of the story too easily by playing the side quests and this only got worse in the succeeding games. ACR I had played only 2 times I think. One time normal and one time 100% and then I got bored of it already. I liked how the Ezio story became full circle, in the end. But yes, I agree, they should've cultivated the main story line much more. Damn I was about to replay the Desmond saga again and now I don't want to anymore haha.
The way I see it, while Desmond's memories was a way to understand what laid ahead, it was even more so a tool for learning. Not just the physical things, but the lessons and experiences his ancestors had. If the story were to end on Ezio not knowing, Desmond would be taught that there's no certainty, and that people who work and accomplish great things, are ultimately to be left in the past. That's the exact opposite of what the series was about. The series was always about personal liberation and not letting what could be weigh on what is. If AC2 was all that was experienced, then, like I said, that lesson would be lost, as Ezio would ultimately be a tool, despite his personal accomplishments. But just like Ezio still had a lot of life left at the end of AC2, what might seem like a loss, might grow into that personal contentment.
When brotherhood came out i thought it was a spinoff and not a sequel to AC2 so i didnt buy it i played it for the 1st time last year and really enjoyed it.
I think they planned on really showing that everyone was tools for a greater scheme, but I think it also could’ve worked with this other philosophy of a continuous story to the end of the hero’s journey in the past. Like Altair if they would’ve played throughout his story in three main release games we could’ve gotten maybe a bigger push in showing them overwork Desmond as they get closer to the Apple and him on the edge of losing his sanity like 16 making 16 have a bigger presence along with showing that in time for him also losing his life at the end of Altairs Journey while the Templars just get more and more powerful since they new where precursor sights where in the first games ending, but they also got to see the Apples power and they could’ve tried to follow its story until the end. Where we could have also seen an Altair vs Ghengis Khan game and have the Templars get a sword of Eden but through Altairs son’s eyes, and then end with Altair dying with the Apple. So then we think that the Apple is going to be taken by the Templars where Lucy helps Desmond escape where the Assassins could be trying to train him though Ezio for the Templars thinking he might be able to resist the artifact like Altair did. But Ezio’s Journey reveals a new apple giving hope. Then with playing through each protagonist Journey and still developing multiple teams after the first game they could’ve had one team developing a trilogy where all the games have similar mechanics so that a team working on a different trilogy could have the next big leap with being given a longer development cycle. But that would mean they’d have had to trust in the series very early on, but I think it would make for a fun hypothetical in how the series could’ve progressed.
@@finoderi yeah I know, I’m more so referring to main release games that affect the overarching plot. Similar to why they don’t talk about AC 2: Discovery really when referring to Ezio’s games and how it’s not considered apart of the Ezio trilogy. I do wish Bloodlines got the same treatment Liberations did because I only got its story from watching TH-cam play throughs and I’ve always wanted to experience it, but again I don’t think you can really consider that an Altair Trilogy, it more is side media like what AC chronicles was. Or AC Reflections is just small side stories that don’t connect to the overarching plot going on in the comic storyline for the universe.
I loved ac2 and having got the ezio trilogy collection i am now playing brotherhood and eventually revekations now learning about all the stuff in this vid...brotherhood does feel rushed to some degree and i hate how you lose fucking everything at the start just ti get it all back again (but thats a whole other argument) theres things i hate about ac2 and brotherhood so far but i am enjoying them.
I think if not for the yearly release schedule ACB would be better than ACR but they clearly didn't have time to finish it. While ACR lacks side content, it still worth to mention that the master assassin missions are good. In ACB on the other hand the main story was clearly sacrificed, the further you are in the game the more rushed the story and missions feel. Just look at the difference between the siege monteriggoni at the beginning and the siege of rome at the end. The climax of the main story was just a single short sword fight plus the mission with QTE they quickly slapped on top of that
I always thought the franchise would move into the future after the original trilogy. Considering you spent more time outside the animus in each subsequent entry. Nonetheless the series remained stuck in the past and slowly became a shadow of itself.
I can't agree, sorry. Ezio retains his nuance throughout Brotherhood and Revelations. Learning from his arrogance, learning to be a leader & shaping into a mentor. He does a lot of cool shit, but he also suffers his fair share. The loss of Mario & Monteriggioni humbling him at the very start of ACB, setting him on a path of regrowth and testing his alliances. Just because the trilogy ultimately results in a happier, more closure-filled ending, doesn't mean it lost the nuance that led us to that fulfillment. To me, it wasn't even a matter of *if* AC2's more open ended, bleaker conclusion would be followed up on. Brotherhood picking up felt seamless and natural from the start. The way they weaved Ezio's neglect to finish off Rodrigo into Cesare's arrival honestly felt planned from the start. So I just can't say that it feels like the character's been milked, from a story and arc perspective. Gameplay-wise, sure! They were reaching with stuff like den defense by the time Revs rolled around. But the character of Ezio never once felt cheapened to me. His story being a trilogy is the prime reason why he's such a legendary protagonist, a legendary character.
Its not so much Ezio problem as it is a Desmon and yearly release problem. As good as Brotherhood is all the polish that went the first two games is gone. Its mostly little things like your health bar no longer being a DNA sequence but just a static bar. To quote Mr. Plinkett “You might not have noticed it, but your brain did.”
I think it maybe would have been better if AC2 and Brotherhood were one game (with some changes obviously), no Revelations, and then a proper AC3. I'm not a fan of Revalations, it's actually one of the first times a highly anticipated game really let me down (the first being The Force Unleashed 2) but Brotherhood is one of my favorites in the series so no way would I want to lose that one.
Brotherhood felt too short of a story, where they tried to fit a lot of gameplay filler in. The opposite could be said with 2, where it seems to time skip a lot. A lot of people get thrown off by how much time has passed in 2. I wonder if Brotherhood was supposed to start even earlier than it was. Maybe where they fled to Rome to stop Rodrigo, or even further?
The issue isnt wasn't ezio. The issue is ubisoft switched up and destroyed all the continuity they had created with ac1 through to ac 3. Once they killed desmond and ended that story i knew ubisoft was bout to give assassins creed the cod treatment Sorry fam u gotta bad take ratio says it all.
What aspect of the video didn’t you like? Because a huge part of it is the destruction of that continuity, given that they took apart most of Desmond’s intended story after AC2. I never say it was Ezio that was the problem, but instead the decision to milk three games out of him instead of dedicating resources to concluding the series. If there is an actual point in the video you want to dispute other than the title I’d be happy to chat. Also, while it doesn’t really matter, the video is sitting at 95% liked and mostly positive comments, so I don’t know what you mean by ratio.
I’ve never played the Ezio trilogy, but I do agree with you. Although part of my opinion is coloured with my opinion that Ezio is overrated because of his trilogy. Everyone else has to live “up” to him including the few gems in the rough like AC Origins protagonist, Byeck for example, all the characters following him are either hated (on release) personally copies. Nobody, aside from Ezio the overrated, has gotten a sequel since their respective game dropped (Bassim doesn’t really count, considering his game’s a prequel to Valhalla and we don’t play has him there, we play has Eivor, although I think it’s a step in the right direction) how many of them deserved a sequel? How many got a sequel?
I played the first AC game when it was released and it became one of my favorite social stealth game. Altair is my no. 1 favorite assassin but he was not given so much story. If they just make Altair more cool and have trilogy too then maybe Ezio will not exist.
I've always contemplated how it could've been if Brotherhood and Revelations were expansions. Less bloat on the main missions, less focus on just making collectables and just focus on the main story and a bit of side content.
Example: Assassin's Creed Origins. Both expansions had better pacing, better side quest and more focus on the narrative. But Curse of The Pharaoh? They went above and beyond on those levels.
I’m always thinking the same thing. Brotherhood in particular should have been a dlc.
I disagree with this video's praise of Brotherhood. ACII was my first AC, and despite quite a few issues I enjoyed it. Brotherhood felt like a gimmicky cash-in that put me off the entire series until Odyssey.
A big part of my disconnect with the general affection for Ezio is that I just don't like him... I think ACII was a strong example of tonal dissonance between story and gameplay. He is mechanically a mass murdering sociopath... Press X to casually end a life, just so you don't have take longer to get to a window, ad infinitum, for example. It doesn't mean anything, it's just gameplay. And Ezio remains glib, smug, even. This isn't unique to Ezio or AC by any means - it's a problem with games culture; slaughter as casual fun, with the story never confronting the psychological consequences of killing. But as a result, I found it quite a disturbing, uneasy experience.
In cutscenes, especially at the start, Ezio is likeable. I played it in Italian, and jeese, it's so much better than the English dub. But the disconnect between gameplay and story wasn't reconciled.
I didn't think Brotherhood had a story worth telling, or mechanics to justify it (the titular feature is awful... 'press X to just not play the game'), and compared to the intricacy of II's often superb maps, Rome felt almost like a mod overhaul, not a proper, completed, worldspace.
So yeah, greater focus would've been a vastly preferable direction for an Ezio arc.
I think AC is a series that's been fluffing its potential from II on. I think the money men - as ever - learnt the wrong creative lessons, and that's marred the entire franchise. For me Brotherhood is exactly where that first manifested strongest; a game that shouldn't have been made - which sold well. Ergo capitalists be capitalising...
Odyssey is my favourite on the series, for the setting, and Kassandra. But I played it before Origins, and really, AC:O is mostly just a reskin of that... So as much as I do enjoy the modern ACs, I don't think they should've really been made, either. They're just not really ACs, they're Witcher 3-very-lite.
The sole 'ideal' AC doesn't exist... I feel that experience is scattered across ACII, Unity, Syndicate, Odyssey (for the main story/stories characterisations, scene direction, and a few other elements), etc. Concepts never truly realised, potential unfulfilled.
I think the 'when did AC get bad' video had a similar conclusion, if I remember correctly. Despite my massively on/off relationship with the series, I'm still glad it exists. Valhalla was a catastrophe of feature overload... It's almost like a parody of bloat. But I still love the world they created, and it's still fun to play, even if it's just not really the core AC experience anyone wants.
I strongly disagree. Excluding collectibles brotherhood and revelations aren’t that bad with bloat. With Brotherhood, every mission ties into the main narrative of the game and the main story itself is about Ezio’s ultimate test in taking down the Borgia and becoming the leader of the assassin. Revelations kind of has issues with some plot points but I wouldn’t say that game is “bloated” especially since it has less content than brotherhood.
If anything, Origins is more bloated since that game not only has a bunch of meaningless and dull side quests, but it also somewhat forces the player to play them due to level gating.
Part of why I like Brotherhood (and a reason I didn't like it as much at launch) is that it is simple. It is written more like an expansion than a middle chapter of a story because at the time that's all it was, Revelations wasn't planned yet. It builds on existing character development, expands gameplay systems, and doesn't feel a need to give us the emotional kind of story that AC2 had. It is AC2 but more, while Revelations wanted to retroactively turn his games into a trilogy with a three game story arc.
@@sosaysjayindeed, Brotherhood feels a bit like max level quests in an MMO. Your character has reached their peak, now have fun knowing that you can chain kill, gun, crossbow, poison dart or arrow storm your way through any situation :p
This is a very controversial take. I 100% agree. AC should've been Desmond's story, really. Release a Desmond trilogy of AC1, 2, 3 - then wait a few years, and soft reboot with a new character and a new trilogy. I do like Ezio's full story, not my favourite but I like it - but it did kind of ruin what AC, I feel, should've been and what AC1 and 2 were building.
You can see the decline in the main antagonists you fight in the Ezio trilogy. Rodrigo Borgia is a cunning villain who's always one step ahead of Ezio and has to be confronted when he's at the height of his power and all his plots have come to fruition. Cesare is an idiot who has all of his power stripped away without him noticing and dies long after he ceased to be of any relevance. Prince Ahmed...OK, they didn't even try with him and Ezio helping the rather violent Selim to ascend the Ottoman throne is really a rather questionable choice that the game doesn't seem to comment on. Maybe Selim could have been the bad guy and Ahmed an ally and him losing his life a flat failure on Ezio's part, but alas, that's not what we got. Ezio being all proud about his life despite the hundreds of murders he committed also honestly feels terrible, it marks him as a bona fide fanatic or sociopath. Let him justify that all those murders prevented greater evil from happening, but have him still be conflicted of his hands dripping with so much blood.
I think the problem with the newer titles, even the new one now, is that they portrayed them as “assassins creed” when in actuality they’re not correlated except for giving you a hidden blade. The exception being origins.
What they could have done, is made Valhalla and Odyssey standalone (in the aspects that they’re connected to the Assassins creed games, but not actually assassins creed) having the hidden blades for Ivor be a side quest would have been a smart decision, because he’s not fighting the Templar order, but more or less being a Viking. For odyssey, idk if you’re fighting an early version of the templars, but it doesn’t seem like it. They could have had them connect with the main Assassins creed with the isu artifact that you become in possession of. After all, we know the modern day assassins and templars want them, so the easy explanation would be “I was waiting for someone to find me yada yada yada here ya go”
Me personally, I separated the idea of it being an assassins creed game and I LOVED those two. Yeah they’re not perfect, not great. But they are genuinely good games.
Ezio is popular because of who he is. Ubisoft, being Ubisoft, is just being Ubisoft for good for once. A situation pretty similar happened with Edward Kenway, Black Flag, and Skull and Bones.
Ezio was a really good character but we also need to remember that Altair only had one game to shine, then they ran through his story, Ezio was the only person we actually got to have a relationship with. I wish we had got more games out of the later Assassins and protagonists because they never focused on character development that much later in the franchise, great video ;)
This the Biggest Pile of a Hot take I think anyone could've thought of, but dare not say...
And I Agree. I enjoyed the Ezio Trilogy, grew up on them in fact. But when I thought about the series and how it became what it is now, I can't help but also think it all started with Brotherhood. For as great of a game that it was, the ending of it never sat right with me. And after seeing later games and upon learning everything this video has touched upon, it only solidifies this for me. As soon as Ubisoft thought they can milk this franchise for all it's worth, that's when the seeds were sown to the predicament they and the franchise saw themselves today. Had they taken the time to nurture this series properly and not factory produce the living shit out of it immediately, I think it could've been at least an even more respected franchise than ever, with a fantastic and fleshed out narrative to boot; giving Desmond, the central character to these initial games, the proper story he could've had.
All this to say that I'm not necessarily saying the Ezio trilogy shouldn't have happened at all, let alone Ezio getting more games about him. We saw Altair, the first Assassin from the first game, get side games on the DS and PSP, Same with Ezio on the DS; Similar to how Kingdom Hearts gets side games on portable consoles, with Main Numbered games being focused on console. Now, I think they deserved better than having games on Portable consoles, but I digress; it was possible to see more of these characters and have their stories continued and concluded. I will say they had the right idea with Brotherhood, but the fact that it got in the way of AC3 as it should've been and which also led to the unnecessary existence of Revelations, just devalues these games for me even further and wished they never happened as they were.
Happy Valentine’s Day ❤
Hard disagree. I wish more characters got a trilogy . Connor , Edward , Altair , even a Haytham game
I just wanted a new assassin every year, the novelty of a new character with a new hood and outfit was something I always looked forward to, and I secretly wanted a fighting game with a ton of assassin characters
I would like to hear your take on the Best Assassin's Robes/Outfit
I liked both AC II and Brotherhood yet never really bothered playing Revelations. I'm content with Ezio ending as the master assassin in assassin-dominated Rome; he worked so hard to establish the Creed there, finally building a true Brotherhood. That was pretty much the perfect ending to me.
Guys... I hate to say this... But the Golden era of Assassin's creed has gone ... Those were the good old days... The good old games... I don't think we could connect with characters as good as we connected in the initial games... AC-2 , Brotherhood, 3 and black flag... The characters had depth.
Assassin's creed 2 was OK but not great in my eyes🤣🤣😑
Revelations was my entry into the series, and so I feel it holds a place in my estimations of the AC series that’s higher than most other peoples. I beat it about 6 times and then played the rest of the series before it.
This may be your most controverstial title ever
Good video. As for the trilogy I do enjoy it. I understood your points on Brotherhood and Revelations. Ubisoft really got greedy, look at where they are now. Still I enjoyed hearing your perspective on this
I three games was excessive too. But I also wished they gave other Assassin Creed protagonists a second game. Like bayek or Conner
I feel sales numbers are disingenuous. Revelations sold 7 millions because nobody thought it would be worse than Brotherhood. Suits use that metric to say their game is successful, but really they just ripped off 7 million people
Where they fucked up is pretty much killing the modern day storyline/character
I agree. Ac2 didnt need any sequels. Its a masterpiece on its own.
In my opinion even if you are right, the way they took was the better one. They took CoD as an example and it's the perfect example. If they wouldn't release game after game they would have ended like Medal of Honor. It's sad but it's true.
It was still an amazing story
Thank you for this video
damn the assassins creed series is really good, but it could ve be awesome
They made a few mistakes with AC Revelations. It should have been set in Spain, during the Spanish Inquisition, with Ezio travelling to and exploring Madrid for most of the game before visiting Altiar's Vault in Syria during the climax of the narrative. Spain was teased as a setting during Assassin's Creed 2, when Ezio and his remaining family escaped Florence and moved into their new home.
AC Revelations should have been AC 3, instead of the AC 3 we actually got, which is unfortunate. It would have been a much better and fitting ending for that trilogy. That way, we would have gone from Ezio straight to Edward Kenway in AC 4
The height of the Spanish Inquisition had actually already passed before the end of AC2 (there was a spinoff game for the DS released alongside AC2 called Assassin's Creed II: Discovery, where Ezio actually does go to Spain during the Inquisition. It's set in 1492, between two sequences of AC2 lmao). I think that's probably why they teased Spain in AC2 itself, because the spinoff released alongside the main game. Now, the Spanish Inquisition did last for several centuries, so they could have had Ezio return to Spain for some kind of Inquisition-related storyline in a sequel (either retconning the narrative of AC2: Discovery or acknowledging it), but most of the most famous parts of the Spanish Inquisition (like the expulsion of the Jews from Spain) happened between 1492 and 1502. AC2 ends in 1499 and Brotherhood in 1507, and nothing particularly interesting happened in the Spanish Inquisition between 1507 and 1512 (when Revelation ends), so while they definitely could have made an Inquisition-themed game set within that time range, it wouldn't have been during any iconic moments of the Spanish Inquisition.
Also, if AC3 had not been made, Edward never would have been created and Black Flag never would have been thought of. ACIV was originally pitched as part of a "Kenway Family Saga" during the development of AC3 to follow on from that game in the same way Brotherhood and Revelations followed on from AC2, the idea of making a pirate game only came to them because the ship combat they were developing for AC3 was so fun and because they realized Connor's grandfather would have lived through the Golden Age of Piracy, and Edward's personality was influenced by the characters of Haytham and Connor because Darby McDevitt wanted him to have parallels and contrasts to both of them, since he was invented to be their father and grandfather, respectively (he had in fact already been created, albeit in a much less fleshed-out form, as part of Haytham's backstory). There is no universe in which we go straight from Ezio to Edward Kenway in AC4, because AC4 and Edward never would have been thought up without AC3 and Connor.
@@SomasAcademy Each of these games seem to exist in isolation nowadays, so I disagree with you
@@unicorntomboy9736 ...Well I'm telling you the facts as reported by the developers who actually created AC4, it's really not a matter of opinion. AC4 doesn't rely on AC3 to make sense, but the devs wouldn't have come up with AC4 without the things from AC3 that prompted them to come up with AC4, simple as. Cause and effect, get rid of the causes and you don't have the effects.
@@SomasAcademy My mind doesn't work that way, sadly. I only see these games in isolation
Also there is this thing called fan decanonisaion, which happens a lot. It is a retroactive thing
You shouldn’t have gotten a TH-cam channel
No need to be rude, if you have a point you’d like to chat about or dispute aside from just reading the title you’re free to let me know
I disliked Brotherhood so much it made me stop playing AC until Odyssey... So I agree (the Ezio trilogy shouldn't have happened), and disagree (because I think Brotherhood is a fairly bad, gimmicky game).
You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong. Also, imagine making content with the sole purpose of shitting on a beloved character, who deserves that love and has a great arc. May your pillow be warm on both sides.
What a needlessly rude comment. The whole point for making the video is that I care about the character and think he deserved better than having the original creative team behind him broken up and having his story passed around to an assembly line of different studios tasked with making his games in under a year.
You don’t think he deserved a full arc that was planned from the beginning that was allowed time to go through the full editing process? That is the kind of question I interrogate, but instead you see a title and insult someone without even watching the video, where I never once say Ezio is a bad character.
I hope your pillow is cool, because I’m an adult who doesn’t wish bad things on people on the internet.
Nice misleading title. This has nothing to do with Ezio. It's all on Ubi's greed. Any other character could have suffered the same fate.
If you'd finished the video, you'd know it wasn't misleading.
@@KoylTrane I finished it and my point still stands. This has absolutely nothing to do with Ezio. Ubi has milked all their franchises the same way.
@@koragg4193 did you miss the part about Ezio originally not having proper closure?
@@KoylTrane No I didn't. I just find it irrelevant. Who is at fault that Ezio didn't have closure? Ubisoft. Who is at fault that the subsequent games were cash grabs? Ubisoft. Again, nothing to do with Ezio.
@@koragg4193 > Who is at fault that Ezio didn't have closure? Ubisoft.
You've just confirmed that you were listening the video with your butt. Ubisoft gave Ezio an entire trilogy + an animation depicting his demise. Of all characters, he had closure. Jay argued that it would be better if AC2 was the actual end of Ezio's story, because while his character arc was completed, the game left him in conflicted state which was bold.
Ezio was the only character in the entire series that mainstream gamers hold in esteem. Maybe Edward Kenway too. Ubisoft's problem is that they don't know how to write good main characters. In fact they can't even write a competent story anymore.
No, all their characters are memorable on some level. The issue is that Ubi has a bad habit of tackling complex themes (that require several/longer games) through a single narrative-driven story.
ubisoft can write great characters the problem is the fans who want every ac character to be a copy and paste of ezio
No, Connor and Haythan are great protagonists. People want every assassin to be fun, light hearted and charismatic, and while it did work in AC 2, Ezio got more and more stoic in his other games, but people seem to miss that fact
@Nikolai1939 Uh, I didn't. I flat out think Connor is fucking boring as fuck. He's uncharasmatic and uninteresting. I don't even remember either character's names from Black Flag, or much else besides fishing in that game. Which is the only fun I had with it. Ubi focuses on stupid story elements or mini games rather than character growth. This is why Ezio is still my favorite.
Ubisoft dont write the games...
In my opinion, the story of Desmond could have easily been handled so much better even with the messy production schedule. Revelations actually has a very interesting premise when you think about it. Desmond is in a coma and tries to survive INSIDE the Animus in an unstable simulation before he's erased. There are so many cool things you could do with this premise! The obvious idea would be to use this opportunity for introspection and character development. Desmond didn't have a lot of characterization in previous games, so Revelations would be a perfect opportunity to flesh him out as character before the big finale in ACIII. Each door on the Animus Island should lead to a unique story mission that shows Desmond's memories. That way we'd be able to learn more about his life, his character, his motivations and the circumstances that led him to where he is. Each Desmond mission should be a 15-20 minute-long sequence where we get to play as Desmond in 3rd person. One mission would show Desmond's life on the Assassin farm, his training with his dad and interactions with other memebers of this 'cult'. Another would be about Desmond's escape from the farm. Then we'd see Desmond's life in the city, him trying to evade the Templars and the last mission would show us how he was captured by Abstergo. What we got was a set or boring FPP missions with simple environmental puzzles and some narration. Just imagine how much better these missions would be if they let us play through Desmond memories in TPP, just like the rest of the game.
On top of these Desmond missions, Revelations could give us a lot of mind-bending Animus-themed moments that expand on the lore of the Animus, the idea of bleeding effect and the danger of going insane just like Subject 16. For example: one sequence could end with an Animus glitch where the entire in-game world starts to collapse, Ezio glitches back into Desmond and we have to frantically run through the collapsing city to avoid deletion. We could have a sequence where Desmond starts jumping between memories of his different ancestors and time periods. It would be a great way to give us an exciting set piece that also gives us a taste of possible characters and time periods we could fully explore in future games. I'd also use the premise of AC Revelations to give the players some fun side activities like combat and stealth challanges. Imagine if the game had cool trials where we get to play as Desmond and use all the skills he learned. These trials could use locations from all previous games to give us interesting encounters and all of that could be explained by some Animus anomaly or a glitch. Just imagine if we had levels like Acre, Masyaf, Damascus, Jerusalem, Florence, Venice, Forli, Monteriggioni, Rome and Istambul. Devs could even use some of the online maps from the multiplayer mode to create interesting trials and assassination/combat scenarios.
This underutilziation of the main premise always annoyed me about Revelations. The idea of Desmond being in a coma INSIDE the Animus just begs to be explored. It was a perfect opportunity to give us more classic 'WTF' moments, creative side content and most importantly, characterization for Desmond. The end of his story in ACIII would have been so much more powerful if only we had learned more about him in Revelations.
I agree, the game was sold as an experience that would give us all the answers we needed before AC3. Instead, we hardly got any new info at all
Didn't read it
@@blippitybloo Good for you
That's actually a good idea
I would also add that the first time Assassin's Creed felt 'off' to me was when they killed off Lucy. The modern day gang were pretty likable and it just demonstrated to me that they were making up the story as they went along. Since AC3 there's been a lack of focus and that's the result of this casual attitude to the overall story. Without it the game is just History Simulator, and that's what it's become.
And not even that anymore...
People are only tolerating AC because there aren't any historical open world games with a similar scope and budget.
i was really enjoying the chemistry between Lucy and Desmond. it was a shame that they killed her off, but thats far from being the worst thing they did. Seeing William, Shawn and Rebecca today is sad.
@takiszog Is this a Coraline reference?
@@sosaysjay coraline is a very good movie
It seems like the character arc of every AC fan is to slowly go from thinking AC is the best game story ever to realizing the AC narrative was always doomed to fail
It's doomed to fail as a franchise. The original modern day is impossible to stretch over a period of time. To be honest it's mostly Ubisoft's fault too. They had the chance to change course after making a mess of it but decided to make the modern day almost non-existent for several games and not also not using Desmond's son storyline (which had potential but they decided to put it in a graphic novel). Even though it gave the franchise something unique that can hardly be replicated, the modern day is ultimately what destroyed the story as a whole.
@@akwilson1676How did modern day destroy the franchise? Do you mean killing off desmond and bringing in Layla and stuff?
@@ahmed.hasan_ The original modern day story I meant. Impossible to stretch over a long period of time. From what I've read it was supposed to end at around brotherhood. They gave it 2 more games, and it's clear from how messy and directionless it felt. After that it went absolutely nowhere with the 1st person modern day then came Layla. My point is it wasn't meant to be this long running franchise but they stretched it out way beyond its original intention.
Personally I feel mirage had the right idea in terms of modern day. We really don’t need it anymore and it’s a strain on the storytelling.
Virgin Everyone: This protag should've also given a trilogy
Chad So Says Jay: -takes your Ezio trilogy privilages
We are not worthy of his opinions, we shall hail them as gospel for generations to come. (I'm just joking of course), but I agree. 👍
Ubisoft shouldnt have fired the creator of AC, Patrice Desilets...
Patrice left Ubisoft in search of more creative freedom, he wasn't fired. If he'd stayed on, it probably wouldn't have done much to help the franchise, because ultimately all the creatives at Ubisoft are beholden to what their corporate overlords think will make them the most money. The reason Patrice left was because his voice wasn't being heard, so staying wouldn't have let it be heard more.
@@SomasAcademy He worked for another dev which was bought by Ubisoft. After they took over Ubisoft sent some security guards to escort him out of the building... They treated him and many other devs like crap.
@@nikitos3558 Well yeah, but that happened in 2013, 3 years after he'd left Ubisoft over lack of creative control, so it isn't connected to the direction Ubisoft pushed AC in with Brotherhood and Revelations.
Ubisoft needs to give AC to Panache Studios I swear.
I think I even heard Patrice Désilets say he wanted to make just 3 games about Alrair, Ezio and Desmond, but Ubisoft saw how much money the franchise could make
No. U r wrong. He didnt want to make ezio trilogy. After 2 he wanted to make ac3 which would have set during american war
@@dhruvo100 Almost what I meant
I think it’s irritating that almost only Ezio got an end to his story.
Knowing the writers' incompetence, no, not really.
@@finoderi Incompetence? I think you’re being a bit unfair. Yes, a lot of the stories has not been amazing, but they are not incompentent.
Judging by how Altaïr and Connor didn't get an end to their story, I think it was done on purpose. Altaïr was left uncertain about the apple, while Connor was uncertain about his path with who he was fighting for. Jay mentioned how Ezio had a uncertain ending in 2 as well, but they kept going with him. These ancestors were always supposed to only be stepping stones for Desmond, since he is the main character. I think they were supposed to be left with uncertainty, but Ezio stole Desmond's spot.
@@enzoamore8971it's Ubisoft's fault. Ezio was worthy of a trilogy. But they fucked it all up by killing Desmond. And Ubi has been mediocre ever since.
@@jasonashley9853 yes but like the other ancestors, Ezio should've stayed back. Ezio could've had some games later by then, and not over shadow Desmond's story. Giving Ezio all the spotlight already had most fans think he's the main character.
i dont have enough confidence in ubisoft to think that any of this would’ve made much difference
They've had their hands sunk in since AC1. It just got bigger and noticeable with each release.
I appreciate your thoughts on this, but Ezio was fire in a bottle for Ubisoft. If he wasn’t so likable I don’t know if we would even have the AC franchise at all. They can’t seem to write likable characters or good plot lines very often, so when they finally had something, they ran with it. Ezio’s games are really the only ones since the original that seemed to make sense being AC games. I think Unity had the best shot at recreating this feeling and atmosphere,but we all know how that turned out.
Agreed
Assassin's Creed has always kind of struggled to have a coherent theme and belief, but you make a great point about the ending for 2. One of the things that Assassins say are a core belief is accepting uncertainty. You abandon the idea that you will know all the answers or know the Real Truth, and decide to do what you believe is right in the meantime. You don't help people or fight injustice because someone is going to come in and say that you were right and it was worth it. You do it because you believe.
Brotherhood and Revelations are an excellent ending to Ezio - they expand on and complete his story, letting him find closure and something like certainty and Faith. I love his ending from a writing perspective. But that's not an Assassin's Creed ending. Not according to what the games and brotherhood say that they are.
Jay really does make a good point about the AC2 ending. Altaïr and Connor also had uncertain endings in their respective stories, so I think that's what they were truly trying to go for. I think the uncertainty was to show that the ancestors were merely stepping stones for the modern day, but Ubisoft wanted to milk Ezio.
@@godzillazfrictionwho did he kill that was innocent? Honestly, you sound like dumb ass Lucrezia. Ezio killed a lot of people that deserved to die.
I don't care about Red or Hexe or whatever after it. I want another company to take away the series from Ubisoft, probably bring the Bordeaux team with them, and remake or reboot AC 1.
The series is so mutilated and mangled like Unity to have any sort of coherence at this point.
So it's like the MCU, then...
But agreed. A reset would be good - however making good art is usually not the same as making good business... and AC Valhalla was a huge financial success. The hierarchy at Ubisoft don't care about the story or distinct game design, they just want a reliable revenue stream. A product to monetise to hell and back.
Exactly, at this point AC is the only thing Ubi can make. They screwed up pretty much every other franchises (Prince of Persia may see a vague future). If they dont milk AC, they're dead or risk being bought by Tencent or others
But it's quite hopeless as long as no change in the higher ups
@@Tin_Le Well, sadly it's not just Ubisoft, of course. The same culture of exploitation exists throughout the triple-A space, and in film, and so on... It's the prioritisation of investments and growth returns. Look at the disaster of Embracer Group.
Unless the [socioeconomic] values change, then yeah, it's futile to hope for anything better.
I feel two Ubisoft IPs have been done very well recently, though; GR Breakpoint, and The Division 2 were both excellent. The former was a disaster on launch... But they really did redeem Breakpoint and turn it into one of, if not the best, military softsims on console.
That said, the future of both GR and Division is a bit up in the air, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them screw those up as well. They understood how to fix/improve Breakpoint, and overall TD2 was excellent for most of its lifespan. So if they pay attention to that design history success, we could see those IPs get good new entries.
I got a good company to take AC away from Ubisoft, and their name is Private Division. Private Division has Patrice Desilets there, with his own game studio called Panache. If Panache Studios was able to develop the game, Patrice can finally finish cooking what he started.
@@Tin_Lethe Lost crown is pretty good, I’ve got hope for PoP
So the people who say the issues we face now in the modern industry did in fact start in the 7th gen. Annual releases, rushed games, major focus on dlc and oversaturation. Is the 7th gen also when big business took over the industry as a whole? I can see it with ubisoft and ea.
Judging from their financial situation, if Brotherhood and Revelations never existed then Ubisoft might have disappeared in the 2010s.
On second thought, perhaps more Just Dance games and Far Cry games.
You've cohesively synthesised what I've researched and observed over a decade. As a day 1 fan, thank you for this video.
I am glad you enjoyed the video, thank you
19:45 IDK. Just you giving me the synopsis of the Ezio triology and what they set up with Desmond - AC used to have narrative ambitions.
While I enjoyed Edwards and Bajeks journey the loss of an overarching meta-narrative shows.
And Walhalla and Odysee feel like Marvel movies to play to me.
AC used to have shocking and goosebump inducing story moments and a stories people talked about with excitment. - Now I hardly here anything about ACs stories anymore.
Completely disagree with Valhalla feeling like a Marvel movie (Odyssey sure, but Valhalla's vibes aren't quite like anything else, for better and for worse), but 100% agree on the overall point. Desmond's story worked as its own thing; they had to adjust it to add two extra Ezio games, but overall there was still a purpose to his story, an end-point he needed to reach. Layla's story really didn't have that at all, each of her games had functionally self-contained modern day stories, there weren't any goals introduced in Odyssey that she finally completed in Valhalla or anything like that (as was the case with Desmond learning the world was going to end in AC2, figuring out what to do next in Brotherhood and Revelations, and completing the goal in AC3). In each game, she has a new set of goals, introduced within that game; the previous games just feel like backstory, not parts of a continuous narrative. She doesn't have a consistent supporting cast between games either, so each of her modern day sections feel like their own little bubbles; they feel almost like Revelations' modern day, like they were tacked on there to check the "modern day story" box without moving the story forward too much. And the AC4, Rogue, Unity, and Syndicate modern day sections were of course even less meaningful, all completely self-contained with no protagonist to even HAVE an overarching set of goals they were moving toward.
@@godzillazfrictionExactly. Oddyssey is amazing
I really dont understand the disrespect that people have for Marvel when its Disney fault for a worse continuity of the mcu, its like blaming DICE for Battlefront 2 being pay to Win when it was clearly EA's fault for the insertion of lootboxes in the game. People disrespecting Marvel makes absolutely no sense for me when the one that pushes the agenda is Disney.
When AC2 came out, it had this air of intrigue and uniqueness about it that I absolutely loved. It just felt special. Then yearly releases just turned me off and I only ever played 4 after 2 because it was a pirate game, not because it was an AC game. It's not that I hated what they were doing but the high release rate looked to be just a way to make money for the publisher. I didn't believe the mystery set up in AC 1-2 would be paid off satisfyingly and looking at videos, it sure wasn't yet the series trucks on regardless, they have micro-transaction to sell so now I look at the Assassin's Creed name the same way I look at Call of Duty : it means nothing.
I still think back fondly of AC2 but I'm glad I stopped caring then.
The hologram woman wants Ezio to deliver a message through the Animus, but if she has the power to see the future to such an extent that she knows Ezio will have a descendant named Desmond who will definitely use the crazy Animus tech in the far future and be able to recieve this message, then why can't she just use her clairvoyance in a less convoluted way? Surely being able to see the future can immediately give her the upper hand in whatever conflict she has, making it unnecessary to scheme for who knows how many centuries to achieve her goals.
That terrible cliffhanger pissed me off, even more so after the mind control induced death of Lucy which came out of nowhere. The ending of Revelations was the worst of the lot with Desmond arriving at the next super important plot point site to simply face the camera and say "this is it", but we have no idea what is anything just because the camera won't turn around to let us see what he sees before cutting to black. It became clearer with every game that the writers are just baiting the player to get invested in the next game by going "oh look, something crazy is happening and it will definitely be explained in an even greater and more epic story" at the very last second. This also immediately undercuts the achievements the protagonist made. They even put less and less effort into the baitings as the series went on. After Revelations I was so tired of being disappointed with every single ending that I checked out of Assassin's Creed.
Finding out that the overarching story of the series was originally going to go bananas in space explains a lot. They were really just writing this stuff as it went along with no actual plan. I agree that there shouldn't have been a trilogy since each game should have just been a self-contained story. Actual grand and epic stories are clearly out of Ubisoft's league.
@@godzillazfriction I can't say what exactly she should have done because the ending doesn't give me the full context of her conflict. However, it *does* tell me that she has the power to see into the future with amazing precision. With this kind of power it's unbelievable that her best course of action is to leave a cryptic message that Desmond has to find centuries later. Even with this limited context there are already so many other things she can do with this power that work way better. If she thinks that Humanity might destroy itself in the future then she should have left warnings everywhere, not just in Ezio's memory. She knows that the Templars will be a problem, so why didn't she warn absolutely everyone ahead of time to not let the Templars come into power in the first place? She can leave specific instructions for what to do and what not to do, but instead she tells Desmond and only Desmond to go to a temple *somewhere* and to beware the Templars. Wow.
Seeing the future is a godlike power, but the writers didn't really think about that when they wrote the ending. They just wanted to tell the player that the story is so much greater and so much more epic than it actually is.
"Hey, all of what you did in this game is actually just a tiny part of a way bigger story, and if you buy the next game we will *totally* explain all of it! It will be amazing, trust me."
As for Ezio's character development in Brotherhood and Revelations, there really isn't much of it and it could have all been done in AC2. At the end of that game, having completed his arc by not killing the last boss for revenge, he becomes the confused carrier of the message. That hasn't changed by the end of Revelations, he's just okay with it now, found a new girlfriend and feels content. He didn't get closure, he simply says that he's fine with not getting it. It seems like the writers wanted to placate the fans who were upset that Ezio got snubbed at the end of AC2.
@@godzillazfriction Her exact line is "beware the cross" which clearly implies the Templars. Whatever plot twists happen in later games are irrelevant to this ending scene. It has to stand on its own and not contradict itself in really stupid ways.
Look, I'll try again to get it across to you. If her future-sight is so perfect that she knows the name of the man who will listen to her message centuries later as well as *from what angle her will see her through the Animus* since she directly looks into the camera, then it's only logical to say that everything else she predicts must also absolutely happen. Other conclusions are willfully blind.
I wouldn't think the scene was so bad if she basically just said "whoever finds this message in the future, please go to this temple location and save the world". But no, the writers had to make her look into the camera and break the fourth wall from Desmond's perspective. I agree that it's a cool "oh fuck" moment, but it falls apart if you think about it for more than five seconds. That's why it's cheap sequel bait.
Considering Ezio's character arc again, wasn't it Cesare's decision to attack Monterrigioni and not Rodrigo's? If Ezio had killed Rodrigo then Cesare would have probably attacked anyway, so Brotherhood doesn't really build on Ezio's decision but instead brings in a new replacement villain. My main issue with Ezio's character development is that he basically arrives at the same point in Revelations as he did in AC2: He lets go of revenge.
Brotherhood's premise is that the son of the boss of the last game turns out to also be a villain, so Ezio has to go again for another round. Revelation's premise is that Altair's and Ezio's fates have to be neatly tied up and explained, so Ezio has to get his ass to Masyaf and go for another victory lap. Of course a bit of drama is conjured up to make it seem like characters are going through changes, but ultimately there's little that sticks with permanent consequences.
The cliffhanger at the end of AC2 is the only excuse that Ubisoft even had to rope in Ezio for another game. Changing the ending just a bit could have ended the story on a good note while still leaving room for AC3. The best way to do this would have been to give Ezio at least a bit of actual closure while making it clear that the greater conflict between Assassins and Templars is far from over. It's simple, really.
@@godzillazfriction I meant that Ezio ultimately doesn't follow the Assassin's vengeful cause in the endings to AC2 and Revelations. He decides to not kill Rodrigo and to also not pick up the eden artifact in Masyaf which would inevitably lead to more fighting against the Templars. It's still about letting go of revenge, just in a more general sense, meaning Ezio is fine with not pursuing the Templars further.
I didn't say that Ezio has exactly the same character in all three games. There is a bit of growth for Ezio in Brotherhood, but Revelations counteracts it. He becomes obsessed with the legacy in the archive. That's the drama. He's not growing but instead diminishing. His quest for ancient knowledge which he took back up after he originally put it down after the end of AC2 has hollowed him out by the time of Revelations. Finally, at the end of Revelations, he puts it down again. It's a clear sign that his quest should have stopped long ago. The story only had to drag him along because the developers needed push out another game. It does more bad than good to Ezio.
@@godzillazfrictionWell, you didn't really engage with what I said about Minerva so I've been trying to clarify my position on her to you in case it was difficult to understand. I've also been adding to my arguments about Ezio, not just repeating things.
Alright then, if you think I'm not making any points then I'll be as explicit as possible.
Ezio beat the head Templar at the end of AC2. Rodrigo was trying to become the prophet, but Ezio got the message instead. That's the victory. Making Brotherhood about Ezio fighting against another Borgia is cheap. They should have made a new and more interesting story instead. If they wanted to fix mistakes in Ezio's character writing then they could just have given him a little story section at the start of AC3 instead of stretching out his character over two more full games.
Why does Ezio go to Rome to fight the Borgias after the attack on Monterrigioni? Didn't he just learn at the end of AC2 that revenge doesn't lead anywhere and won't bring his family back? Why doesn't he flee and hide with his sister and mother? Because the studio needs Ezio to be the main character again so that the game sells better. He doesn't have to "end it all by destroying the Templars" as you said. By his morals at that point he shouldn't even want to.
You say that Ezio never wanted to be an Assassin in the first place, but then why doesn't he at least stop after Brotherhood? Instead he continues his crusade against the Templars in Revelations because he really wants to find out how it all makes sense. That's a contradiction.
I'll be real with you. It's a pain to try and make sense of your stream-of-consciousness comments. I ignored some sentences because it's legitimately unclear what you're trying to say with them. If I have to keep guessing what you mean then I won't really care to respond anymore.
"yes it was Cesare's decision although it is unknown that he already knew the location of Monterrigioni before Ezio defeats Rodrigo or after he defeats Rodrigo but spares him, but then again, it is inevitable for Ezio not undergo the consequences no matter how Ezio approached it..."
"If she thinks that Humanity might destroy itself in the future then she should have left warnings everywhere"
I think she did, or at least she left them everywhere she could. That's partly what the pieces of Eden, or at least the Apples, were. But there were three problems.
Firstly, that mankind wouldn't be technologically advanced enough to access or understand the warnings and secrets in the Apples until the mid-20th century.
Secondly, that the fight for control over the pieces of Eden between the Templars and Assassins obscured the message.
And thirdly, that others of her kind had different ideas on what to do, and also had the same awareness of the future, and so they got in each other's way and frustrated one another's plans.
Hence the last ditch message through Ezio, to Desmond; an effort to cut through the fog of war, that was only possible because of that awareness of the future.
So basically 21 minutes of WHAT IF .
I can't ignore the parallel with ME trilogy: how the second game, beloved by everyone, ignored what the first game did, which lead to a lackluster third game and disappointing finale.
The third ending did have to get changed halfway through which could not have helped
@@burningbronze7555 If you are referring to the story leaks then no, they absolutely did NOT have to change a bloody thing. If someone is a fan of the game then they either avoid such leaks like a plague OR if they cannot help themselves then they still realize that reading a plot synopsis is not the same thing as actually playing through them and experiencing them first hand.
The leaks were nothing but a scapegoat and the reason why it got so shitty after halfway of the 3rd game was because Mac Walters got a little bit too full of himself and wanted to do his own thing instead of continuing the story Drew Karpyshyn had originally visioned and didn't listen to anyone while writing it.
@@MaaZeus IIRC Karpyshyn said himself he didn't write anything substantial beyond the middle of the second game. This speculation is on the level of the 'leaked concept'.
Except Mass Effect 1 was a good story, AC2 isn't.
Same year on that 3rd game too
Nailed it again Jay
Great video. I can see where you're coming from and I agree with you on some points, but in others I just can't.
Firstly, the modern day's only weakness in the Ezio trilogy are some parts of revelations, mainly the lack of expansion into subject 16 as a character and the gameplay the DLC's brought. The story of Desmond's life gave us a better insight into how he views the Assassins and Templars by showing how he was raised and what his life was like pre AC1. The retcon with Lucy being a double agent does kinda blow, but I'm not sure what else they could have done considering how negotiations fell apart with Kristin Bell before Revelations, where she would have definitely played an important part in the modern day. They had to sweep her under the rug somehow since they lost Kristin Bell, and doing so without breaking lore in any way was probably the best we could have hoped for. But the whole situation sucks.
In regards to AC2 and Brotherhood, the modern day's were perfect in my opinion. AC2 raised the stakes from AC1, where escaping Abstergo and finding the apple before the Templars were now the goal. Relationship between Desmond and Lucy was expanded as well as giving us more information on what happened to 16 and why Ezio is important in the first place. Brotherhood expands on the relationship even more, and being able to read the emails allowed us to see more of the people that Lucy, Shaun and Rebecca were outside of devices to simply progress the plot and gave more depth to them. Going to Monteriggioni in the modern day and ending in the Colosseum bridged the gap between ancestor and descendant, and once again raised the stakes after one of the best missions in the trilogy to conclude it.
Overall, modern day stayed very good for the most part, and without the trilogy, Desmond, Lucy, Shaun and Rebecca wouldn't have been as good as they were and nowhere near as remembered. But I agree Revelations dropped the ball a little.
Secondly, Ezio being as incredible of a character as he is was because of having three games, and the stories of Brotherhood and especially Revelations in turn make both Desmond and Altair better characters. You argued that Ezio lost his nuance after AC2, and I couldn't disagree more. Ezio in Brotherhood had yet another complete arc aside from being Mr cool guy Assassin. Being humbled at the start and losing Mario because of poor judgement and not killing Rodrigo showed that he wasn't perfect and that his arrogance resulted in him losing someone he deeply cared about. Throughout Brotherhood he learns to become a leader, becoming mentor and welcoming Claudia to the Brotherhood. This also showed Ezio's nuance, he was naive enough to think that Claudia needed protecting, saying that the trust in people laid at the foundation of the creed, despite not trusting his sister and only admitting he was wrong when Claudia proved she could handle herself. By the end of the game, Ezio has humbled himself and lost the blinding arrogance from the end of AC2 and start of Brotherhood, becoming a wiser and more skilled Assassin shown through the set pieces and has understood what his role is during the Da Vinci Disappearance. The ending of AC2 becomes something he kind of understands with him being a conduit for Desmond.
Moving into Revelations is where Ezio reaches his peak as a character whilst making Altair better as well, in my opinion improving AC1 since we know who Altair becomes after the events of that game. He still holds the nuance you argue he loses after AC2, his feelings for Sofia dragging her into a mess she shouldn't have been part of for example. He also kills Tarik, only to realise he was not the enemy, showing Ezio still isn't perfect and is prone to making mistakes. Then there is him disregarding the creed over and over over the course of the game, showing his disillusionment and desire to put it all down and move on with his life, which embers showed. It's the perfect end to his story in my opinion, one we wouldn't have gotten without a trilogy.
Regarding Altair, his memories in the Masyaf keys expand his later life, showing how much he had developed from who he was since AC1. His arc perfectly mirrors Ezio's (other way around I guess), being a skilled but arrogant Assassin in his early years, then becoming a leader and mentor of the brotherhood while building it up again, and finally learning to let go in his old age and understanding that he has seen enough for one life. Revelations allowed Altair, Ezio and Desmond to become as in tune and as connected as they should be, all part of the same story with their own part to play. Altair as a character has a big impact on who Ezio becomes, and both of them leave their mark on Desmond as well.
I think I've covered everything. All in all, the Ezio trilogy was needed in my opinion. While AC2 could have stood alone I guess, Brotherhood and Revelations make Ezio and Altair the characters they are, and the two most iconic characters in the franchise would have been severely worse without those two games. Desmond while having a disappointing end in AC3 would have been made way worse without what we got in Brotherhood and Revelations, someone without any meaningful relationships with any other characters, and without any more content past AC2 to flesh him out into the most iconic character the modern day has ever had, regardless of however good or bad people think he is.
Didn't realise I had this much to say until I said it, fuck me is this comment long, I salute anyone who read all of this. Anyway, good video Jay, keep up the good work :)
Nice essay, I did read it
Also read it, damn bro go off.
Awesome video Jay. I agree ac2 was probably one of my favourite endings to a game ever and its a shame that the series felt the need to gratify their fanbase rather than challenge them.
@@godzillazfriction i like the last of us 2. Sue me
And if you hate the last of us 2 then how can you say Ac2 has a worst ending with a straight face
@@godzillazfriction listen you jabroni ac2 and last of us 2 definitley arent masterpieces. I just enjoy the bittersweet note ac2 ended on as none of us can truly understand the meaning of our lives.
@@godzillazfriction its a figure of speech
Man,just imagine that you could played all the ezio's life(from his father to embers and even the dlcs and the nintendo ds game) in just one single disc!.,it would be great because it would be like the connor's story but well done!
BLASPHEMY!
Love your AC videos Jay! Its like a wave of warmth on my heart
Well said. I agree 100%
Ezio should have been the only guy who should have got a trilogy.
Nah. He's lame.
Great video! You put a lot of care into it and I'm impressed! However I must admit I totally disagree with you about Ezio's closure, I think in fact the entire trio of games we got with him for all the trouble they gave us later was totally worth it and it was in my opinion a lighting in the bottle, I don't think Ubisoft will ever make anything as good or impactful, the only thing that came close was Black Flag and maybe Origins to an extent.
EDIT: Also you could see as Ubisoft playing themselves in a way, they rushed to get to AC 3, and yet they never and will never make anything as good as Ezio
Exactly!!
This is a sad story, but a great video anyway.
Do you think there is still hope? Hope of a franchise where all the games are correlated, hope that the story of the present will be relevant again, hope that every game will have something of valour to say about the general Assassin-Templar conflict? I do not know what to think. Valhalla had some great connections, but the game was so long that it wasn't worthy. Mirage is so irrelevant overall that my enjoyment at playing it was shadowed by the fact that it tell us nothing. What do you think? Will this franchise be saved or it won't be the same never again? Maybe that question deserves a video of his own.
I think the bigger overall issue is Ubisoft as a company and their unwillingness to put the necessary work into making games like that. The thing about AC is that since it’s an anthology they wouldn’t need a hard reboot to make something totally fresh and interesting. They have the space to do whatever they want, and so any mistakes made in the franchise thus far are easy to erase. Creating a new and interesting modern day and pairing it with unique historical settings is totally possible. The problem is that the version on Ubisoft that exists, with a half dozen planned AC titles on the way to keep the company afloat, doesn’t feel capable at this time.
The different studio for each separate title certainly doesn't help for its continuity, and consistency in theme from game to game.. Origins-Odyssey-Valhalla are supposed to be rpg trilogy of sorts with layla as protag.. but each game is so much different thematically.. I personally don't think there is any more hope for the series to ever return to its philosophy or grounded approach. Its become too big to crawl back to its past.
It’s actually crazy I was thinking about this last night. I haven’t watched the video yet so I don’t know the points but I never really thought Ezio was as great as everyone was telling me. The most interesting part of Ezio to me is we get to see his growth, but this could’ve been done with any character really.
They killed this along with Desmond bro. When he died and they refused to go on with an overarching narrative and something we were connected to as players. It could never come back
Amazing video!!! I really like the Ezio games but they’re not my favorite. My favorite is AC Origins and I hope they make a sequel for Bayek. 😄😄😎😎💯💯💯♥️♥️♥️✨✨✨
That's a tough thing to say, to say you wish they hadn't been made. I can't say the same. It's all I have of AC. Them and Unity are my faves. Everything else but them and AC1 I could do without.
I agree. Besides, if you want bad and grim endings? Go play Far Cry 4-6. Awful, garbage endings, with no hope. It's as if happy endings are bad.
I don't think that Revelations showed Ezio turning infallible. He is made very powerful and self-assured, but in that situation he makes equally big mistakes like depopulating an entire city in Kappadokia just to reach one guy.
Yeah, people seem to forget he breaks one of the largest assassin creeds so nonchalantly. A creed that got Altair executed and demoted.
I don't think the game really frames those things as mistakes, though; like, we as players can look at that and say, "Jeez Ezio, the ends were not worth the means there!" or "Ezio, you're literally breaking the single most important tenet of the Creed you swore to uphold, wtf," but to the game it's just an action set piece where lives lost are nothing more than a bar at the top of the screen you have to keep from getting too high, not a meaningful narrative consequence. The story doesn't explore the idea of Ezio going too far for his quest, or of his self-assuredness being a character flaw that leads him to make life-shattering decisions without thinking about who he hurts along the way, we have to read that into it. He faces no negative consequences by making that choice, the themes of the game don't revolve around questioning the rightness of his actions, none of his philosophical speeches go into the cost of his quest in innocent blood, and we aren't left lingering on the horrific consequences of an action like that, the narrative just moves on with Ezio continuing to be the "good guy" fighting against the "bad guys". And in a case like that, the game IS treating Ezio as infallible, because the actions we're identifying as terrible mistakes are, in the framing of the game, the right calls for Ezio to make, choices that are just necessary steps to get to the next stage of the story.
I did have a long section about how Ezio’s morally grey actions are presented as outright heroism in the writing of the game, but I decided to save that for a later video on Revelations alone.
That said, I basically say what you say here. Ezio burns ports because it looks cool, smokes out a city because it looks cool, starts a riot that endangers civilians because it looks cool. We never see a second of somber music or collateral damage, only music that swells in triumph. The rebels of Cappadocia actively aid Ezio, and putting all those lives at risk is never presented as a mistake.
Setpiece took priority over narrative, and I would have liked a story where Ezio is actually held accountable. Instead, the story reads as if he had nothing to be accountable for at all.
I fully believe that AC Brotherhood was supposed to be a second phase of AC2, like a dlc or expansion, and not another game. Having them release these games probably disrupted what Patrice wanted to cook, and made him want to leave. Just like you said, since Brotherhood was the third game now, Lucy had to die. Ubisoft did not let Patrice finish cooking.
Giving Ezio three games, sidelined Desmond. Just like Altaïr, Ezio was supposed to be another stepping stone for Desmond. Desmond Miles is the main character, yet Ezio became the poster boy now. When you think of AC, Ezio is the one on the cover.
Many think the conclusion of Desmond and Lucy going to space may sound silly now, but that's because Ubisoft changed the direction to it being Historical Tour simulator games. Of course it sounds weird now, but there wouldn't be no friction if it had happen then. Patrice always had said that Assassin's Creed to him is a scifi. What you also said about Ezio's ending in 2 is interesting, since Altaïr and Connor kind of both have that uncertain ending to their stories, so it might be true. It only strengthens the idea that the ancestors were stepping stones for Desmond.
I would have liked to see the original ending. This series creatively could benefit greatly from dropping the animus entirely, which brotherhood and revelations would have also benefited from.
After the original ending for 3 they still could have milked the series as they have. They have an out for the modern storyline and could now pick a historical setting without worrying about awkwardly forcing a magical artefact into the story.
Creatively this series is truly a baffling fumble by ubisoft, but financially it seems to have worked out. Ubisoft needs to allow for more creative freedom, like that thing about Aya originally being the player character for origins was a really interesting idea (assuming mechanically the game wasn't mimicking witcher 3 yet)
Nah never let bro cook again LOL . Nah but fr, interesting conversation topic and I never considered it in some of the aspects you brought to light, but I honestly still feel that the trilogy was the right move (at least at the time) since 3 was supposed to be the final game anyway, with a different ending than the one we got. Plus they're such fantastic games, it's just Ubisoft learned the wrong lessons from them with the yearly releases and all that.
I do appreciate you watching. One of my biggest issues is that I wish Brotherhood and Revelations could have had longer dev times and the same dev team, especially given how far they had to scale back Revelations to put it out in time
@@sosaysjay that's 100% true. Ubisoft took the games being a success as a sign to keep swinging for the fences, and, while that's not inherently wrong, when you throw things at the wall to see what sticks you're still leaving a lot of it up to chance instead of really taking a step back and understanding WHAT made your formula a success. So we have that problem and the problem with Desmond's storyline which was most prominent in revelations and three :( thank you for the response by the way, I love your vids so it's really nice of you!
Of course, I always enjoy chatting about this stuff
I’m currently playing ac2 now and that’s what hurt me about this franchise the most.
It started off so good with both the modern day and past with the animus, and it just jumps off a cliff. AC started to go stale for me when it hit Revelations.
I still love this franchise and play it but for different reasons than when I started. I like new AC games as it’s own thing but I feel those games are vastly different experiences than the experiences I had playing AC1,2 & Brotherhood.
Ubisoft just fell off. I got me a PS5 and started playing Horizon. Guerilla Games is doing what Ubisoft fell off with. Write a very likable character inside a really fun game to play. Aloy is my favorite main character since Ezio easily.
I don't know how to express the feeling I got when AC3 ended. This is when I lost interest in the series, even though I eventually played almost every game after, too, and was almost always let down ever since one way or another. Ubisoft just mismanaged the series, and it is a miracle that we got AC4 at least.
With you on this. They lost their way. There's a soullessness that the majority of their newer games are plaqued with. There's a lack of heart and cohesive narrative.
FINALLY someone made their research. I've been talking about how Ubisoft Konami'd Patrice Desilets for years and people were always shocked to find out about this.
Patrice didn't choose to leave. He was let go mid Brotherhood development.
He started work on 1666 AMSTERDAM (find the trailer on YT) and UBI stole it from him out of fear
Naw I fw da ezio trilogy so fuck what you talm bout😂
I just grow weary of stories with no ending. Any time a big franchise moves from a concise story to an endless model I feel disappointed.
But like Desmond’s comment in the AC4 audio logs, it’s about choosing when to end the story. To me personally, AC ended when it moved from the 360 & PS3 era. That was the beginning of my loss of interest in following every game in the series. To this day I’ll still play new ones that seem interesting but I just don’t care about the meta narrative anymore.
What if instead of acb and acr they were just expansions like originally intended, and people loved them so much that SoSaysJay made a video about the trology that couldve been
The interesting thing is that Brotherhood 100% reads as an expansion. It wasn’t written like the middle chapter of a story, because at that time Revelations wasn’t planned. Part of the reason Brotherhood works so well is that its scope is down to earth; it is the culmination of Ezio’s growth, not the second half of it. It retroactively became a middle chapter of a trilogy when Revelations was made, and it wasn’t until Revelations that Ezio wasn’t just expanded upon, but actively had his character arc transformed.
I hate that you are right in so many ways! When I saw the title I thought "you are a mistake!" Because I loved the Ezio Trilogy, and I love Ezio. But as I watched your video I remembered how I felt about the ACII sequals when I first played them when they were released. I played AC1 about 7 times I think, AC2 close to 20 even before AC Brotherhood was released because I was so captivate by the story an it's setting AC Brotherhood I played about 10 times I recon. It improved in almost every way on AC2 mostly Graphics and gameplay. But something was missing in it for me. The story was good but it should have been better, I mostly blamed this on the ratio of main storyline missions versus side quests. I lost track of the story too easily by playing the side quests and this only got worse in the succeeding games. ACR I had played only 2 times I think. One time normal and one time 100% and then I got bored of it already. I liked how the Ezio story became full circle, in the end. But yes, I agree, they should've cultivated the main story line much more.
Damn I was about to replay the Desmond saga again and now I don't want to anymore haha.
The way I see it, while Desmond's memories was a way to understand what laid ahead, it was even more so a tool for learning. Not just the physical things, but the lessons and experiences his ancestors had. If the story were to end on Ezio not knowing, Desmond would be taught that there's no certainty, and that people who work and accomplish great things, are ultimately to be left in the past.
That's the exact opposite of what the series was about. The series was always about personal liberation and not letting what could be weigh on what is. If AC2 was all that was experienced, then, like I said, that lesson would be lost, as Ezio would ultimately be a tool, despite his personal accomplishments. But just like Ezio still had a lot of life left at the end of AC2, what might seem like a loss, might grow into that personal contentment.
When brotherhood came out i thought it was a spinoff and not a sequel to AC2 so i didnt buy it i played it for the 1st time last year and really enjoyed it.
I think they planned on really showing that everyone was tools for a greater scheme, but I think it also could’ve worked with this other philosophy of a continuous story to the end of the hero’s journey in the past. Like Altair if they would’ve played throughout his story in three main release games we could’ve gotten maybe a bigger push in showing them overwork Desmond as they get closer to the Apple and him on the edge of losing his sanity like 16 making 16 have a bigger presence along with showing that in time for him also losing his life at the end of Altairs Journey while the Templars just get more and more powerful since they new where precursor sights where in the first games ending, but they also got to see the Apples power and they could’ve tried to follow its story until the end. Where we could have also seen an Altair vs Ghengis Khan game and have the Templars get a sword of Eden but through Altairs son’s eyes, and then end with Altair dying with the Apple. So then we think that the Apple is going to be taken by the Templars where Lucy helps Desmond escape where the Assassins could be trying to train him though Ezio for the Templars thinking he might be able to resist the artifact like Altair did. But Ezio’s Journey reveals a new apple giving hope. Then with playing through each protagonist Journey and still developing multiple teams after the first game they could’ve had one team developing a trilogy where all the games have similar mechanics so that a team working on a different trilogy could have the next big leap with being given a longer development cycle. But that would mean they’d have had to trust in the series very early on, but I think it would make for a fun hypothetical in how the series could’ve progressed.
There are three games about Altair BTW - AC, AC: Altair's Chronicles and AC: Bloodlines ) Bloodlines is even fun in its own way.
@@finoderi yeah I know, I’m more so referring to main release games that affect the overarching plot. Similar to why they don’t talk about AC 2: Discovery really when referring to Ezio’s games and how it’s not considered apart of the Ezio trilogy. I do wish Bloodlines got the same treatment Liberations did because I only got its story from watching TH-cam play throughs and I’ve always wanted to experience it, but again I don’t think you can really consider that an Altair Trilogy, it more is side media like what AC chronicles was. Or AC Reflections is just small side stories that don’t connect to the overarching plot going on in the comic storyline for the universe.
I loved ac2 and having got the ezio trilogy collection i am now playing brotherhood and eventually revekations now learning about all the stuff in this vid...brotherhood does feel rushed to some degree and i hate how you lose fucking everything at the start just ti get it all back again (but thats a whole other argument) theres things i hate about ac2 and brotherhood so far but i am enjoying them.
I believe the opposite- every character since Ezio should have had a trilogy it could have helped so much
So I guess for you this trilogy is the definition of bittersweet. Love the vid, keep on keeping on.
I think if not for the yearly release schedule ACB would be better than ACR but they clearly didn't have time to finish it. While ACR lacks side content, it still worth to mention that the master assassin missions are good. In ACB on the other hand the main story was clearly sacrificed, the further you are in the game the more rushed the story and missions feel. Just look at the difference between the siege monteriggoni at the beginning and the siege of rome at the end. The climax of the main story was just a single short sword fight plus the mission with QTE they quickly slapped on top of that
I think it would’ve been fine as long as other protagonists got more than one game with them. It’s ridiculous that only he got three games.
I always thought the franchise would move into the future after the original trilogy. Considering you spent more time outside the animus in each subsequent entry. Nonetheless the series remained stuck in the past and slowly became a shadow of itself.
I can't agree, sorry.
Ezio retains his nuance throughout Brotherhood and Revelations. Learning from his arrogance, learning to be a leader & shaping into a mentor. He does a lot of cool shit, but he also suffers his fair share. The loss of Mario & Monteriggioni humbling him at the very start of ACB, setting him on a path of regrowth and testing his alliances.
Just because the trilogy ultimately results in a happier, more closure-filled ending, doesn't mean it lost the nuance that led us to that fulfillment. To me, it wasn't even a matter of *if* AC2's more open ended, bleaker conclusion would be followed up on. Brotherhood picking up felt seamless and natural from the start. The way they weaved Ezio's neglect to finish off Rodrigo into Cesare's arrival honestly felt planned from the start.
So I just can't say that it feels like the character's been milked, from a story and arc perspective. Gameplay-wise, sure! They were reaching with stuff like den defense by the time Revs rolled around. But the character of Ezio never once felt cheapened to me. His story being a trilogy is the prime reason why he's such a legendary protagonist, a legendary character.
This channel is incredible. It's rare to find such good videos like yours.
That means a lot, thank you
The absolute legend! He never misses!
Its not so much Ezio problem as it is a Desmon and yearly release problem. As good as Brotherhood is all the polish that went the first two games is gone. Its mostly little things like your health bar no longer being a DNA sequence but just a static bar. To quote Mr. Plinkett “You might not have noticed it, but your brain did.”
That is essentially the point of the video. I don’t have a problem with Ezio at all, just the decisions that went into prolonging his story
Connor is probably the most nuanced character in the entire franchise. Him or Edward.
I think it maybe would have been better if AC2 and Brotherhood were one game (with some changes obviously), no Revelations, and then a proper AC3.
I'm not a fan of Revalations, it's actually one of the first times a highly anticipated game really let me down (the first being The Force Unleashed 2) but Brotherhood is one of my favorites in the series so no way would I want to lose that one.
Brotherhood felt too short of a story, where they tried to fit a lot of gameplay filler in. The opposite could be said with 2, where it seems to time skip a lot. A lot of people get thrown off by how much time has passed in 2. I wonder if Brotherhood was supposed to start even earlier than it was. Maybe where they fled to Rome to stop Rodrigo, or even further?
@@enzoamore8971 even more reason for 2 and Brotherhood to be one game
@@MrEffectfilmsit's a fucking stupid argument IMO. They fucked up with Connor, and then Bayek and Edward only get one game.
The issue isnt wasn't ezio. The issue is ubisoft switched up and destroyed all the continuity they had created with ac1 through to ac 3. Once they killed desmond and ended that story i knew ubisoft was bout to give assassins creed the cod treatment
Sorry fam u gotta bad take ratio says it all.
What aspect of the video didn’t you like? Because a huge part of it is the destruction of that continuity, given that they took apart most of Desmond’s intended story after AC2. I never say it was Ezio that was the problem, but instead the decision to milk three games out of him instead of dedicating resources to concluding the series. If there is an actual point in the video you want to dispute other than the title I’d be happy to chat.
Also, while it doesn’t really matter, the video is sitting at 95% liked and mostly positive comments, so I don’t know what you mean by ratio.
I’ve never played the Ezio trilogy, but I do agree with you. Although part of my opinion is coloured with my opinion that Ezio is overrated because of his trilogy. Everyone else has to live “up” to him including the few gems in the rough like AC Origins protagonist, Byeck for example, all the characters following him are either hated (on release) personally copies.
Nobody, aside from Ezio the overrated, has gotten a sequel since their respective game dropped (Bassim doesn’t really count, considering his game’s a prequel to Valhalla and we don’t play has him there, we play has Eivor, although I think it’s a step in the right direction) how many of them deserved a sequel?
How many got a sequel?
He isn't overrated if Ubisoft fails to make another trilogy. Blaming the character for the company's failings is silly.
I played the first AC game when it was released and it became one of my favorite social stealth game. Altair is my no. 1 favorite assassin but he was not given so much story. If they just make Altair more cool and have trilogy too then maybe Ezio will not exist.
Yeah but without Altair, Ezio or even Assassin’s Creed would’t exist.
Enjoy the next 24 hours
Revelations was so cinematic❤
Damn they can't make sequels?
Sometimes it's hard to face the truth.
Ezio should of got 2 trilogies
I wish connor kenway had sequel 👹😠😒
Connor kenway is way better then ezio😂🐶😑🤣🤣🤣
This channel is probably my favourite hobby right now, not even joking- great work bro :)
That’s very kind of you, thank you