The Illusion of the "Real" Assassin's Creed

A lot of people are calling for a return to the "real" Assassin's Creed - but what does that mean, and when did we lose it? Link to my Patreon: patreon.com/user?u=79897293
Contents:
00:00:00 Intro
00:02:10 The Assassin Fantasy
00:13:20 A Blade in the Crowd
00:26:25 Taking to the Rooftops
00:35:11 The Illusion of Assassin's Creed

[@Endersoul-tx1of]

Mentioning how several of the AC protags had their own personal motives before even becoming assassins is exactly the reason why I appreciated Altair. He is someone born into the brotherhood, and it's through his life as an assassin that he eventually grew into becoming more than just another assassin following orders and how he slowly developed his own motives. He was initially prideful, then he changed, going so far as to defy the very man who raised him to preserve and even change the Brotherhood. During Bloodlines, he began to think about the Apple of Eden, how he personally sees it and questions just what exactly should he make of it. All while simultaneously getting to know Maria during his mission to kill Armand Bouchart. Then Revelations wrapped it up nicely, showing how he remained loyal and steadfast to the Assassin's Creed (heh) despite the loss of Maria and one of his children. The scene of him telling his son to go and be with his family is a nice touch of showing that he still cares for his family, which is a far cry from the Altair we knew in the very first scene of AC1. For all his flaws as a character, Altair is still my favorite AC protag. He's someone who saw the flaws of the organization he was born into and sought to change it for the better. In a way, I kinda saw that aspect in Rogue with Shay.

[@godzillazfriction]

With shay however, he's basically the reverse version of Altair... Shay started like a post redeemed Altair but in the end turned into Altairs pre-redemption but the one thing shay would lack of is the arrogance aspect since Altair from the start was very arrogant whereas shay still acknowledges the flaws and is still very wise but is definitely not the same person when thr game even began.... I feel like Shay had those undertones of him being ruthless ever since his backstory when his Father died by a pirate raid and where Shay killed a pirate captain who killed his father, shay then just turned depressed and fighting everyone until Liam came along.

[@titanbro5871]

usually what happens is that the characters develop past their ulterior motives and actually believe in the creed and the fight. Altair implemented free will into the Assassins goal, being born into the order contradicts that and is then criticized by Desmond in the audio logs in Valhalla that since the Assassins are all about free will you should not be forced to join the brotherhood or their beliefs. Even Altair's free will was taken away from him when he was born into the order but like what he says in Revelations "how can I regret the only life I've ever known"

[@moralesjourneyman]

I'm so glad you mentioned Shay. In general, AC Rogue is amazing. I love how it seemingly ties into Unity.

[@GhosthoundYT]

I agree with the Shay part. Shay totally ignores about "Who is", and ultimately fight for the "What is". In this regard, he has no trouble changing faction if the old faction doesnt fight for what he believes. Achilles was blind to the fact that the brotherhood knows nothing about the Artifact. yet still continues their expedition towards finding them, despite what happened in Lisbon and the casualties number. Is this what the assassin actually fought for? A trinket hunt? no. In the end, Shay believe he is fighting for something else. And in that sense, he still has the creed ingrained in him. "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permitted", made him a true Assassin. Just like Altair.

[@ellentheeducator]

I want more of the Brotherhood so desperately - I just got into an argument on discord about this, that we genuinely cannot say what the Assassins believe with any real accuracy because the writers just do not care

[@lolaaz2]

I remember doing "The Truth" puzzles in AC2 and unlocking the video with Adam and Eve and being absolutely mind blown with what i saw. As if i found something that i wasn't supposed to see. The mysterious and creepy atmosphere of ac1 to brotherhood is what made Assassins Creed so special to me. Playing as Desmond in the modern day to find answers in the past and diving deeper into this grand conspiracy going through all of human history was something that was done so well 11 year old me, to an extent, kind of believed in it. When Patrice Desilets got fired from Ubisoft during the production of Brotherhood, that atmosphere disappeared. Then they killed off Desmond in ac3 and the overarching narrative of the series was pretty much gone. This is what i believe was the 'real' Assassins Creed. This is what drove the franchise forward and gave you a sense of purpose. Now they have no idea what they are doing with the story. Just jumping around in different timelines with no sense of purpose.

[@diewott1337]

That's the problem with the franchise. Ubisoft continues it as if it was a Final Fantasy franchise (each new main entry is it's own thing), but try to write an overall arc that doesn't work because the franchise is afraid to reach any ending point. It's trying to do opposite things at the same time. It doesn't work.

[@zacharybecker8228]

Yeah they tried with some modern day in black flag but the overarching story died with Desmond. They were too afraid to add a new protagonist which would have worked to explore new eras

[@Pablo_Sky_youtube]

@@zacharybecker8228 to be a little fair to Ubisoft, they tried to add a new modern day protagonist and tried to get that part of the story back, Layla, and the fandom just rejected her because "she wasn't Desmond". I get that Layla isn't the same kind of "chosen one" character Desmond was, but they tried and in one single game people rejected that idea without knowing where it would develope, and now they rely on Basim for that, another sudden change.

[@RawwkinGrimmie64]

Okay, I know this ended up being a bit long, but I promise is isn't just a cynical nostalgia fanboy rant. I have felt the same way about the franchise. I've played every main AC game within the last few years, all but Brotherhood and Revelations for the first time, and it has been so painfully obvious that the modern day story that once made the series mean something is just gone. After Assassin's Creed 3, tgere wouldn't be a modern tgreat established until Valhalla, and then Mirage is strictly a historical game with no significant modern day following up on the threat. Oh, and not to mention that despite the first five games taking place in a span of four months and focusing around the Doomsday 2012 theory, (even the game that was released in 2013) the next big modern day threat doesnt get broght up until eight in-game years later. Ubisoft clearly stopped wanting to tell a overarching story after AC3. Desmond has a son as mentioned in Brotherhood, and Juno is released into the world at the end of AC3? Eh, let's make a comic where the son kills Juno and never bring it up anywhere else. The key is in Eve's DNA? That won't be followed up on at all. Characters like Desmond, Clay, Ezio, and many ohers are trapped in a dofferent dimension after death? It will take us six years to see one of those characters again. Despite ALL of that, I think the Ubisoft Bordeaux division is our best chance at getting back to an overall story with real threats and consequences. Sure, Mirage isn't the best game ever, and, as I mentioned before, holds no modern day focus, but given the way the game was created, that isn't surprising. I truly believe that if the people who made Mirage were given a REAL chance to make an Assassin's Creed game, with proper time, budget, and resources that was given to games like AC2, AC3, or Black Flag, they can make the overall story worthwhile again. Mirage is already a step in the right direction, abd the creators all spoke so passionately about their love for the early games in the series. With an Isu villain, fictionalized Doomsday scenario that snowballed from in-game events, old characters making a reapperance, and minor plot points finally coming to pass in more than just words, Ubisoft has it's best chance to make AC more than just one-and-done historical fiction action games again, and I fully believe that Bordeaux would deliever on making the series a captivating, edge-of-your-seat wanting more kind of series like it was in the Desmond Miles era.

[@UTxTheArchangel]

@@Pablo_Sky_youtube Ubisoft could've afford the "isn't Desmond" problem if they chose his son instead of Layla. That way ppl would understand bc its still the same bloodline, Desmond's which we know is unique to the brotherhood. Elijah could've been the answer for modern day story in the current games.

[@LeoKRogue]

As far back as Assassin's Creed II, realistically. I always say this and people look at me like I'm crazy.

[@rocklight1304]

Every franchise has it's flaws...and you have always been upfront about it. Assassin's Creed has had "problems" before The RPG. Ubisoft almost seem to oppose Assassin's working with the brotherhood. I think Assassin's Creed 1 and Unity handle this best.

[@wasteurtime5677]

Love the video but social stealth is a little looked over. I think that only looking at stealth in the main missions underappreciates the original mechanic. The fact is that you ideally have to remain stealthy at all times in some AC games, while in others its not punished at all. In AC1 and Ezio trilogy you "fail" at stealth and have to resort to combat if your high profile actions get too much attention from the guards. In that case its fight or flight.

[@MexMX]

@@wasteurtime5677 True bother. I'm playing Valhalla at the moment, and I'm having fun being assassin all over the place in the monasteries that I'm supposed to raid. I can force myself to stealth if the game won't. I personally like the freedom that I can choose how I approach objectives because sometimes I like to fight, sometimes I like to sneak.

[@MendigoLouco]

This is objectively correct, and every other opinion is objectively wrong, and sarcasm aside this is the objective truth. I'm just kidding of course, but not really. Assassin's Creed II is the last entry in the series to truly follow the original director's vision.

[@dukemanu9580]

​@@MexMX That's my aproach too, but the problem is that the game won't always let you take out the main targets by stealth, which is very unsatisfying.

[@orsiniproductionstudios3042]

Honestly one of the best aspects of the original AC story was how the Templars were genuinely living in a moral grey area. So few of your targets are genuinely evil. Even the ones that seem so are really just scared or frightened people.

[@YEY0806]

I'm not sure about that, I mean most Templers in ac1, all of the ezio trilogy, majority of ac3, majority of ac4, majority of ac unity and all of Syndicate are just straight bad guys who want power. Like only Hatham is the most interesting complex Templar character and he still is a bad guy, only the Borgia family come close in recognition and they are the most evilest Templars in the series

[@CappnRob]

@@YEY0806 AC1 had a nice balance. You had men who did reprehensible things but in pursuit of noble goals (Garnier's abuses of the mentally ill in an effort to heal them and keep them off the streets where they'd be treated even worse; Talal's human trafficking of said people to give them new purpose in life), men who were fighting back against injustices in the world (Abu'l Nuquod, William of Montferrat), and men who were just abusive pieces of shit (Majd Addin, Al Mualim), and then a few guys who sort of fall into the cracks in between (Robert de Sable, Tamir, Sibrand, Jubair). AC2 however did go in pretty hard on most of the Templars just being manipulative selfish dicks and was lesser for it I feel. The Pazzi's primary motivation was self interest though Jacopo gets some sympathy for how pathetic he dies. The Barbarigos in Venice aren't much better, and the games depiction of Rodrigo Borgia is pretty hammy too. Brotherhood does try to give Rodrigo more nuance by contrasting him with the even worse Cesare, at least lol.

[@CommanderRedEXE]

No, AC1 made it clear they weren't evil, given the ending revealing the head of the Creed had the exact same plan and was simply using Altair as a tool to remove his competition. Everything after made them pure evil. I'd argue the point was to intentionally show how over time they became more and more power hungry and thus more evil than morally grey. Borgia being the biggest push in the total control direction.

[@Luna-Starfrost]

@@CommanderRedEXE So only because Altairs master had the same plans/was as evil as the templars, made the templars less or even not evil?? What? Man, what are you talking about

[@Vaerlayn]

​@@Luna-StarfrostIf you listen to the post assassination conversations with every target, each genuinely sounds like they see themselves as bettering the world, while calling the Assassins into question - what better or difference are you to think murder is the good option? That's what they mean when they say that the Templars are a grey. Their methods are awful and extreme, but their results are what make you stop and think.

[@gabrielgiguere2108]

36:20 I'm one of those, AC is not about playing a character in a certain time period, it's playing someone that has to find answers inside a simulation of someone from the past. The modern settings had a sense of purpose to the whole storyline, after Desmond died it was just ''meh, here's a time period, jump on roofs and kill bad guys, bye'' the latest mythology trilogy kinda bringed back a modern story to look up to, but it's not really great

[@Scrambles0]

Yeah, I'm one of those too. I looked forward to each new AC game after the first released because I was craving more out of the modern story. AC2 and Brotherhood really delivered that, and the trilogy thus far felt like a proper franchise. Unfortunately, I feel things started to get padded out and dry around Revelations and AC3 with the modern story. Like they were trying to squeeze out more releases without actually doing much with the story - or maybe they didn't know where to even take the story. But after Desmond's death the games lacked any cohesive glue to bind them together. I've only played Origins of the latest games. I loved that it was a game set in ancient Egypt - it just oozes style. Bayek as a character and his story are really great. But it failed to really capture that intrigue I felt playing the first three AC games. Maybe Mirage will scratch that nostalgic itch for playing a white-robed assassin in the Levant. But ultimately, without Desmond and co., I don't it's going to be the return to form some of us have been hoping for.

[@btchiaintkidding7837]

yeah, i cant believe they turned the modern story bits into absolutely hated borefest. i remember when i played the first game i was so intrigued by the modern storyline/timeline, was even looking forward to the modern timeline cutscenes and stuff lmao

[@Crom_Apsotle]

I'm gonna be real, you are the only person who ever cared about the modern story.

[@JanNeumann]

100%! The whole idea of Desmond's X Ezio's X Altair's story entangled through different timelines was so brilliant. It was like having Mission Impossible, Da Vinci Code and The Name of the Rose mixed in all together into one large story. After Desmond I severely lost interest, although I still did find Unity and Syndicate really cool with the idea of Animus glitching and showing the WW1/WW2 scenes. However, since then this whole concept of a modern-day fight of assassins against templars, tightly entangled with a historic fight between those two factions, just wasn't there, or wasn't as cohesive and well-executed IMO

[@enzoamore8971]

The modern day story was the main story in the first place. It was about how the Assassin's fight for truth and freedom in society(which is still ongoing in the modern day). The historical events were only used to show what happened then, to what's happening now. The end of Assassin's Creed 1 trailer even shows the animus glitches at the end. It was telling the audience that this wasn't just some historical fiction story, but something bigger.

[@TheL0ngbeard]

"Is it so shallow that iconography is enough" Yes, yes it is so shallow for so many people, I have seen this in so many franchises over the last couple of years it's painful. People see a thing they recognize, their nostalgia part of the brain kicks in and happy feelings start flowing and they never ever examine deeper than that.

[@LeoKRogue]

Unfortunately, yeah. What sucks is there's a layer of nuance to this too. For some people the reason they cling so hard to the trappings and iconography is because at this point that's all they think they have a _chance_ at getting anymore. Clearly, they're _not_ quite getting the experience they want or are looking for, from more recent titles, _even if they can't communicate_ with precision what that actually is. So they ache for the next-best thing, as sad as it might be to see it. This happens _a lot,_ to the point that many aren't even willing to give some later entries a chance, even though (in my eyes) they're _still pretty good_ in some ways.

[@utuberz123456789]

But, but, but.... hidden blade assassination make metallic woosh sound 😟

[@Sebbir]

@@LeoKRoguewell said king

[@jamezyyylive292]

@@LeoKRogue what u descirbed is how ive felt since origins and ive gave origins,odysessy and valhalla a good and honest try and hated all three of them, was clickbaited by all three games into thinking assassins will be a keypart of the game but they werent i hated the rpg element combat and feel of the game, there are only select things i like in origins that actually have things that are assassin based things such as bayek losing his finger with the hidden blade, the hiddern blades bayek and aya get to theending where the hidden ones and the assassin symbol is created, i hated the fact aswell that its aya who fundamentally creates the hidden ones with bayek being a lone wolf with the majority of the same veiws a the hidden ones. i just feel like they shouldve kept true to assassins creed and have origins create the order and then odyssey and vallhalla actually letting u play as assassins in the early days to basims time which actually lets u be an assassin and a port of the creed in some form while also exploring new lore idk i feel like they just retconned everything into being a supernatural rpg game just playing them makes me feel im not playing assassins creed i feel like im playing god of war mostof the time tbh XD

[@shawklan27]

​@LeoKRogue bro the nfs community are down so bad with anything that reminds them of underground or most wanted

[@thebatmanofneo-gotham5667]

"[But] the fact that slapping a hidden blade on Kassandra's arm and calling her an Assassin would've calmed so many people down, shows just how shallow the Assassin fantasy can be." This line from you is almost reminiscent of what Achilles said to Connor in AC3, in that he can't just throw the robes on and call himself an Assassin. It's a small moment in the game, but I think it does illustrate that there's more to being an Assassin than just the fancy hoods or killing Templars on a revenge quest.

[@brandoncarlson2862]

I feel like that would've just made a different group of people even more pissed off. I would've certainly hated Odyssey if that was the case.

[@keenanbartlome8153]

@@brandoncarlson2862 as an odyssey lover, i can say yes, that would have pissed me off.

[@Jake-yy7bl]

Reminds me of in Valhalla, when basim says to hytham something like "youre making a fetish out of a piece of metal"

[@Rehabz4Quitterz]

My biggest issue with the new AC games is the level gating you run into if you stick to just the main story. Between Odyssey and origins I probably wasted 15 hours doing side quests I didn’t care about because if I didn’t, I’d go into an assassination mission, sneak into the compound without being seen, “assassinate” the target and only damage 2% of their health only for them to get up and one hit me

[@danielokorodudu5622]

This has been the only real issue I see that really makes for a solid arguent since the whole you aren't an assassin thing is down to how you choose to play in the newer games. That being said it honestly depends on the person, alot of people complain about how they got sidetracked but personally I usually play games while finishing side objectives for an area before moving on as I like to get really involved with all ths stuff a game has to offer and since i do it by choice it never feels tedious and I never ran into a case where level gating was even remotely a problem since I was always inline with whatever I was trying to achieve at the moment.

[@Rehabz4Quitterz]

@@danielokorodudu5622 that’s fair, but I guess I play differently. I usually beat the main story and then do side content if I enjoyed the game enough to keep playing. For example, I spent dozens of hours in AC 2 doing the tombs, and just exploring what the world had to offer because I loved the game so much at the time. But with the newer games By the time I’m done the main story I’m agitated that I HAD to do side content and I’m just done with the game at that point

[@danielokorodudu5622]

@@Rehabz4Quitterz To be honest thats pretty fair and ubisoft needs to find a good balance. I think they should just make the main quest line match your character level and provide good armour and about half the skill selection via just the main story. They can then lock special armours, weapons and skills to exploration which would give people an incentive to actually divert their attention in a way that won't feel too tedious and might encourage people to actually engage with some side content.

[@andreaslovgren9773]

Jag gillar inte dom senaste tre spelen för vill inte ha ett spel som för svårt eller för lätt. Så här tycker jag level systemet i orgins oddesy och valhalla är så dåligt enligt mig jag gillar när man kan ta dig från punkt A till be det innebär att man kan lika hjärna ta sig till ett ställe där vakterna är lättare och sen svårare detta innebär att man kan lika hjärna ha dåliga vapen men du kan fortfarande ta en vakt som är jätte bra som ett exempel unity eller Assassin’s Creed 2 3 Black Flag osv osv du kan ta vilken vakt du än vill och du kan ta dig ifrån punkt A till B och du kan ta vilken vakt du än vill. Skillnad ifrån dom nya typ som orgins du måste köra Audi kontent vid sidan av för att kunna ta dig vidare i storyn och då spelar det ingen roll hur bra vapen du har är du inte tillräckligt bra level så förlorar du det förstör spelet enligt mig. Och sen få tillbaka till det gamla ta bort level systemet och ta bort dom knappar som du måste använda nu i dom nya spelen A för att klättra nej säger jag till det man ska kunna hålla in två knappar som ett exempel unity har så Assassin’s Creed 2 och i många andra gamla Assassin’s Creed spelen enligt mig var det bättre. Då håller du in RT och sen a för att kunna hoppa på byggnader och vill du bara springa så håller man bara in RT. Gillar bättre när man använder dom gamla knapparna för det blir så mycket enklare typ som det är u unity B och X eller typ som det är i syndicate A X och B då blir det lättare för man är så van vid det sättet att spela dom nya combat systemet är så dåligt enligt mig ta tillbaka det gamla 👍

[@chasebudd7563]

@@danielokorodudu5622 that would be the perfect way to do it. if the main story matches your level you'd probably end the game a pretty low level which is totally okay since that would incentivize doing the side quests and everything. as long as the main assassin tools aren't like insanely deep into the skill trees it would work.

[@spenkerdetanker9067]

I wanna go back to AC1 where the templar vs assassins conflict was full of grey area. from your first kill you keep hearing conflicting things that would merit thinking about on your ride back. but no from ac2 you just are told that templar = bad and then the templar act bad and you go "yup, they bad"

[@user-fm9ww2wk1i]

Fr

[@joshuaerickson2458]

Yeah that story was always interesting. A bunch of Christians were invading the holy land, Acre was a dark and ugly city held by the foreigners, there were religious, class, and racial divisions everywhere. All during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Really interesting place to explore.

[@bounderby99]

This is part of why I think Ubisoft has made all of their targets anonymous and masked in the recent games. If your villains are just a vague evil bad guy group doing vague evil bad guy things, you don’t have to explore the kinds of questions and dilemmas that you do when you have a well developed villain

[@spenkerdetanker9067]

@@joshuaerickson2458 no but beyond the setting, in AC1 you had the templars speak with conviction and they made arguments that weren't just evil or wrong by default. They made altair question what was true. In AC2 they were just generic evil muhh I want power bad guys

[@ThatBoyAqua]

What an absolutely excellent video. I’m sure you’ve heard it a lot, but you are exceptionally talented at what you do. I hope your channel gets the recognition it deserves soon!

[@sosaysjay]

That is incredibly kind of you, thank you. I'm always happy to see you make new content!

[@Wpeoplee]

@@sosaysjay W

[@TheRealFredBlurst]

As a massive Black Flag fan, I think it's ridiculous that folks think it strays too far from the path, despite it being one of the few entries in the series that examines the Creed more deeply. Out of all the issues I have with the series nowadays, THAT'S the part I'd like to see get the most improvement (right behind the parkour, of course).

[@absolutegoatfuck5019]

That and I think realistically, his story leading up to everything is more interesting than just “yeah this guy was kinda a pirate. Anyways he’s an assassin exactly like everyone else”

[@Usernamesdontmatter1]

I dislike black flag because it bastardized and simplified the few things 3 got right. It's a good pirate game however the mechanics on land are more jank than it's predecessor.

[@PlatonicHesaf]

Beside the fact that it is An AC or not, it's a really good gamed with a good gameplay for it's time and a unique idea which used few times and executed well with compelling story and interesting level design, something that new trilogy never had and never was a so called "good game" only solid and average.

[@PlatonicHesaf]

@@Usernamesdontmatter1 kinda agree but really, this bad aspects nothing compared to what it gave us as a good game

[@mistertwister2000]

Exactly. The story with Edward is so interesting because he’s right in the middle of this conflict without picking a side for the majority of the game

[@nicktailor8062]

I think the biggest thing I miss isn’t stealth, it’s the parkour. The climbing. I miss the temples/dungeons that felt like puzzles. Climbing each wall & finding the fastest way up. Watching the character hold every nook and cranny on the walls they climb.

[@e.corellius4495]

see i had the opposite experience, i hated alot of those because there was only one way forward, even though you can clearly see spots on some walls that you should be able to climb but just cant. the newer ones you can just climb everything that isnt a completely smooth wall. old games you were forced to climb a specific way and path, and the new ones if it looks climbable then it is. thats one thing i personally feel is a drastic improvement.

[@horvathbenedek3596]

​@@e.corellius4495I'm sorry, but the answer to " this is too linear" is to add MORE complexity to it, not to remove it entirely. The new games do not have a parkour mechanics. The main character can just walk on walls. That's it. There is no skill involved.

[@doctorbond1882]

@@horvathbenedek3596I agree, I think a balance between the two was what I had hoped for whenever I played any of the games. I hoped for either a complex path and/or a multiple-choice path, not something too linear and not something too easy. Parkour is a hard thing to get right, and despite the fact that I like the fantasy trilogy they have so far, I don’t like how easy it is to climb.

[@lust174]

@@e.corellius4495I’m in major disagreement with this and although to each their own but I don’t understand your issue with that is it made the game slightly intricate the realism of actually looking for each rock or ledge for the assassins to climb made climbs feel rewarding even if slow it just felt there while the new game like said in other comments the protagonist literally walk on walks everything is climbable and their isn’t really parkour except vaulting

[@berserk1934]

@@horvathbenedek3596 Parkour is what made this game so popular lets be hoenst here. It was killing enmeies it was the parkour that made it so awesome then the killing.

[@Y_YX]

The problem with the whole brotherhood aspect is honestly the funniest and most glaring in AC Unity, where Arno carries out his own investigation into the Templar Grandmaster's murder alone (well, with Elise, but certainly not with the assassins) and all the brotherhood does is sanction the killings without significantly contributing to his efforts. And then comes the part where Arno is exiled from the brotherhood, and he takes it as the end of the world, despite the brotherhood never actually doing much to help his investigation - and after regrouping with Elise, he successfully tracks down Germain, again, without the help of the brotherhood.

[@sosaysjay]

It is worth remembering that they actually just sanction the first two assassinations, before utterly disappearing from the story other than the coup attempt by Bellec. After the second target, the king of beggars, they are never involved in any of Arno’s targets again.

[@hawken796]

I think Yahtzee put it best, after a point, the story just became goodies vs baddies and the games had to fit that mould

[@unc54]

But that's part of the weirdness. The Ezio games largely were good vs bad (Revelations colors it a little bit but it still very much feels like black and white). And then you have the Kenway Saga which loved the moral relativity but the execution was a bit hit or miss. And then with Unity there are hints of a morally complex story that the writers simply choose not to pursue for some reason. Syndicate somehow topped Brotherhood when it came to how cartoonishly evil the Templars are. And that largely rang true in Origins and Odyssey until Valhalla which reinserted back nuance but that story was so drawn out and unfocused that the execution felt lacking. Like with a lot of Assassin's Creed entries, it feels very schizophrenic, and understandably so given that it's not just different teams working on these entries but different studios all together and often development overlaps.

[@stubblytuna4068]

@@unc54 Valhalla's story is a mix of really good ideas but with shockingly poor execution. order is actually quite good but theres too many of them and no one gets enough screen time to say anything worthwhile and its such a shame. the same goes for origins as well but that game is the fucking definition of schzio.

[@mitchelldrake6069]

Ehh but that's all of them tho right? Hell that's how a lot of character action games are. I personally think it feels that way because you don't get to chose to get the evil ending, so the linear narrative's morality and choice of antagonist is the one you *have* to fight. If these things were handled like fnv and let all those edgy boys pick their "evil" endings or put whatever ideological reasoning behind which faction they supported, the ac games probably wouldn't be criticized for it

[@EnTiempo824]

I think most people really stopped caring about the story once Desmond died in 3. I mean, he was the protagonist, the character that resembled the player in a way.

[@Kornelius707]

If you played the first games, it started out that way, but got more nuanced in later games.

[@jasperallaert7874]

Another CLASSIC video. You do a great job at demonstrating how all AC games do have all of these elements we like and want, but none of them have them all in one, and a lot of fans kind of imagine a hypothetical "old" AC game that did have them all by combining disparate elements from previous games.

[@stubblytuna4068]

i think the closest would be AC 1 if you think about it, which is kinda sad

[@bigsmoke5814]

Ac brotherhood and revelations is the answer.

[@trippymartian8847]

@@stubblytuna4068i feel the same way, just played it for the first time this year

[@MarceloZ2]

@@bigsmoke5814 you clearly didn’t watch the whole video

[@bigsmoke5814]

@@MarceloZ2 he asked about elements in one game. so i replied with brotherhood and revelations .

[@SebCarrasco]

I think Ezio is such a great character with incredible writing and set pieces, …which many people grew up with, that the resistance to everything in the rest of the series is based around this factor. When an essayist called Aqua tried critiquing AC2 without rose tinted glasses, the backlash was IMMENSE. The emotional comfort that the Ezio trilogy set up has blinded people to almost everything else the series has offered.

[@thereformist8718]

Aquas review was just shit in general

[@godzillazfriction]

AC2 is just horrible in story/writing but they HEAVILY improved everything especially Ezio in Brotherhood and Revelations (and embers)

[@HookahDoncic98]

@@godzillazfrictioncomplete opposite AC2 story was amazing. brotherhood story sucked, only good for the gameplay

[@gandalainsley6467]

If you actually look at the character Ezio is pretty badly written. He turns into something when plot demands it but then when it does not need it he goes to being like he was at the beginning of the game.(also the character on purpose is written in a way to appeal to everyone because he never does anything that would be deemed as unattractive(I saw a youtuber who described him pretty well. She said that Ezio is female gaze. No flaws and does not do anything that could be off putting and he does not make mistakes. ). Even when he is angry about the murder of his brothers and father he is pretty tame in his violence. Altair on default in the beginning was that violent. ) Only game where he actually had any character development was revelations.

[@godzillazfriction]

@@HookahDoncic98 another brainrotten victim

[@brandonperry2035]

I feel like there is a lot left unsaid about what people have often found appealing about the AC games and how those elements blend together into what people's idea of what a "True Assassin's Creed Game" should be. -There was a point where you mentioned that AC1's traversal mechanics weren't created with the intent to be highly technical. I'm fairly sure that this is not the case. I can't quite remember where I saw/read/heard it, but I could've sworn that some of the devs from AC1 mentioned that they implemented climbing mechanics that they felt were mentally stimulating and engaging. Which considering that AC1 didn't have the astronomically high expectations from fans or from the more corporate side of Ubisoft makes a lot of sense. When devs have a lot of creative control over a game, they more often than not create mechanics that require some focus to really get the hang of. As the franchise grew, it was obviously in Ubisoft's best interest to make the game more approachable for the general public in order to sell more copies. We should never forget that that is the primary reason this franchise still exists. This is why over time, Ubisoft pushes "Deluxe" or "Gold" editions of the game and has opted to include microtransactions from AC Origins onward. -I don't believe that most players see robust stealth mechanics to be "True AC", rather they appreciate things like the traversal mechanics (obviously), but also things like crowd density, building density, and the locale of the games. This is why many people will praise Unity but then hate Syndicate onward. Unity, more like the first five games in the franchise (AC 1-3 just to be clear) has a larger crowd density. This gives the games more of a lively feel, but also allows for more utilization of social stealth. Syndicate still has social stealth, but with less crowd density and much more open areas, which I think of as one of the glaring differences between AC games that feel more conforming to the formula and ones that don't. An Assassin is expected to hide in the shadows, so how can they reliably do that when there's four lanes of traffic on the streets of London that separate the buildings much more than previous titles? Or vast stretches of desert, or even just wilderness? While AC3 features large spans of forest, they not only offer much more fun and interesting traversal options, but you often aren't in those areas for long after Connor meets Achilles. I spent so much time in Valhalla running from waypoint to waypoint on the map, and noticing that the overwhelming majority of the map has nothing in it. Same can be said for the two games before it. I wanted to avoid using the fast travel as much as possible, because even with it being featured in Brotherhood, AC3, etc., It was much more engaging from the player perspective to just climb, run and jump your way to a point on the map. -Even though I and many others appreciate the stealth segments of the game, there are many points in earlier games where you are in high profile when assassinating a target and it just somehow feels more "assassin-y" than stealth segments in Origins/Odyssey. They incorporate traversal in ways that really show you that these characters, while exposed, are utilizing the tools and knowledge of the brotherhood to eliminate their target. Think of the chase inside of the burning ship in AC3. Think about how, even though Connor is completely exposed, that you as the player still have to navigate this ship using the traversal mechanics for that game. That makes me feel much more like an assassin than playing as Cassandra and picking off guards with my bow while I perch on a tower or hide in some bushes. That I can do in any game, but the Charles Lee chase is only something I can experience in AC3. (Also as an afterthought, the escape from Lisbon in Rouge gives a similar feel, just without a target to chase.) -While I really enjoy wall ejecting and freely being able to jump and drop from buildings in AC 1 through AC Revelations, I know that even many veteran players didn't utilize these tools. That is likely why there is such a split idea of where the franchise really started to depart from its "roots". For some, it was AC3/AC4 which implemented a new engine and omitted many of the more technical aspects of climbing from previous games. For others, it was more around Unity/Syndicate, where Unity was buggy at launch, so some just didn't ever play it and dogpiled on it, then Syndicate as I mentioned before, really removes any of the joy from climbing and gives you the grappling mechanic to completely avoid climbing in most scenarios. For much more surface level players, Origins onward was what felt like the true departure from the formula because it was much more obviously different. This is why even if some games like Syndicate have some okay stealth moments, it's still lacking most of the pieces in this puzzle. -For some, including myself, the iconography of the Assassin's (i.e. hoods, hidden blades, presence of the brotherhood, etc.) in addition to the setting are very much important and central to our enjoyment of any AC game. This is why I cannot stand Odyssey. Why they decided to write a story that predates the cannon first assassin in the game literally beforehand irritates me more than almost any other change made throughout this franchise. Then with Syndicate, Victorian London just does not fit the rest of the franchise. It's a very bland locale with assassin's that aren't as appealing as many others, and it's just too recent. Most people already know a great deal about that time period. At least in many of the other games, it felt like a whole new portion of history was made more accessible for me. I didn't even know who Rodrigo Borgia was before AC2, and I'm willing to bet that most people didn't either. Granted, leaning more towards the fiction half of historical fiction can also make some of these games feel unappealing. Things like fighting the Egyptian gods in Origins, or being able to visit Asgard in Valhalla, or really any of the wacky cosmetics that you can obtain in later games really takes me out of the setting that I'm there for. I think Origins is the biggest offender of this, simply due to Ardyn Izunia from Final Fantasy XV popping in for a quick second and then leaving. As much as I love Final Fantasy, and Ardyn as a character, I was really taken aback by this moment. This is something that would never happen in AC1 all the way to just about Unity, and yet here Ubisoft is, breaking the reality of the world that is supposed to encapsulate you. -The conspiracies and pyramid schemes of the templar orders throughout the games felt central to what constitutes as a "true" AC game. Watching the names and faces grey out in the game's menus as you progressed through those games is what motivates you to keep going. As the series has gone on, it seems like this has taken a back seat to the game's plot, or characters, and it feels very noticeable when in a game like Valhalla, where the majority of the targets are entirely optional and do not play a part in the game's story whatsoever. It just feels insulting to see an AC game that doesn't have one of the most core parts of an AC game. While an AC game doesn't need to tick all of the boxes of things people liked in order to be considered "true" AC, having more of them checked off compared to other games helps their case. That's why it's hard to really pinpoint where the games shift, because what Ubisoft kept and what they changed/removed was different from game to game. AC4 has good stealth sections in general with it's enemy placement and the inclusion of snipers, but then Unity has the better traversal due to it's greater density of buildings, better social stealth due to larger crowds, and more variety when in stealth because of the vast set of tools you have at your disposal. At best everyone can agree that the last three games are a far cry from the first four, and at worst, we can discuss which game we really noticed the change with and why. When all is said in done, there is no single list of things that make a real AC game, but we know what makes us feel like an assassin, and what doesn't. (There's probably some things I overlooked or didn't explain thoroughly, so feel free to let me know! I'm also not intending to attack anyone's taste in games or in AC specifically, I'm just speaking to what I've observed in the community in my years as a fan of this franchise. The video was really well made and laid a lot of good info out. I'm grateful that we can participate in an open dialogue like this and observe other people's point of view. I know without a doubt that we all love AC here, and regardless of what games you prefer, you are still as valid of a fan as anyone else!)

[@Sunnykr275]

Thats a long paragraph but I very much understand what you meant bro 🫡

[@captainstinkyvonpoopberg4925]

I’m not reading that crap, summarize it in one word.

[@btchiaintkidding7837]

AC1 has most satisfying parkour, they may not be as flashy as unity at all but at least the animationsa are consistently grounded and never feels like magic wall magnet/no weight/zero gravity etc. thats why pulling off an air assassination in ac1 feels so incredible and engaging, it is a minigame/minisidequest of its own everytime u pull it off lmao. not to mention ac1 is the most mentally stimulating/satisfying when comes to its design and depth. it has the most satisfying combat, the most satusfying k^ll animations and (i also especially love the multi step manual counter k^lls which they remived from the sequels), most satisfying crunchy sound design(even the throwing knives feel punchy) and best hit/impact effects of combat. and ac2 has the most insane amount of depth/hidden tricks n techniques/nuance when it comes to combat. black flag has the best story, ac unity has the best stealth. brotherhood was good too but it cut all the depths of combat from previous game. all else are kinda meh and wander too far from original vision. among modern rpg creeds origin is definitely has mkst fun combat but other games from ktger franchise has done it better so there is that

[@btchiaintkidding7837]

the old games maybe had the flaws and their own simplicity, but at least i could ignore these simplicity and find fun mkre engaging methods to make many aspects of the game fun while not opting for the easier simoler but boring path, the old ac had good player expression. new games just dont give me that, even if i try to. and it started waaay before rpg creeds

[@krakenmckraken9128]

Most of this is my point of view. Particularly the bit about the balance of historical fiction. The franchise has always based itself in history with real people, locations, and weapons. They may die differently but the devs have made the dates match up (not always), the locations aren't always to scale obviously but they were authentic, and the weapons may have been anachronistic but again they included authentic weapons and some lesser known/eccentric pieces. All the fictional aspects were handled well and not too over the top ridiculous. The "apples" are the objective/reserved for end game. The combat loop didn't feature magical bullshit. The fictional pieces like the hidden blade aren't out of place. Leonardo made his "flying machine" which both was/wasn't historical as compared to the stuff that occurs in Valhalla (or mirage with its teleport shit). The game is set in the future but tries to explain itself and doesn't linger in the future. They have an animus and that's it. No laser rifles, flying cars, or time travel (reincarnations). The RPG nature of the new 3 is also insanely stupid with its leveling. A trained assassin in a "stealth" game should one shot with the hidden blade like the rest of the games preceding it. Enemies shouldn't have outrageous health pools. Bit of a tangent but this resonated with me.

[@thepassivepasta4982]

i liked the ezio trilogy so much because he started on his own fighting because of his grief but as he matures in the later two games, he commands assassins to carry out missions. It's a three game journey of Ezio's rise to one of the most influential assassins ever.

[@canadaman9373]

You cant forget embers

[@BigBoss_893]

I really think they should’ve built off the systems in Unity and Syndicate. Back when those games came out I thought the next couple AC games were going to refine what those games created, but instead we got a complete reboot of the series

[@truegamer_007]

Yep, this is the real reason long time fans hated the RPG trilogy. Finally we had great stealth and systems in Unity and Syndicate and it was just thrown away.

[@stubblytuna4068]

I used to be a rpg trilogy groupie until I played ac2-syndicate and I realised in both a gameplay and narrative sense they are superior to the rpg trilogy. I still enjoy the trilogy but I prefer the older games

[@DoubleU159]

Very early origins footage showed that it was using unitys framework. We were so close to greatness.

[@dawsynasay4841]

People tend to forget that Unity and Syndicate were hated upon release with Syndicate selling less than Unity. The series was dying and fans were tired of the same game over and over

[@stubblytuna4068]

@@dawsynasay4841 and now were tired again, man time is weird right

[@paulmerg]

I think this is a sentiment that I notice in a lot of media these days, both from writers and fans. Style is more important than substance. People don't like AC because of the themes mentioned in this video; they like imagining themselves as hyper-skilled masters of stealth. People don't like the Jedi because of their philosophy or religion; they like lightsabers and being saviour-like figure. People don't like martial arts movies because they admire the discipline to fully dedicate yourself to mastering a skill; they like them for the displays of superior strength and the cool moves.

[@YEY0806]

It's because at the end of the day, this is just entertainment, nothing less nothing more. It's not meant as an insult, but in general all movies, games and fiction books only serve to sell a fantasy that makes alot of money, any philosophy that it has (or accidentally) is just there for mind masterbation for passionate fans.

[@colbyboucher6391]

God this really articulates my frustration with "geek culture" lately. Power fantasy to the point of shitting themselves at anything resembling a deconstruction of a protagonist.

[@mustafaozturk2542]

That is escapism and every media uses this escapism in order to bring people into it. The question is 'Can you use very simple things as an escapism?' In truth, No you can't! In order to use a piece of media as an escapism, it must be engaging at best. What makes things engaging in most part, the story what makes things engaging, being able to have bonds with characters in that media allows you to be a part of the media. Storytelling and character developments are the major things what makes things engaging for people. Bioware does this very good in Mass Effect trilogy, they create such a masterpiece storytelling and engaging characters to bond with that you start to care about a fictional character and then you start to learn about to lore and stuff. To be able to create an escapism in a media, you need to have a good enough storytelling to make people care about your characters and become a part of it.

[@nikhilkapoor428]

Someone I was discussing Assassins' Creed with them said that AC1 had the tee-ball set up for Ubisoft's own Hitman series, but ditched that in AC2. And to their credit, the Hitman games, especially the new ones, coast on being somewhat self-contained missions where the player is given a target, a location, and are given the go ahead to do whatever you want to kill that target. That could've been a neat direction for the franchise, but I think the exploration of what the mantra of the Creed means to different people and how that affects their worldview is ultimately what I think makes up the best Assassins' Creed stories. Black Flag comes to mind especially. I haven't played the RPG games, having only played up to Unity, but I think that aspect of the story is lost in the RPGs. At least, that's what it feels like to moi.

[@atharvavadeyar5157]

I broadly agree but I don't think that the format of a Hitman style game wouldn't allow for a story that explores what the Creed means for the protagonist AC1 is mainly about Altair understanding what the Creed means

[@Ishpreetb264]

They should've expanded on AC1's formula but instead they abandoned it for more mainstream appeal.

[@Ishpreetb264]

​@@atharvavadeyar5157 Yeah, AC1 is arguably the most AC game. The only other game that actually explores the creed is black flag.

[@stubblytuna4068]

@@Ishpreetb264 i agree but the creed needed more screen time inside of black flags main story, i also think edward should have become an assassin earlier in the story to facilitate that change

[@jamezyyylive292]

@@stubblytuna4068 they do need to do a sequel for edward cos he did become a master assassin im sure or atleast taught the creed into his children and they made it a mssinon in syndicate to explore his house in london but literally after the ending of black flag hes a fully fledged assassin fundamentally he was an assassin just before the end of black flag but it deffintiely didnt feel like it lmao

[@pattyotk]

Youre quickly becoming my favorite AC essayist. Would easily watch full on hours-long breakdowns of each game in the series.

[@MKhelobUltra]

I recently replayed ACII, and there's a conversation that I found really interesting. When talking to Rebecca, Desmond tells her it's good to be "back with the good guys", a statement that Shaun challenges, that while their cause is just, at the end of the day they kill people and it's a choice they all must live with. And it's a sentiment that they seemed to have been flirting with, given the care that Ezio took to give last rites during his assassinations and the affirmations that he'd wish he did not have to kill the target, but must do so anyway, as opposed to the straightfoward debates Altair had with his targets.

[@Hawxaw]

Odyssey is my favorite game in recent years thank you for the shout out. The stealth is so fun and doesn’t get any recognition. I 100% the game with a full stealth build. It felt so rewarding to go from struggling newbie to full legendary viper gear assassin one shouting entire forts, stealing national treasures, and turning the tides of the war!

[@diewott1337]

I used to dislike Odyssey more, but can't say I'd give it anything above a 6/10. And since it looks like that's what Ubisoft aims for anyways, that isn't even that bad of a score 😂

[@leshiy_nd]

It always bothered me in first ACs that no matter how you do things, as soon as you eliminate your target the whole city knows what you did and everyone in surrounding area knows where you are

[@supergiant92]

lmao

[@CommanderRedEXE]

I mean... they always have guards beside them and get assassinated in generally public areas. AC2 especially so.

[@leshiy_nd]

@@CommanderRedEXE Yeah but still. The most triggering one for me was the guy who burned books in AC1. It was extremely slow walk from roof to ground to silently catch him. Moment passed and I'm swooped from all sides. To be fair, considering how confessions are framed as real way of each person being killed, there should be no live soul around to hear all those "Duck you! I regret nothing! But I'll give you valuable info anyway!" χD I'm going through Unity now and it's SO nice being able just to kill a guy and go away unnoticed.

[@CommanderRedEXE]

@@leshiy_nd Yeah, Unity definitely vastly improved the stealth part of the assassinations. Just a shame the story itself was so utterly absurd at times. I have little faith Mirage or the other in works AC title will truly recapture actually feeling like an assassin, but if so, then maybe I'll actually give them a try.

[@leshiy_nd]

@@CommanderRedEXE On same page with you about Mirage. Unity's story works fine to me. Somehow the ones that a bit cut and unfinished are ones of my favorite.

[@user-zg3rv1kj3k]

The real assassin's creed is Swan diving into a bail of hay while an Eagle cry plays ngl

[@_Master_Wolf]

To me, what made Assassin's Creed unique was assassinating templars and finding Pieces of Eden. The intrigue and mystery of the modern day plot and the precursor civilization that was interwoven into whatever time period you were in as the Assassin. The Templar's plots revolved around getting their hands on Pieces of Eden, and the mystery around subject 16 was so interesting and creepy. AC2 was my favorite in this regard. Not only was Ezio an incredible character with a ton of development and evolution throughout the story, but finding and solving all the glyphs to uncover the "Truth" and watching Adam and Eve escape with the apple of Eden was mind blowing. In my opinion, AC2 and Brotherhood stand as the two best games, especially when played back to back.

[@joeh5411]

My first AC game was Origins and I had a blast. When I told this to other people who were long time fans, they said that it wasn't very good because of the lack of "good stealth", which made me question, were we even playing the same game? I remember trying certain areas over and over trying to stay completely undetected to clear the camp or kill the target because the stealth was fun. Now that I've played AC I and II, I appreciate the social status systems a ton, but I miss the freedom and options in the stealth I experienced in Origins. I don't care what AC fans think, AC Origins is a good game.

[@ostermad]

I really enjoyed both this video and your previous related essay on 'good but bad [game series] games'. As someone who's only finished AC 2 and Black Flag but played most of AC 1, 3, Origins, and Odyssey, there's one sort of fundamental shift in the gameplay I noticed that I didn't see you mention. While uncovering new areas for later missions has always been a part of AC, I feel like AC 1 and 2's new areas are expansions of old ones: as I progress through the game, one of the skills I develop is a mastery over the cities. As I revisit locations, I build familiarity with them, a familiarity that becomes an essential tool to escape pursuit and travel efficiently through the environment. In AC 3, Black Flag, and Origins and beyond however, there is no point to learning the environment - I'll either never visit it again once I accomplish my goals (and never need to pass through it either) or the location is so simple that there is nothing to master. In my nostalgic memory of AC 1 and 2, a lot of what I treasured about that experience was using my knowledge of each city to my advantage, something I wasn't really able to do in the later games.

[@Calypso694]

AC1 is the only Assassins Creed game besides Chronicles oddly enough in a way. Ubisoft doesn’t have the balls to make an actual Stealth game. They’ll never make Hitman Assasin, or Thief Assassin, splinter cell etc those are stealth games. AC is an action game with stealth elements. I also think think the reactive stuff comes from how the OG real AC operated. They only killed 1/a few targets a year, simply because they were reacting to the crusades around then trying to protect their country and religion. Also themselves. AC1 might be Altair stopping bad guys, but in doing so he changes the world around him. Kill the bad Laborer leader? That stops slavery. Kill the bad boat captain dude? The fleet can’t sail or whatever and loses the strategic value for the crusades. Etc etc. Reacting to the bad guys does have changes just indirectly.

[@ComteMatthieu-ek2rl]

I agree. Its funny how Ezio in AC2 talked on learning for himself and not following a authority, but still he supported the Medici for decades and the game somewhat presents the injuries this dinasty bought to the people (Like the Volterra Massacre)

[@Calypso694]

@@ComteMatthieu-ek2rl i really wish they dealt more with the philosophy of it. in the recent games it seems like the bad guys are jusst bad guys now. I noticed that in Origins that the order were seemingly just bad dudes doing bad things instead of doing bad things for the greater good of it all. Good intentions, bad way of going about it.

[@stubblytuna4068]

@@Calypso694 i think the order in origins does think they are doing good things but its so unclear due to the schzio writing of that game.

[@Deucejr716]

This is the first video where someone finally is saying the quiet part loud. I appreciate you bro! To me, AC was all about the story first and foremost. I loved the modern-day Illuminati-esque portrayal of the Templars while Assassins were like the freedom fighters. I loved the science of the animus and being able to relive your great x 10 grandparents lives to see what secrets they lived with. I loved how they used real life conspiracies and historical phenomenon to tie into the science fiction of the ISU and how there’s this advanced race that helped us along, at one point becoming the first “Templars” while Adam and Eve became the first “Assassins” Nothing became of any of that after AC3. The modern day has been all over the place and inconsistent and atp it just feels like they’re just making new characters in cool places for the sake of just doing it. THATS what made AC “Assassins Creed” to me. We were following a young man as he discovered his role In saving the world, discovering the secrets of the world and himself. They had so many opportunities to keep the sequels going with certain characters so we could grow with them like Ezio and Altair. Arno linked to Shay, which was all around the same time period as Connor growing up and becoming an assassin. Could’ve did something where Connor went to France to help their brotherhood or something. Origins could’ve followed Bayek or Aya to Rome for a second game to continue building on the new Assassins creed and it’s Tenets. Simply put, AC has no direction. It used to, and that’s what is missing and why it doesn’t feel like AC. It’s not as shallow (although still important mind you) as just being able to one shot people or hoods and hidden blades. If it makes sense narratively like you pointed out some entries (Odyssey, Origins, AC4), none of that mattered to me. I’d say the parkour and stealth gameplay wise is what would make it feel most assassin like, but the story has to have direction and purpose like we did pre 2013. Ubisoft has too many studios working on too many different versions and engines and directions for the story and honestly I think Unitys system - the stealth, parkour, scale, upgrades- if given MORE time initially would’ve been the one. Though I do like the new eagle vision and combat of the rpgs (just take out the goofy attacks and bad animations lol).

[@Wpeoplee]

What bad animations? And tbf odyssey stealth is pretty damn good if you know how to utilise it, it gives you several opportunities to be really creative and it works flawlessly. It's much better than unity's stealth, when you actually think, the only thing unity has in its stealth is continuously smoke bombing and using phantom blades with some lures that don't work sometimes.

[@herskind1364]

FInally someone did the effort to actually explore this deeply instead of just blindly taking a side! this is so informative, its actually insane!

[@user-jn7jf3kv6k]

Bro we all know it's because of American policy the war in Israel is taking place

[@Lots-Of-People-are-Saying]

Unity has to be my favorite parkour system. Yes it looks nice because it has better animations but the inclusion of the ability to traverse up, forward or down at any time and it still having the ability to eject; most of the time, makes it a richer system than what we have now. It's a shame they never actually worked out the bugs in it. As far as stealth and story I kind of miss ac1 tbh. I miss having to actually gather information on targets, finding a way to get close to your target, the social stealth; which they could easily have expanded as was the case in syndicate, and I miss being an actual member of the order. It's the only ac game where I enjoy everything about it.

[@robertmatthias]

I think the big thing with the series that is important is the way the main character interacts with the creed. That’s why Desmond, Altair, Ezio, Connor, and Edward are such good protagonists. Altairs pride and youth conflict with the creeds focus on humility. Ezio is loud and boisterous nature and his desire for revenge conflicts with the creeds requirement of subtlety. Connor begins to abuse the creed because he sees as a tool, and not a guide. Edward lives in direct contrast to the creed, killing who he wants and taking what he wants, no matter the cost until he sees the true nature of the conflict between the templars and the assassins and has to choose a form of structure. Desmond’s whole existence is his conflict with the creed and his father, craving a normal life but having to recognize that his idea of normal is false. The conflict between the creed and the character defines the series. That’s why the new ones don’t work as well. Syndicate didn’t have any conflict with the creed, Evie was set in her ways, just like Jacob, just in opposing views. Bayek didn’t have the creed, so there was no conflict to be had, same with Kassandra, and Eivor never even considers the creed as any sort of viable option, and fully rejects it with zero conflict. Even the modern protagonist doesn't have any conflict with the creed, Layla, joined the Templars to do research, and the Assassins offered her that with more freedom, and thats it, that was her whole drive, she has no care or disregard for the creed, shes just there.

[@arshiaaghaei]

7:17 one of my biggest issues with Rogue is exactly this. It's a game that swaps the Templars and the Assassins and calls it a day For all the hate 3 gets (even tho it was a decent game), it tried this philosophical clash in a decent way. A lot of people now realize Haytham was right about how Assassins have fallen.

[@captainstinkyvonpoopberg4925]

I want an Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood game, where they are actually a brotherhood not just a loosely connected group of lone wolfs. We had it in Unity a bit, but I would love to see a lot more teamwork and coordination between Brotherhood members, maybe a game with multiple protagonists, each with their own gameplay style, strengths and weakness, and each with their own role to play in a plan to unravel Templar machinations and undermine their powerbase, culminating in a templar setback equal what happened to the Assassins, bringing them to the brink of destruction (at least until the next game).

[@YEY0806]

It would also be cool to see the Assassins take a proactive approach that isn't related to simply stopping Templars and ACTUALLY putting their philosophy into practice with the world

[@Oznerock]

I mean Brotherhood had managing the assassins mechanic as grandmaster and calling on them for aid and it was great

[@magnenoalex2]

I miss the modern day plot

[@md20062]

@@magnenoalex2that died with desmond bruh

[@SacredPotatoo]

I think what people say when they say they miss the old AC games is that they indeed miss the 2014- 2015 games' stealth mechanics because they were the culmination of many years of evolution the series had gone through, although still not as fleshed out as they could have been. I think people, me included, would like to see the series go back to working on and improving those concepts and deliver a game that was as good as some of the earlier games were when they were released. We must also think about the time period when they were released and judge them accordingly. As you say in the video, when the earlier games were released the stealth gameplay was poor but no other game came even close to making you "feel" like you are a badass assassin . The core ideas behind the first games need to be put in the center and developed in a meaningful sense in a game that is acceptable for 2023. Imagine an AC Unity that launch edwith its gameplay and stealth systems working properly and with a better written story back in 2014. That is the level of quality we want ideally.

[@truegamer_007]

Exactly, old AC fans are dissappointed that Ubisoft abandoned the focus on stealth they were moving towards that Unity and Syndicate had.

[@titanbro5871]

Unitys parkour, its janky and doesnt respond to controls well but through all of that there actually was something there so you would hope that they dont completely drop it and actually make it work in later entries but they didn't they really did just drop it and were probably never going to see it again

[@zeroskaterz92]

No other game came close to making you feel like you're a badass assassin? lmao Spoken like someone who clearly don't play a lot of stealth games.

[@Modie]

Remember when a side game for the vita had the best stealth mechanic where you could switch between one of three outfits? To this day, I never understood why they never implemented something like this again. It works in so many periods. Like in Syndicate. A worker for infiltrating factories or as a servant, a nobleman for infiltrating dinners in high class locations and an assassin climbing over the rooftops to get to your target.

[@EagleGamerz]

​@@zeroskaterz92like what if you don't mind me asking? I'm getting into stealth games

[@SyamDaRos-EndoManno]

As you said, even Ubisoft doesn't know what to do about the core mechanics of the series. Because there is something this series lacked since 2010: a director. There are many differences between AC1 and AC2, but Désilets knew what he was wanting to show with this series, expecially storywise. I can accept a gameplay shift if at least the story is consistent

[@bloodymares]

I'm not too sure about that, because Desilets also has made AC2 and is very passionate talking about it. But clearly there was a shift, and I imagine it had to do with the studio not really satisfied with fan reception of the first game, and then ordered Desilets team to make it more mainstream-appealing rather than staying true to the original ideas.

[@godzillazfriction]

uhhhhh but AC2 is horribly written in every story related thing which includes Ezio whereas AC1 is an actual masterpiece in storytelling and even gameplay with that Ubisoft was going.... too many ppl point out how REPETITIVE AC1 is and yes at a surface level, it might seem like it but once you go deeper then the gameplay goes like this... everything from player freedom, utilising your environment to your advantage for example, pickpocketing ppl who have information about the target and the area the target is in and has key information about certain environments to use you your advantage like a hole in a wall on the north end of the rooftop building.... then comes assassinating targets which has effect on the gameplay that ties with the narrative for example, killing the Templar nurse made the mentally ill go out and rot which affects how you traverse.

[@diewott1337]

​@@godzillazfrictionI think the biggest problem with AC1 is that it's a prototype. It clearly gives that feeling that is setting things up both in storytelling and mechanics. The team knew it was a risky move.

[@godzillazfriction]

@@diewott1337 😐 your comment didn't really go into any problems with AC1

[@gor764]

"Perhaps, dear brother, the sparklings of youth we had thought beloved were in the end mere phantasms of our imagination." - Shakespeare's Othello

[@truegamer_007]

23:16 You're looking at the whole series without keeping in mind the chronology. A game series is supposed to get better, more polished and more focused as time goes on. I remember when Unity came out people were saying things like "Oh finally, AC is taking stealth seriously and giving a crouch button" and there was nothing but praise for the downward parkour system, which imo solved the one flaw of the system, it was easy to go up, hard to come down without awkwardly falling. If Unity hadn't been a buggy mess with performance issues, maybe things would be different today. (I actually blame the weak ps4 and xbox one for that, Unity was clearly designed with more powerful hardware in mind) And then Syndicate apparently sold less cause Unity left a bad taste in people's mouth. But those two games finally felt like the Assassin's Creed broke free of the contraints of the last gen consoles and became what AC1 always wanted to be. But then they took a year break and didn't come out with another with the Unity and Syndicate engine, but Origins. A brand new engine, with all the progress made by the previous games stripped away. Orgins wasn't that badly received, it was actually praised by non-AC fans. But even AC fans would have praised it, had it come out after AC4 and Rogue, instead of after Unity and Syndicate. It felt like several steps backwards. Instead of the next-gen AC that Unity and Syndicate promised, we got something completely different. And that stung. Odyessy stung even more, no hidden blade, no Assassin's, nothing. At least Origins had the hidden ones and tried to tell the origins of the creed, so you could forgive it a little. Valhalla wasn't great either, even tho I enjoyed it more than the previous two, as at least it gave me a hidden blade and it did things the AC4 way, where you're not part of the creed but you use their tools. So, imo, the chronology does matter. Even if AC has never been that stealth focused, for a lot of fans Unity and Syndicate were the realisation of something they always wanted since AC1. And it was taken away. And now Ubi is throwing a bone in the form of MIrage. I wish they'd just go back and finish the 3rd game after Unity and Syndicate, on that same engine, to cap out that era as a trilogy.

[@QuatarTarandir]

Totally agree

[@prxtatape6457]

Huge misconception from this franchise.. Unity onwards are on the same engine (they just renamed it)

[@QuatarTarandir]

@@prxtatape6457 Still totally changed all the mechanics, which is why people get confused probably

[@truegamer_007]

@@prxtatape6457 They're all the same engine, technically, since 2007, the first AC game. And AC isn't the only series that uses it. By same engine I meant the same specific version of the engine. If you look at AC games they used different iterations of the engine. AC1 had its own, then AC2-ACB-ACR had the next iteration. AC3, AC4, AC Rogue had the next one. Then Unity and Syndicate. Then they changed the whole engine a lot (without changing the name) for the rpg trilogy. Don't go by the advertised name, that's for marketing purposes and isn't a technical distinction. For example, according to Ubisoft, Valhalla is on a different version of the engine, than Origins and Odyssey. But if you've played all 3 of those games, you know that makes no sense. They play and feel identical. They changed the engine much more between Syndicate and Origins, than between Odyssey and Valhalla.

[@QuatarTarandir]

@theholypopechodeii4367 Origins is still good, and still AC. It's really Odyssey that went to far

[@matthewvalenti1348]

You’re right about how the Assassins’ purpose being “to kill Templars” for no reason beyond they’re the bad guys is a bit of a letdown. That said, it wasn’t even like that originally (and forgive me as I haven’t watched the entire video yet as I comment this, so maybe you bring it up later). In AC1 they did have a genuine goal beyond just killing templars - peace in all things. That goal was the SAME as the templars, the reason it was so interesting was because of the different ideologies behind how to achieve that peace. That factor seems to have been neglected almost the entire rest of the series, apart from in Revelations when you kill Manuel Palaiologos and he talks about how “order begets peace, it cannot happen in reverse” and in AC3 when Haytham tells Connor about how that used to be the Assassins’ original goal.

[@An_Able]

Most people tend to argue over whether the RPG games are Assassin's Creed games or not, but I couldn't even tell you what an Assassin's Creed game is... The only unique connecting thread between all the games was the aesthetic of the hood and the hidden blade, and Odyssey severed that thread. Every other common thread is generic enough to belong to other games (stealth, combat, gadgets, even the parkour to some degree.) I played the whole series recently, and when a friend asked me about it I wasn't able to actually explain what it was about other than vague notions of historical tourism and stealth/combat. How the hell can a series have more than 10 entries to establish an identity and still be so difficult to describe? So, coincidentally, I came to the same conclusion you did: there is no "real" Assassin's Creed, only everyone's opinions on what it should be. That's why the fan-base has splintered so heavily, no-one actually knows what makes an Assassin's Creed game.

[@huyvouc9785]

(this gonna be a long comment, but I feel that I unexpectedly enjoy this video, so stay with me for a while) First, when I clicked into this video, based on the title I was expecting something like a hot take like "old AC games are actually bad" or things like that. Then I watch the full video, and I can tell you that I really happy that you actually giving good points without taking sides of the old games or the new game. I started AC2 as my first AC, then Brotherhood, then back to AC1 and then play every other AC games in released order. What I noticed of the AC fandom is that people always have to take a side, either you are a Ezio/Altair games fans, or Unity fans, or AC4 fans, or RPG Trilogy fans. Thing has gone so bad to the point that people shitting on each other tastes without actually spend some time to actually think about mechanics analyzing in those games. As you said in the video, each AC games have their own kind of flaws, and I think that the special thing is that they have *different* kinds of flaws that their own fans try to ignore for the sake of defending their favorite games. The Ezio Trilogy and AC1 got very bare-bone social stealth mechanics, but they *have* the potentials if they get improve in next games. Overall, I do think that AC2 get the best parkour level design in the whole Trilogy (also, best city aesthetic, too). AC Brotherhood is an upgrade in terms of mechanics when compared with AC2, but the story is so much shorter this time, and more simpler (some people may argue that this is a good thing, but personally I felt that the story just worse in Brotherhood, though I still love it). Revelations introduced cool mechanics like the Hookblade and the bomb system, especially the bomb customization in Revelations, I think that actually a fun mechanic, but it lacks the environment/level design to actually encourage these kinds of potentials. Also, when compared to Brotherhood, it got fewer missions and training things that encourage people to try out more of its mechanics, and that's such a shame since I've seen some niche videos from a few pro players, and in those video they pull out bunch of creative stuffs with the bombs and hookblade (for example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6Gni3-KmMyZlZIsi=QsXQFTwlYYAd6yCK ) Kenway Trilogy (especially AC3) get super cool combat animations, but their flaw is that they dumb down the combat mechanics into just pressing the interact button. Also, another good thing about AC3 is that it actually *got* more parkour animations than AC4 and AC Rogue, despite those 2 games are in the same Kenway Trilogy. Among the Kenway Trilogy, AC4 stands out as the one with open world sea environment, but the flaw is that Ubisoft plagued that game with meaningless collectibles and islands, combined with multiple tailing sequences that tired people. AC Rogue kinda fix some issues with AC4, especially with the naval combat (I would argue that AC Rogue has more fleshed out naval combat than AC4), but then it got another problem: the parkour level design and city design are kinda worse than AC4 and AC3, but people who praise Rogue ignore that thing because they only focus on the story (the Assassin turned Templar) and the fleshed out naval combat. As a result, you can find lots of parkour snippet vids of AC3 and AC4, but rarely you see parkour snippet vids of AC Rogue. AC Unity is in a weird spot where there are people who defend it to death and people who shit on it for eternity, and you can still see both kind of people still arguing to this day. As for me, I think that it's in the middle: not bad as some haters say, but not good as some fans say. In terms of parkour animations, Unity is revolutionary. The amount of parkour animations in this game is over the top for sure (even though some parkour animations clearly don't look realistic as some fans claimed). The parkour mechanics itself, I have to say that I agree with people who said that it's too automatic, because it is. For example, when you press the parkour down button to go down to the ground from the top of a building, sometimes Arno with do a spin and catch the wall to go down, sometimes he will just hop down without a spin. Also, the snap-target system that decision which object Arno will land on is heavily depends on the camera angle (also, it's very inconsistent, too), and sometimes Arno will land on things that you do not expected. Jcers made a very well-explained video about all AC games (include Unity) in which he analyze very good points about the problems of Unity parkour: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6qUoXacjLyBpqssi=nTrg1vTn5FI5v-FA In terms of stealth, I have to agree with you that Unity is a mess. The enemies AI is broken (for example, the cherry bombs not working if enemies view cone got block, even though it's supposed to be the tool to lure the enemies using sound). The tools heavily unbalanced, with smoke bombs too OP and easy to find, cheap to buy and you can carry a large amount of them (smoke bombs in Ezio Trilogy and Kenway Trilogy are OP too, but sometimes they can't be manually aimed, or sometimes you can carry only a small amount of them). The density of enemies layout is actually a good thing in Unity, and they actually make the enemies more challenging to stealth kill, even though they have horrible and broken AI detection system (maybe a little better than the horrible detection system in AC3 a bit, though). And last of all, I totally agree with you at the story part of Unity, it's the biggest mess, and even its fans agree with this. (This comment is kinda too long by now, so I'll stop here, sleep a bit and write about the RPG in a follow-up reply later below)

[@stubblytuna4068]

i feel almost the exact same way. brotherhood isnt as good as ac2 and i honestly think they could have just absorbed it into ac2 and no one would have bat an eye. unity is fucked, tool broke more times tthen they worked for me lmao

[@Kaino-wo3vc]

I loved reading this.

[@KevinCow]

As someone who's played every mainline game at or near release, but never really interacted with the Assassin's Creed fandom at all, my reaction to the movement in Origins was: "Wow! It's so much faster, smoother, and more reliable now! I don't have to run around something I want to climb for ten minutes trying to find the one tiny handhold I can reach! Steep hills aren't impassable barriers! My character doesn't just randomly refuse to reach for handholds until I wiggle the stick a bit! When I jump to my death, I usually feel like it's at least partially my fault! This is so much more fun to play!" When I finally saw how the internet AC fandom felt about movement in Origins and Odyssey, I was really surprised and confused. I never even knew about stuff like wall ejects. I was the player you mentioned who mostly just held RT and A and pointed the direction I wanted to go. For the way I played the series, the Origins and Odyssey system was purely an improvement. So, yeah, it's weird that people treat those things like key defining features of the series when players like me experienced the entire series without ever being forced to figure them out. Anyway the best parkour in the series is clearly Nexus.

[@angeloflgt]

Honestly I'm ok with them changing and trying stuff. I personally don't like having to level up to get instant stealth kills now and I much preferred the old counter kill open combat that felt kinda like the Arkham games but that's just my preference. I think the real thing that is killing my interest in new ac games is they are just too long/big now

[@Cresc3n1]

I agree to disagree. I love long experiences. As long as it's well written. I have spent thousands of hours in Skyrim and hundreds in witcher 3. Does that make those games bloated? No it doesn't. If I love a game world I'd definitely want more of it than a quick flick like say for example KZbin shorts. This video we are commenting on is 37:22 minutes long and a game needs time to tell it's stories.

[@thereseemstobeenanerror1219]

​@@Cresc3n1 I'm pretty sure that's what tends to make these things a make it or break it kind of deal for people. Is the story good enough that they be willing to tolerate hours of game play In Between story beats.

[@Cresc3n1]

@@thereseemstobeenanerror1219 it's not "tolerate" to me and many others. I love exploring beautifully crafted worlds. For example. People are complaining AC Mirage is 10 hour game. While I'm just exploring every little detail and taking in the views. I'm almost at 30 hour and i have only did 1 main assassination. Been doing contracts, tales of Baghdad, enigmas, lost books or just simply exploring the historical sites.

[@moonknightish]

The issue with Odyssey isn't the lack of Assassins, it's how they got the ISU tech incredibly wrong, transforming the lore into a full fantasy with immortality, teleportation and real mythological monsters

[@gurjotsidhu9494]

The "immortality" and "mythological monsters" are side quests and barely account for 1% of the game. I've actually played the game and don't know where "teleportation" comes.

[@QuatarTarandir]

@@gurjotsidhu9494 Uh, the spear throw chain kill. It does kinda seem like your running, but you can do it from places that makes it mostly teleportation

[@gurjotsidhu9494]

@@QuatarTarandir you can literally play the entire game without ever needing to do spear throw. Spear throw is an ability so you can choose to spend an ability point to unlock it.

[@QuatarTarandir]

@gurjotsidhu9494 I was just explaining what the person was talking about. I mean, you asked. As well, it's an ability kinda needed to be stealthy, and it's not like there aren't others just as fantastical

[@huyphan7825]

That's a very common argument, what makes a "wrong" AC game. But the video speaks of something not talked about, that even when the games get AC "right" it's still "wrong".

[@pegwin7743]

I think there's another core reason why most people don't engage in complex parkour, which is that the game doesn't teach you how it even works. Most people aren't even aware that something other than holding 1 button exists because why would they be? So not only does the game not build levels around it, it also NEVER does a good job of tutorializing its own systems. The closest they've come are the parkour challenges in Brotherhood, but that's a whole separate thing from the main part of the game.

[@RageCrazeGamer]

Such great valid points put together in an outstanding quality video, anxious to hear you discuss even more topics on AC and its community.

[@chrismoore5333]

While we are speaking of misconceptions. Kinda funny how Jacob is the character with more depth, and he has all the most stealthy levels, yet much of the community ignore this akd just pretend evie was this super stealthy character with loads of depth. She was 2D compared to Jacob, and she had nowhere near as many tbought out stealth levels as an actual assassin. Plus she messed up on her only 2 assassinations, while Jacob messed up on only 3 out of 8. People also ignore that Roth states Jacob went after conquering London, and that he had been spotted after defeating the gang leaders and helping his accosiates. Jacob is actually canon to the side quests and free roam in Syndicate. Evie isn't even canon, outside of the levels the game forces you to play as her. I just wanted to highlight that, and say that i also agree that Nostalgia blinds many fans.

[@FutureIndustrieseditz]

Facts, couldn't have said it any better myself.❤️

[@chrismoore5333]

@@FutureIndustrieseditz Thank you! I'm just trying to keep the truth known and to keep one of my favourite games from falling deeper into negative and harmful misconceptions. I'm glad you took the time to read what I had to say! Cheers!!!

So, I want to give my 2 cents on this as someone who played all AC games up to Unity multiple times (except Liberations and Rogue). Also, as someone who played all Splinter Cell and Far Cry games (I promise I'm going somewhere with this) and thinks the parkour and social stealth of the AC games are their heart and soul (gameplaywise), this is what I think: The problem I see is that Ubi has some of the most unique and interesting concepts available, but chooses to do the bare minimum with them in favor of [put your reason here, probably money]. Like, remember the old Hitman games? Then remember how they made Absolution and everybody shit on it because it was a poor attempt to chase action trends and only gave people a simplified version of the old ones? Remember the old Splinter Cell games? And how complex the original ones were and how Conviction streamlined it and Blacklist (although being more complex) only iterated on Conviction without bringing back much of what made the originals fun? It's like, Ubisoft has all these cool ideas at their disposal and instead and iterating them, making them better and optimizing them, they simplify , streamline it and remove everything that presents a challenge in the development process and that would make the games more memorable, complex and fun. I even see this in the story. Lots of people hate how the present day story line on the original games took them out of the flow of playing the game. But truth be told? The story concepts of the original games were one of the most unique aspects of it (until it devolved into a run of the mill end of the world plot). And instead of listening to the complaints and adding the story in a more natural and fun way, they simply removed it on later games (before bringing them in again with the ones I didn't play, so I can't say how those are). "They're wise enough to see the criticisms of their films, and then... keep the things that are criticized, and change other things" - Rich "Dick the Birthday Boy" Evans Instead of making an in depth parkour tutorial so that players understand it better and are able to extract more fun out of the games, they prefer to make all the missions on these games almost every time not rely on parkour at all. Instead of iterating on social stealth, one of the unique aspects almost exclusive to the AC games, they simply remove it, or down play it even more. Instead of optimizing parkour, making it more consistent, new player friendly, giving us more reasons to do it, rewarding its use and making it a challenge, they prefer removing and downplaying it as well. The only reason I don't play the AC games more than I already do is because most of the fun I personally have is intrinsic, relying on me having to make the active decision to parkour to the place of my next mission, and that not having any difference on the story and gameplay than if I simply walked there. Like, one of the most innovative, cool and consistent additions they made to gameplay was the parkour down mechanic, which, in my experience, functions well almost 100% of the time. Unity is such a proof that they can do so much with the concept, but they choose to not let the devs work on it until it's completely ready and then when people complain the game is poorly made, they simply make an RPG game instead. This also brings me to another problem, which I think is us. I vividly remember everybody complaining that AC games were getting stale, which was an opinion that got even more vocal after Unity, and what is (I think) one of the main reasons they deviated from it after Sindycate. I can only image how this series would have been if it was handed over to a company that cares more about a core vision for a game, instead of chasing trends and trying to make the most people happy. EDIT: All of this to say that the most Assassin's Creed game there is and probably there ever will be is Assassin's Creed 1. A game where you're mostly gathering info about your next target, where combat can be so dreadful that your best option is to flee, which in turn makes you use parkour, since the cities are very dense and moving through crowds is not easy for an escape, which also incentivize you being a "blad in the crowd" and where you see a story of a boy turning into a mature and responsible man while he helps his brotherhood and questions them at the same time and where you also have compelling present day story line (with questionable results) and where even the goddamn HUD elements and gameplay mechanics and kinks have an in-world explanation for existing.

[@owen2680]

Love your take it on series it has nuance that other videos can lack I love it keep it up

[@thepacific2933]

people forget that ezio's story wasnt about a perfect assasin, in his words he didnt chose this life, this life chose him. He learns to not go by revenge (tbf he did kill everyone) and actually starts understending liberty and fights for it. Ultimetly seeing flaws with assasin ideology and passing peacefully

[@SoIstice]

Exactly. Revelations gets away with having so many loud kills because it is the story of Ezio straying further and further from the titular Creed because he has become disillusioned with it. By the time he bombed the city, he was already finished with being an assassin and was just out to finish the fight. His entire quest ended in nothing being accomplished. The Templars were not destroyed, there was no secret treasure or wisdom to be found at Masayaf. He gained nothing except for his wife, but he could've met her Brotherhood or no Brotherhood. All of the events of Revelations only showed Ezio that he could peacefully retire from the fight and live the rest of his life as just Ezio.

[@Flatter_Sine]

My thoughts exactly. Maybe I am not a "real" fan of this series, but you summed pretty much why I actually going with the flow. As years goes by after I played my first AC which is Revelations, I don't know if I can say this series is a stealth game anymore. Nay, it felt more like action adventure that allows you to roleplay that assassin fantasy even though sometimes the system didn't give you enough. Really though, for me, as long the story is about conspiracy creeping in this alternate history of ours, and there is involvement of first civ, I consider it AC game. Because to me, only this series that managed to tie in everything because history. As they said: History is our playground.

[@e.corellius4495]

same, and ive played every game since the first as they came out. i had a blast with odyssey and was stunned when all this old versus new stuff started. so i sat down and did a grand replay of the whole series about a year ago... and the old games kinda aged like milk. i remember liking 2 and revelations in particular when they came out, but damn were they a slog to get through going back to them. the whole last half of 2 i just wanted to hurry up and get to the next game already i was hating the experience so bad, because there was no conspiracy or anything until you get to the very very end for the last sequence in rome. leading up to that is just half a game of go here and kill X guy you dont know or care about. the first game that was even enjoyable to play at all and had a story i was interested in was 3, and i wasn't having fun or enjoying the story until black flag.

[@Flatter_Sine]

@@e.corellius4495 I get it that there are things that is better in the old games, but frankly though, the supposed assassin fantasy mostly felt superficial. The only game to me that manages to fill that void is funnily enough, first AC. I didn't play Unity till Valhalla since I don't have the means, but just looking from its story I'd say there is nothing out of the ordinary for me. What I found dissapointing sometimes how the "fans" can't grasp the message and themes of this series. Like, I know the title is Assassin's Creed, but Revelations pretty much spelled out what the recurring theme that still permeates till Valhalla. Freedom and Liberty by your own decision and making your own choices based on rationalized info and not tied down to culture and non sense that put humanity's value to the ground. Heck, Kassandra the supposed divisive protagonist embodies this well. But hey! No hOoD and HiddEn BlAdeS!

[@e.corellius4495]

@@Flatter_Sine yeah i loved odyssey, easily my favorite along side black flag. the two least "Assassiny" games. two games that ironically have the most background lore in the whole franchise, particularly about the first ones. the way i see it, especially having recently gone back and replayed the old games, is that the "old style" fans who hate on the newer games the most are like the "genwoners" of the pokemon franchise. they just hate everything after that on principal despite the numerous dramatic improvements to both story and gameplay in later games. the "not assassiny" enough is just their justification for hating them despite it proving that they probably didnt even play those games to know if they were or not.

[@Flatter_Sine]

@@e.corellius4495 There are those who played the game, but still not feeling it. I can understand the feeling, but that's just what it is. Correct me if I am wrong, but the rpg trilogy seems to provide lots of side content that make the gameplay flourish. Since there is a lot to do and it's more freeform, players can do more. I have fondness of Ezio Trilogy, but I can say with confidence they shouldn't copy gta formula regarding their mission designs. Like, I wanna do more cool stuff, but the game's side content felt limited. What? Just parkour around? I love the system, but if I want to parkour around, then I should just play Mirror's edge. I want to play as assassin doing assassin work like in AC1. It's straight forward and actually offers what I want. That's why Black Flag and Odyssey succeed. They don't go under the pretenses you are playing as an assassin. You are a pirate and thus the activity centered around that, and you are a mercenary and thus the activity centered around that too.

[@gogetaa11]

To me the mechanic that made me feel most like an assassin was the brotherhood system in AC Brotherhood. It wasn't that fleshed out but it was cool to recruit common people into the brotherhood and develop them into full fledged assassins. I still wonder what that system could be with todays technology.

[@sevanmattar2424]

for me it was in AC 1 when you had an “assassin’s bereau” to stop in at the when you got to each new city so you could get the lay of the land and intel on your target

[@gogetaa11]

@@sevanmattar2424 That too. I think the only flaw with that system was the repetitive investigation. But I think that could easily be solved with today's tech and become something great. Imagine working your way up the ranks like AC 1 and then managing the brotherhood like AC brotherhood. That would be awesome.

[@liamlol1539]

​@@gogetaa11imagine if your assassin rank unlocked new abilities. Novice would be the basic - you get your hidden blade and a few gear items. You work your way up to Master Assasin rank, and then you unlock the ability to recruit your own assassins to call for backup. I think they could go really in-depth with it by adding certain traits to some recruits, e.g some are better in combat while others excel in stealth.

[@YEY0806]

​@liamlol1539 yeah and on top of recruits, you could also gain followers who can aid in social stealth via disguises and even infiltrate bases in order to get you Intel or access to your target

[@funky-monk5626]

Thank you for making such a great video, you really deserve more subs! You and master assassin are the best AC KZbinrs by far

[@loneronin6813]

To me the main things that are consistent between every game are that you free-run around an environment, one group faces off against another in the background over a certain goal, and it's historical fiction. That's more or less the related elements that more or less comprises an Assassin's Creed game. Outside of this, I don't really think there is a single, "True," Assassin's Creed game quite frankly. I don't consider it a series based entirely on specific constants outside of the basic elements they all share in common. What they share in common or don't is usually speaking more about their gameplay than their stories in regards to what I hear people often argue about as to defining what's, "Really an Assassin's Creed game, the traditional gameplay and environments or the open world-style gameplay and environments." I rarely hear people argue about the storylines and whether or not they're truly Assassin's Creed enough in nature, which is what I like about this video given it touches on that aspect of discussion. When it comes to stealth, I've always thought of all of the games to be more action-oriented with stealth elements. That's just my opinion though. I also feel that my opinions on which games were better vs the others are all over the place to be honest. One of my favorites is actually Odyssey, and I think Unity has it's redeemable points and had some free-running mechanics better than most of the other games in both the games before and after it. I honestly think even the open world games had better free-running than the critically acclaimed Assassin's Creed II. However, I really like Ezio's combat style given he can use a cestus that not only increases your unarmed capabilities, but if I remember correctly, it also aides in climbing around, something I don't recall seeing in any other games in the series for the other characters. I also think that most of the games' characters are dull as dishwater and half as deep. I don't much like Ezio overall, but I think he has more character than half of the others, if not more so. He also had perhaps the most development given he had so many games in the series all to himself, so I suppose that was bound to happen. Even though I'm not a huge fan of his personality, I still found him at times pretty hilarious and he did become more likeable as he aged. I would say Odyssey is overall my favorite game in the series, so I'm also in that minority. I liked the impactful feeling of the combat, I loved the environments and traversing them, I enjoyed all the different weapon types I could use (although I think mechanically the spears were the best and most functional melee weapons), and while most people love Black Flag, I mostly dislike it. However, my favorite character out of all the games is Edward Kenway, followed closely by Jacob Frye. While I'm on the topic of which Assassin's Creed game I dislike the most, I have to say I loathe Brotherhood and I think it's the worst and most buggy in the series with the worst mechanics and aspects of every inch of its gameplay. Like I said, my opinions on the series are ridiculously all over the place. I'm looking forward to seeing how the upcoming Mirage turns out as it looks interesting to me, and that's more than I can say about my thoughts on most of the games in the entire series as most of them are just ok to me and little better than that. I mostly play the series for the historical fiction aspects and finding out where and when each one will take place. Assassin's Creed as a series has always been a widely varied roller coaster of a series, and no one game in the series to me is the definitive experience of what makes it Assassin's Creed or not because in my eyes they have never been consistently identifiable as any one singular style or experience, and that's to its credit as far as I'm concerned. Although I think the series is mostly just average on the whole, I still enjoy them and embrace each one of their unique aspects from entry to entry. Even the game in the series that I hate with a burning passion (that being the aforementioned Brotherhood) I still think has its good points despite being mired in what I consider otherwise flawed, cliched, and dated. It set up an interesting narrative and gave Ezio as a character to continue to shape the edges of his story as well as setting up the steppingstones to expand it outward into other uncharted territory. In this series you take the good with the bad and still come out each time with something unique and interesting to be found somewhere, even if it's only in things we may not notice at first. I welcome the games all the same in regards to what they bring as individual experiences, and I will continue to do so for as long as the series continues.

[@aidanpia5458]

Personally I like the ancient trilogy, it shows what we were fighting for and the power the pieces of Eden and the Isu held. It puts into perspective just how massive the world is instead of just "assassinate this guy cause he bad" though now after Valhalla I genuinely do want more assassins to be the forefront going forward. Hopefully Mirage is a step in that direction.

[@godzillazfriction]

wtf is this comment.... oh kill me

[@wasteurtime5677]

I think your measure of "stealth" undermines how social stealth was implemented in the earlier games. Only counting the missions is a bit of a disservice to the rest of the game. Stealth was the default expectation outside of missions. If you were constantly high profile on the way to the objective, then you bring attention from guards. That would eventually turn into a flight or fight situation. Thus "stealth" defined as the correct application of high profile + low profile was the most efficient way to play the game.

[@lennertvandyck5185]

Great video man. I love the fact that you're not afraid to see the franchise from multiple angles and have some good arguments for and against certain element of the games. I enjoyed it :)

[@blakesilver4431]

Increadible video and finally somebody who can reason well enough, but i think what you should definitly also talk about is the evolution of settings in connection with parkour and all the new fantasy additions like unikorns and godlike weapons.

[@thebulletkin8393]

This was a fantastic analysis that has really changed up what I think about the franchise. Honestly my main draw to the series has been the parkour, ever since an xbox 360 gold deal where I got ac4 before I was old enough to buy it I found myself spending time just running around taking people out because I loved the amount of control you had. Many years later I pick up Origins and started off having a good time with it, I played through with the stealth approach and intentionally avoided the upgrades that gave you the really strong gadgets and gizmos because I felt it would take away from the satisfaction of pulling off stealth through your own prowess. Ultimately though I put the game down about three quarters of the way through it because the parkour systems didn't satisfy my intrinsic desires. It felt rather barebones, like I'd mastered it only after a few hours and the areas where I went to do parkour felt like empty spaces that were simple playgrounds to run and jump in without much involvement in the main gameplay loops. So after that I went to pick up the ezio trilogy after hearing it's adoring praise and so far it's been an absolute dream. For one the parkour feels far more engaging, and the fact that guards consistently roam the parkour spaces means my intrinsic desire to learn parkour is rewarded by the ability to exist within the main gameplay loop. So I've come to realize that I'm in that small group of people who enjoy the game mostly for that parkour control, as I could and have spend an hour just jumping around, trying out different routes and finding the most stylish and rewarding ways to get past an obstacle. But origins to me felt mostly like the potential parkour options weren't as engaging, since it felt slow, far too contextual and lacking the control that I'm enjoying so much about the ezio games. Even in situations where there is a long string of obvious planks of wood to run on in the ezio games I will find myself doing a wall eject and finding a different route because that's what's fun for me. Saying that though, stealth in the ezio games just feels more like an extension of parkour to me. I'm not a fan of using the throwing knives or smoke bombs because they feel cheap, so origin's stealth actually felt better in isolation, but for me the parkour is the defining factor. That's the main reason why my main concern for mirage is the parkour. I don't really want to play odyssey or valhalla almost solely because I don't think the parkour systems will offer much of a reward, but i'll happily play the ezio games and black flag even if you aren't necessarily an assassin for the majority of whatever game it is. I'm honestly quite surprised about the whole 'run in one direction and hold space' thing you mentioned, I assumed more people would be into complex parkour but it seems that belongs to the vast minority. All in all I could easily enjoy a game where you don't play as an assassin as long as those parkour mechanics intentionally blend with the gameplay loop and offer enough in the way of intrinsic satisfaction to make it consistently engaging.

[@PlatonicHesaf]

Very well said, Ezio trilogy is currently fells pretty outdated both in combat and stealth, i'm not saying it's a bad game. it is one of my personal favorites in the series but it's not a game that i recommend currently at all, if it was 5 or 6 ago maybe i would have but besides that comparing games one to one, new games have so many better aspects but when it comes to comparison we should look at the time. AC2 introduced a pretty new formula while Origins only reused the same formula which was not unique for it's time at all and compare to 2018 games it's below average. So it's not about AC not being AC anymore for me, it just because it's not a good game,only solid.

[@thesquishedelf1301]

There’s really something special in the fluidity of the parkour in AC2 and Brotherhood. The maps are designed to encourage it _everywhere._ AC1 really kinda avoided such freedom as a thematic thing (and probably technical issues), it plays into the themes of being taunted with an engaging system that isn’t quite finished yet. And starting in Brotherhood, but becoming noticeable in Revelations and egregious in AC3, is a failure to build the environments to keep parkour interesting. In AC2 you need money, so there’s an incentive to walk the confusing streets pickpocketing; but the rooftops are faster, except guards are likely to interrupt you; and the parkour routes in between reward mastery of the systems to be the fastest route of you know what you’re doing. But Revelations trivialised climbing to the point where rooftops is just, unequivocally, the best option, and Brotherhood reduced the use of money as an experience gate. And then AC3 made the freerunning just feel… unresponsive if you didn’t already know the route.

[@BraveInstance]

A reason to enter the animus and visit a specific time period, with an interesting overarching narrative spanning several games. Yes the RPG style gameplay the antithesis of what made the original games good, but the lack of direction in the narrative killed the momentum after Black Flag.

[@alexbamier2194]

Your videos's quality are very good,you deserve atleast 100k subs ngl.

[@Cye22]

Great vid as always One thing you missed jay, is the removal of the midair grab (B or O) in the exit trilogy I always loved that feature always felt to clean hitting a good one. And it gave players so much more freedom

[@captainkirk9691]

This Video is pretty spot on im clearly rethinking my stance on Ac2 and Black flag because i used to say well in black flag you weren't an Assassin until near the end the funny thing is in Ac2 it was the exact same, and gameplay wise Ac2 is much more simple, yet something about Ac2 made me feel more as an assassin to be fair uncle Mario does tell Ezio about the brotherhood and trains him to fight like one, i don't know why Ac2 still feels more Assassin's Creed like i think its because Ezio takes an intrest in learning about the order more than Edward did.

[@sosaysjay]

I think one reason that Ezio feels more like an Assassin is that his story is written as if he was one from beginning to end. If Ezio accepted Mario’s offer from the beginning and was initiated into the Assassins early on, the entirety of the story could have played out in the exact same way. Which again, kind of showcases some of the shallowness of that aspect.

[@Fark2005]

To me, the difference between Ezio and Edward - and the reason I consider AC2 an AC-game while not AC4 - is that fact that all the things Ezio can and does are connected to the Assassins: 1) Ezio is shown to free run and climb with his Assassin brother, so the logical conclusion is that he learnt these skills from him (and likely also to perform a leap of faith). Edward can do free running and climbing because of natural talent and honing those skills working as a seaman, but it makes little sense that he can perform a leap of faith into haystacks (into water makes sense) - or even know it to be possible. 2) Ezio learns the iconic Assassin take-downs from Altaïr’s Codex. Edward can do them because… instinct..? 3) Ezio learns blending and pick-pocketing from an Assassin, Paola. Edward can do it because… instinct… natural talent..? 4) Ezio doesn’t get assassin contracts until the story has progressed to a point where he agrees to do them for Lorenzo de’ Medici. Edward can get assassin contracts before he even knows of the existence of the Assassin Brotherhood. 5) Ezio wears a hidden blade and an Assassin hood because they were given to him by his Assassin father, and because they aid him in his assassin work. Edward steals them from a corpse and continues to wear them because he finds them useful. 6) Ezio does what he does because of a desire to take over his Assassin father’s work, and thus get revenge. Edward does what he does because he wants to be rich. So, while Ezio was not inducted into the Brotherhood until the very end, throughout the majority of the game his motivations and goals are directly related to the Assassin Order. I would also argue that Mario does initiate Ezio into the Order by revealing the Assassin-Templar conflict, the Codex pages, and the Armor of Altaïr. Edward’s goals and motivations, on the other hand, are not aligned with that of the Assassin’s until the end of the game. Ezio is first and foremost an Assassin (though not officially a part of the Brotherhood). Edward is first and foremost a pirate. AC2 fulfils the “assassin power fantasy”, that should be the core of any AC-game, while AC4 fulfils the “pirate power fantasy”.

[@animusdrifter]

​@@sosaysjay While Ezio's story is written as if he was an assassin before initiation, that was honestly partly the case in the first place. I feel like what counters a lot of the shallowness that one can gather from that fact, is that Ezio was quite literally guided by assassins whom he didn't know were actually assassins throughout the whole game. Though he wasn't openly initiated until later into the story, the moment he openly decided to help Mario out with his work was essentially the moment his actual introduction into the brotherhood started. From Paola and La Volpe, to Bartolomeo and Antonio, Ezio was actively guided, and in turn worked with the assassins to achieve a goal he evolved to share with them, before they deemed him skilled and determined enough to ceremonially take him in. What also contributes to the whole deal of how his relationship to them narratively enforces the assassin fantasy, is the fact that after getting initiated, you realize that you've been working with, and now openly support the order that's been staying their blade from the flesh of the innocent, hiding in plain sight, and not compromising the brotherhood the whole time. This is why i feel like Ezio being written as an assassin isn't necessarily an oversight that signifies how shallow his involvement with the brotherhood is, but the opposite - a showcase of the assassins actually doing their job properly, and leading a boy consumed by revenge to become far more - one of them. One could even make the point that his behavior, in the case of Ezio not properly executing his work as an assassin throughout his journey, could in theory be interpreted as a sign of incompetence of everyone who was guiding him along the way.

[@idcwhatyouthinkaboutme]

God, I just found that video on my recommendations, and this channel is an absolute MASTERPIECE

[@sosaysjay]

That is very kind of you, I appreciate you watching!

[@idcwhatyouthinkaboutme]

@@sosaysjay Don't mention it, keep up the good content!

[@The5thsPledger]

The first time I played AC 1 I didn't know English, but going by the visual I was so intrigued about this present day guy diving to these bunch of historical events that I was glued to those scenes, even though "nothing" was really going on for the most part. The concept alone was enough. And after that scene with Desmond acquiring the Eagle Vision, I just had to "study" the game's lore and figure out all of that dialogue. Finally understanding the dialogues, the next few games had me hooked on the present. Not to say Ezio's story was bad, it wasn't, but the drive to play was based on what would be uncovered next so that we could go back to the future with that intel. I particularly remember, after getting to the Auditore Villa and using Eagle Vision and realizing there was a red trail with us, how I lost hours trying to investigate every single inch of the map in order to figure out who was the mole before finishing Ezio's sequences and advancing the story properly. I wish the modern set had been better explored, and even though the ending on AC 3 deserved to be better than it ended up being, the Desmond Saga was my drive and the glue that connected the games in the franchise for me. PS: I was intrigued by AC IV's modern setting, and much like in Brotherhood, I spent a few more hours than normal looking for extra clues, trying to come up with who actually was this character, only to be fully disappointed. None of the others I've played since got me going on what was happening on current day, so, unlike all of the previous games, I had to force myself to get to the end of Unity, and to this day I haven't finished Syndicate nor bought the subsequent entries.

[@sgr_sean]

I wouldnt put ezios story as not playing as an assasin. Giovanni was an assasin, and ezio wouldve probably been sworn in by him at some point or another. But regardless of that, Giovanni entrusts his robes to ezio and mario and the rest of the brotherhood take it upon themselves to essentially train ezio to become a full assasin. Its alot different than the other games where the person being brought into the brotherhood had little to no association prior.

[@Circiely]

Thanks to your video, I now know how to verbally voice my issues with the AC series, which I hadn't been able to do before. Despite playing every AC from my early childhood until just a week ago, there have only been two games I genuinely couldn't get enough of. 1) AC, and 2) Odyssey. I couldn't place why, even after playing a wonderful trilogy like Ezio's, Black Flag, or Origins, Altair and Kassandra seemed much likelier to me (IMO). And now I've finally figured it out. It was the story. I mean, sure, yeah, duh, of course, but I never realized why their stories seemed so different than the others, and that's because their entire story isn't some revenge plot. The Templars in AC1 were truly motivated and not all that comic-book evil. Sure, they used underhanded tactics, and there were one or two truly evil people, but the rest? They actually thought what they were doing was good; they started revolutions to free the people (and yeah, take over, but wtv), and they were the reason Altair initially even began to question the man who RAISED him. And Kassandra? She wasn't just looking for her brother and killing the cult because they took him from her. She killed the cult members because she saw the danger they posed to everyone, not just her family or her friends. She took it upon herself to kill the cultists and, depending on the player, even her own brother, for the betterment of the WORLD. Did I like the retcon of the ISU tech? No. But the story made it all up for me. Ezio, Connor, and the rest are lovely characters, but I think if UBISOFT had given Altair one more game or hadn't taken the "all Templars are evil narcassists and killed the assassins family and now the assassins must get revenge" approach, then Altair could even top Ezio's and Edward's popularity. And I'm not saying the revenge plot is bad, but it got old pretty quickly (again, IMO).

[@dudaseifert]

People complained so much about odyssey having no stealth, which i never understood, because i killed almost everything stealthily

[@zicuvalentin2251]

I know...Played ODYSSEY 3000h😂😂😂...kill 34 500 mercenaries

[@Marizz9]

Thank you for your input! Keep up the good work!

[@willcooper8028]

I’ve been thinking this for so long thank you for validating me

[@urgasil5145]

I think my biggest issue with the newer games is the whole RPGness of them. I haven't been a fan of the recent trend of every game needing a leveling system and every game having the Destiny gear screen. I hated how in Origins I would be unable to really kill someone unless I was at an arbitrary level, or how I had to be a certain level to do the MAIN STORY. I don't enjoy being told to go do other things in the game so that the time I spend in the game is longer. Both Unity and Syndicate suffered (imo) due to the gearing system, but I never felt like if I had a worse piece of gear I was setting myself up for a worse gameplay experience, unlike in Origins and Odyssey where not having a high enough level weapon meant I was actively screwing myself over when it came to fights. I also am still angry that Ubisoft concluded the IRL storyline that had been setup in a comic series instead of the main games.

[@Pooky1991]

I feel like Origins would be perfect if the leveling system didn't exist. It's the only thing in the game I do not care for at all

[@ffionbee]

This video is PERFECTION and absolutely sums up my feelings about AC and the "real ac" discourse to a tee. Absolute banger xo

[@triplezeroxz5875]

Whitleight made a video called "The Heights of AC parkour". In that video, he said something really poignant: "Why is this franchise so sickened by its own potential?" He was talking about parkour, but that statement applies to literally every aspect of Assassin's Creed from the beginning onward. And you so eloquently laid those flaws bare. I appreciate that. (Link to full video about the history of AC parkour here) kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYuyZ4mGapieqLcsi=HXSp-Dfw6DLGAxQS

[@majisekrum41]

MY GOD FINALLY SOMEONE THAT HAS SOME BRAINS. Dude i've been seeing all of this since a lotta time ago, i thought i was the only one, but here you are. Dude i subscribed tfo to your channel, you rock!

[@wilm2109]

I love the old games, but hardcore AC fans have a serious case of rose tinted glasses. How anyone consider them to be stealth games is beyond me, those mechanics were always half-baked and it always took a major backseat when compared to combat. Particularly with chaining kills via counter attacks spamming. The only time you had to take sneaking around with any serious consideration was was those awful trailing missions that even Ubisoft acknowledged were unpopular and gradually phased them out.

[@Abuhan47]

It became an action game with brotherhood

[@thebigsmoke995]

I think looking back at the original AC1 the devs should have put more focus on the social stealth mechanics than any other one. The idea of an assassin originally was the guy with a cape blending in with the crowd. The reveal trailer of that game pretty much tells you everything the franchise SHOULD be. It sucks that they never expanded on social stealth, if you think about it, that's why we never got a crouch button up until Origins, because that should have been the focus all along. In AC2 already they didn't know how to expand upon it, giving us the safer but cluncky stealth sequences of just walking behind a dude and stabbing him as you pointed out. The crowd should be a puzzle within a puzzle. You have people carrying crates, beggars and crazy dudes you have to avoid and be careful about as you walk to the target. That to me was the point all along and something that is unique to that game. The open world only serves as a stage for the real focus of the game, the crowd. Imagine the possibilities of an expanded system like that of AC1, with more npcs doing different things, distracting guards, triggering fights, robbings and so on..

[@YEY0806]

Honestly, I wish they toned down making the Assassins such superhuman badasses who can fight large groups of mooks and instead put more focus on making them more deceitful, sly or cunning. Like the social stealth could have been improved if it required more complicated ways of pulling off. It shouldn't work by just walking into a random group while carrying a whole arsenary of weapons and wearing armour. Like add disguses to make social stealth more sensible with each disguise favouring a different approach to assassinating, like disguising as a cook could allow you access to a kitchen to poison food. It would really pay respect to social stealth if Ubisoft ACTUALLY did a little something with it

[@trevorpearlharbor5171]

You know what I could like? Here's a story I think would work: Let the player create their own assassin and set the story in modern day. Make the player character an initiate who just finished their training, and is tasked with killing Templar targets. Then mid-story, create a scenario were a member of your brotherhood does something irreprehensible that forces the player the question the creed, and give the player a choice to either stay, or abandon the creed and join the templars. After you join the Templars, you use your knowledge of assassins to become an assassin hunter, where you're forced to kill members of your former order at the behest of the Grand Master. Then, like the Assassins, create a scenario were the Templars do something that may or may not shift your values, and leave the Templars. Only this time, you're given the option of going against both sides, and you have the option of changing the world in a way you believe. That way, the character's actions actually effect the present without them sitting in an animus, and you as the player get the question the philosophical perspective of each side, and letting the player decide which side is in the right. And if you think both sides are wrong, your character can change the world yourself without hindrance. Let the player decide which side is write and have them change the world based on that decision. Gameplay wise, you can make each faction play differently, tighten up the stealth and combat, modernize the parkour. Even make it where players can select hidden blades based on the older games: a hidden blade with a gun installed like AC2, a swivel knife hidden blade like in AC3, the Phantom Blade in Unity, a Grapple Blade like Syndicate, etc. Alright, now I'm just making shit up, but man. A story like the above could change this series.

[@AdityaSathya]

This video is so good! Great job

[@DarthTingleBinks]

Regarding Odyssey's lack of Assassins, I've always felt it made sense. Even when we see... Fuck. I've forgotten his name. But the dude with the first recorded hidden blade. In AC2, on one of Altaïr's journal entires, he discusses his belief that the Assassin Brotherhood was likely not the first group or organization to pursue the same goals, or to fight against the Templars. Odyssey is basically the living embodiment of that with both Kassandra and the other dude, who is FIRMLY established and emboldened in the history of the Assassin Brotherhood. And both of them (through his son), are ancestors of the the chick in Origins we barely get to play as (I forget a lot of people's names, okay), who forms the Hidden Ones alongside Bayek.

[@endertuber8300]

The problem stems from the fact that just the year before Odyssey we saw how the brotherhood came to be... we saw that even if it was loosely based off the Medjays' order, everything that characterized the Assassins from that point forward was born with Bayek and Aya... the idea to oppose the powerful from the shadows, the iconography, the hidden blade itself... and at no point of the story we are shown that those ideas and methods have an older origin... Aya got the hidden-blade from Cleopatra, the brotherhood was Bayek's ideas and the tenents of the Creed are born in the Hidden Ones' DLC... Odyssey it's so obviously something written after Origins' story that the ties it tries to create with the previous game fall flat and only creates plot-holes... why would Aya have Bayek wear the hidden blade "wrong" if she was the heir of the blade? Why didn't her Isu blood function when interacting with the Apple? Unfortunately Origins did write AC to a corner placing the Brotherhood later, but Odyssey did nothing but worsen that...

[@DarthTingleBinks]

@@endertuber8300 1. Going back to Altaïr's journal entry, he emphasizes the fact that ideas aren't created. Any and all ideas have been thought before, and if not then they will be again. The Hidden Ones wasn't the beginning of the ideas and goals that the Assassins later have, it's just one time people with similar ideas came together to form an organization and take down the Templars. Origins shows the beginning of the Assassin Brotherhood, but not the ideas and goals and motivations that drive it. 2. Bayek didn't wear the blade wrong. There was an accident with him wearing the blade where he accidentally cut off his finger. Presumably, this had never happened before because this creates the tradition of cutting off a finger when you become an Assassin and aquire a hidden blade. Meaning anyone who wielded the blade before Bayek and Aya simply never cut off their finger before. 3. Kassandra is half Isu, which is why her Isu DNA is so prevalent. Aya's Isu DNA, if she even has any, would be so washed down through constant human breeding that it may as well not even be there.

[@endertuber8300]

@@DarthTingleBinks 1. There is a great difference between individual ideas being thought before and those ideas being "arranged" into an actual system of beliefs and creeds without direct correlations... all of Bayek and Aya's ideas of how to structure the new Brotherhood come from their direct experience against the Order of Ancients, not an older creed or cult they discovered and took direct inspiration from. 2. You are just describing what happened in the game. No one before Bayek wore the blade except its creator, Darius. He was the first after him and (no matter how dumb of a retcon it Is) wore the blade wrong and cut his finger because of It; 3. Humans after 75.000 years still have Isu DNA in them, some more some less, of course Aya would still have Isu DNA after just three centuries after Kassandra...

[@DarthTingleBinks]

@@endertuber8300 1. You still don't get it. I'm not saying Bayek and Aya took inspiration from anyone, I'm saying they're not the only people to ever adopt those ideas. What they do is completely separate and independent from what Darius did other than the fact they both fight the Order of Ancients. Again, ideas can't be traced back to a single beginning, because people all over have the same thoughts completely independently from one another. And they can have these thoughts at the same time, or decades or even centuries apart. 2. Bayek wore the hidden blade the same way Darius did. So if Darius was the only other person to wear a hidden blade before Bayek (which we still don't know to be the case, as Darius merely marks the first recorded instance of a hidden blade being used), than it's not an issue he ever came across. I did basically just restate the events of the game. But that is because the events of the game speak for themselves. 3. That's not really how DNA. When someone has a child, thay child doesn't have have of all DNA from them, it takes half of the total DNA in them. So Kassandra's kid may or may not half aquired any Isu DNA at all. It's a complete roll of the dice. And then on top of that, there's still the DNA from the other parent. So after 300 years of breeding, that Isu DNA could very well be gone. Or it could still be there but only as a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

[@endertuber8300]

@@DarthTingleBinks People sharing the broad idea of freedom a liberty from tiranny in different countries and ages =/= those people all sharing also the same identical methods and iconography all of the time without connections with each others; What!? Darius wore the blade ABOVE the wrist instead of UNDER the wrist as the Assassins do! Except that Isu DNA instead follows wacky AC blood logic that allow someone to relive their ancestors' memories...

[@many_lives4925]

As good of an analysis as this video was on the mechanics of Assassin's Creed games he left out the one absolutely vital and necessary element of the franchise that makes any of these games a true Assassins Creed story: the Pieces of Eden and the First Civilization. That is what people mean when they say the Ezio trilogy was the peak of the franchise. Ezio's story had the MOST focus on it. It had the mystery of the First Civ and the variety of the Pieces of Eden that made the story significantly shine above other action/stealth games out there. That was what kept bringing me back to the story. Seeing where things would go with the precursor race and what influence they had in human's history and what their goals were. If you don't have a significant focus of the First Civilization in an AC story then it will never be a true AC game.

[@lukethelegend9705]

Valhalla and Odyssey have more focus on the first civilization than the Ezio games combined

[@magnenoalex2]

The modern story was what I cared about the most and it has been effectively dropped since after 4

[@magnenoalex2]

I heard a theory that originally watch dogs was gonna be modern day assassin's stuff so the AC games could focus on the past exclusively which....... Makes a lot of sense but at some point they dropped that idea. It is still in the same universe cause Abstergo and other cameos exist in it but it essentially has nothing to do with AC

[@Hobrick]

Fantastic video! I do think it's very interesting the way some people look at the older games and act like they are something they are not.

[@penislaegen]

Another amazing video Jay! You got me back into AC!!

[@sosaysjay]

Thank you!

[@CappnRob]

Excellent video overall. I divorced this series with Unity because of how frustrated I was with it, and I absolutely agree this series was in decline long before the post movie soft reboot "myth era" games (Origin/Odyssey/Valhalla). Those games simply brought front and center and cemented with obvious mechanics (ie skill trees) what had been going on for years. AC2 revamped combat because people complained too much that AC1's combat was tedious. AC2 introduced all kinds of fun gimmicky set pieces because people complained AC1 was too repetitive and boring. I think for its time, on its own, AC2 was a good pace changer, though it overcorrected too hard in places (such as basically only giving us 3 Desmond sections, one at the very start, one at the dead middle, and one at the very end because people complained about Desmond too much). However, the followups decided to.... keep deviating from that point. You're absolutely right when you said the Idea of Assassin's Creed never really manifested as a game beyond the first one. It's for reasons like this I can't stand Ubisoft as developers anymore. They are so uncommitted to ideas, only market speculation. I could rant harder about other things they slipped and slept on - Unity's nonsensical plot directions, Black Flag's garbage historical authenticity (even by AC standards), AC3's inconsistent character writing, Rogue's wimping out on exploring ideological schisms, the series overall gradual loss of focus on pace in favor of key jangling side systems, but that's all tertiary to the point you've made. Mirage looks to be more of the same, and it frustrates me that people are gonna lap it up as "Assassin's Creed is back!" just because it does away with some dumb baby's first RPG mechanics, but still has dumb ass things like literal teleporting between enemies to kill them instead of actually trying to integrate thoughtful parkour, platforming, and both social and traditional stealth. A series can not return to a state it has never truly been in. It makes me sad that the potential of AC1 will forever go unrealized.

[@tandy9631]

Brilliant, the hard work you put into these videos does not go unnoticed. great work

[@mikhaelgribkov4117]

This video is great and honestly puts into open the things I myself noticed while growing up and being in the discussions. I would love you to make video on how each game uses modern setting and your opinion on Watch Dogs crossover and what you want from them to continue.

[@brianlefko4404]

Hey Jay, I just want to say I’ve never played an Assassin’s Creed game, but I find your videos really interesting and engaging. I watch with my brother who does play the games, and you always manage to keep my attention nonetheless. These are just really well-made videos, keep up the good work!😊

[@sosaysjay]

Thanks Brian, I’m really glad you enjoy them!

[@sna-vsndlx88]

I always felt the same way tbh. When I finished Origins I honestly was surprised a bunch of people said it wasn’t stealthy at all when I spent my playthrough sneaking around and pulling off stealth kills way more than any AC I played before lmao

[@pressrepeat2000]

Exactly. Stealth was great in Origins. Although even better in Odyssey because it was harder. You couldn’t take down every enemy with just one hit in stealth, you had to build up to take on the strong armoured ones. And plan a route.

[@rafaelsousa2633]

I think a reason for this was how they made killing harder. People complain a lot how in Original/Odyssey you can't just press a button and assassinate the target, but I think it was a very good decision. Starting from Brotherhood, where they introduced chain assassinations, combat became trivially easy. Why would you stealth when going against an army was much more efficient? And stealth itself was too easy too, with dumb AI, ranged weapons and one button kills. Origins/Odyssey at least requires some effort if you want to do stealth, which I think is good.

[@BaldwinIV_of_Jerusalem]

I think thats the problem with the "og fans" is that the game isnt telling them to play stealthy like it did in the early games. The newer games made it optional which the complaint for it seems odd to me because it is optional if you wanna play stealth then just play stealth no one is forcing you to not do that thats why its optional. Like what was said in the video, old AC games were more cinematic which is why it didnt give the players much creativity on how they would assassinate the target. Its mainly directing you how you should do it rather than you planning how to do it. Unlike in the newer games including Unity and Syndicate, where you have freedom how would you wanna execute your plan. Im in no way fan of the rpg and grindy elements but the stealth imo is an improvement, I spent more time planning how to assassinate a target in the newer games than I did in the older ones.

[@steffon3650]

​@@BaldwinIV_of_JerusalemBeautiful comment.

[@gianlucasorrentino7426]

This is it. Everything you're saying is what every "AC fan" should hear. Great points, well done.

[@swarm1392]

Great video! Your voice quality has increased drastically since the last vid, did you get a new mic?

[@bibbus3588]

I have finally recently got around to playing Assasins creed: black flag and as a long time fan of the series i think it does an amazing job at giving a great story and improving upon everything we had loved about the series until that point and providing fresh and unique gameplay and mechanics. I think the small things like the corner takedowns and the blowdart helped make it so when stealth was needed you had plenty of options for a wide variety of situations you could tackle stealth in any number of ways hell even to some extent even your ship had some stealth missions having to keep out of sight of enemy boats.

[@gnb_2476]

Thanks for bringing this up. I have always said this to those who say that Odyssey is not an AC game. Great video and analysis.

[@unc54]

I mean critiquing the "ACness" of the Ezio games doesn't magically make Odyssey fit the formula, It just highlights how far back the identity degradation started. If anything Odyssey getting rid of the iconography represents just how lost the series is and how generic it has become.

[@gnb_2476]

@hemanthswarna2327 what you say is true.

[@stubblytuna4068]

i still think its a good game but it has nothing in common with any of the other games so its hard for me to call it an AC game but ill always enjoy it at heart

[@lukethelegend9705]

@@unc54that doesn’t change the fact that odyssey is, and always will be, an assassins creed game.

[@olivermylesjazz]

Great video man...Very nuanced points made :) Hope the Mirage devs can see this !! Replaying Origins now and it seems like they found a good balance for stealth and fighting. You can stealth kill an entire garrison for style points and feel pretty good about it. The strategic approach and stealth in those situations feels the most like "REAL" AC for me. Yes, theres a bow and some tools, but the hidden blade is still king. Of the three RPG games, Origins feels like it didn't get lost in the sauce yet and was still clinging to simpler mechanics and simpler ability system that makes the game easy to pick up and enjoy.

[@vladprus4019]

For me the shift was less on "action vs non-action", but the inclusion of "RPG" elements in more... "post-classical" sense, that is: 1. Characters and enemies have "levels" that are main thing that determines your strength, same enemies are differently levelled in the arbitrary locations which makes no nonse in-universe. Also, level difference itself is changing mechanics, basically feeling has shifted from "I'm a badass warrior/stealth killer who can take on enemies" to "Is my arbitrary number high enough?" (well, this is my personal grudge against how levels are often implemented - completly decoupled from what they meant to represent in the classical RPGs, put on more to get player feel the sense of progression even if it makes feeling of the world breaking) 2. Weapons have complex stats, stats and you rely on loot.. yeah, this is totally what I search for in this game, replacing weapons every 5 minutes, because this one is identical, but has 5% damage increase... If I want those thig 3. Combat based on those from Dark Souls and the Witcher which is is technically fine, but it emphasized different things than the previous ones - more metodical, slower, with the focus on overcoming challenges and fighting powerful bosses. Older one was much more "you are a cool badass warrior who can do sick moves". I have the feeling that combat like this in Batman games wouldn't make people that contetious.

[@AlbedoAtoned]

I think you are misunderstanding some things. Most of what people liked about the older AC games was the gameplay that had stealth as a focus. Even if combat was easy, the stealth allowed you to have a power fantasy. There's also the freedom that climbing brought, which at the time it came out, it was rare for you to be able to climb a building, leap from building, or leap onto enemies. The reason why people like Ezio so much is because, even though he technically isn't inducted into the assassins until near the end of AC2, his goals align with the assassins to the point where the brotherhood is secretly training and helping him all throughout the game. People also loved the story with Desmond as well, he''s a man that has to live through the memories of his ancestors, gaining their abilities, but also putting his sanity at risk like with what happened to Subject 16. So at the end of AC3, a part of the series died. The modern day stuff since then has honestly never been good. But at the end of the day, what drew me to the series most was the gameplay. And while each of the different eras brought something to the series that made them fun as stealth games, the witcher 3 clones never seemed appealing to me. I like the social stealth, the power fantasy of being somebody that can end an enemy by getting into their blindspot, pulling them off a ledge or into a haystack, or jumping at them from a high vantage point. Or being able to grab them with a rope dart and hang them. Or being able to get them to attack their allies and kill or be killed by them. Even though I also tend to like RPGs, the combat and stealth system in the latest games doesn't appeal to me. Instead, in the time since the series moved to being Witcher 3 clones, the game that most filled that niche has been Ghost of Tsushima. This is a game that has nothing to do with Assasins or Templars. At the end of the day though, it lets the player act out their desire to be a samurai and/or ninja. And though there is no Ezio or Desmond, no secret organizations fighting in the background, the story of an honorable samurai becoming more and more of a ghost is just as appealing if not moreso.

[@pressrepeat2000]

The latest Hitman trilogy probably fills that old AC style space for assassin games. They’re great, but there’s little feeling of progress as it’s the opposite of an RPG. Your character just stay the same, he gets no new abilities or grows as a person, only the location and targets change.

[@AlbedoAtoned]

@@pressrepeat2000 Yeah Hitman games are very fun, but they are quite a bit different than AC. In AC, enemies are your only concern. If you kill an enemy in the street, worst that can happen is that more enemies show up and you have to fight them too or run. Enemies also tend to forget you quite easily. Once they give up their pursuit, you can literally get right in their faces again and they will not really react unless you do something to provoke them. In Hitman, everybody is a factor, and not everybody is an enemy. In fact the games discourage killing anybody that is not the target. If somebody finds a body, they will report it, and guards will be on the look out for suspicious individuals. If somebody knows that you are the killer, then that disguise is compromised for that person and they will report it to any security authority they find. If security is engaging with you, and you escape they will actively look for you and even if you somehow manage to get them to give up the pursuit, they will still remember your "face", meaning you need a new disguise. This can be heavily detrimental since your disguise affects where you can go without arousing suspicion.

[@pressrepeat2000]

@@AlbedoAtoned I’m just saying that a lot of people who want AC to be more “assassin” like seem to want what Hitman has. Silent assassinations, social stealth etc. Those games have very intricate assassination mechanics. I personally love those games but I like the recent AC RPG games more, because of the characters and story and the world. The Hitman games are also beautiful and amazing “assassin” games, but not as fun IMO on the whole. I spent way more time playing AC than Hitman because of that.

[@DL-nn1ws]

Having played a few of the games, it almost ends up just being the iconography. People are more in love with the idea of “Look, I wear a cloak, I have a hidden dagger, I can move like if I was a superhuman, and I belong to a cool underground assassin society fighting baddies”. That’s AC in a nutshell. Every game tried to put its own spin on it. AC1, the Ezio trilogy, AC4, Unity and Syndicate, etc. Stealth was always an illusion that was perpetuated by people liking the idea more than the concept, and so was parkour. It’s not like it shouldn’t be more, but people always gravitate towards simpler things while pretending they are more complex than they are to feel better about themselves. Newer games should definitely try to be better, as in, coherent storytelling, functional game mechanics, no P2W, no unnecessary grinding, better graphics, etc. But they shouldn’t chase the ideal of what an “Assassin’s Creed” is because there is none. It isn’t about being in the brotherhood like AC1, Unity, etc. It isn’t about the character like AC4, Unity, etc. It isn’t about the scenery or the time period. It isn’t about Ezio. It isn’t about mechanics that only exist as ideals. AC is “cool guy in hoodie does cool thing”, and with that you can make any game you want

[@indedgames4359]

Ther hatet the bigger plot so much that gets moved out of the games into the infinity hub now...... i hate the fanbase

[@diewott1337]

​@@indedgames4359The modern story was never going to work under Ubisoft. It needed time and a end goal sight, something like The Witcher trilogy. Ubisoft just saw the franchise as pure money maker since the beginning.

[@gor764]

I began the franchise with Assassin's Creed III and then went back to Ezio. I remember being puzzled as to why people thought those games felt more assassin-y than AC3. I felt they weren't. The stealth didn't feel as good for me.

[@jaydenburgess1824]

I am in love with this video because for one: you popped up randomly in the first bar of my home page. For two, AC 2 was literally one of the two games i got brand new on my very first personal gaming console the PS3 so the franchise is very dear to my heart & for three, one of my good college friends argue about this to this day, I am a fan of "old ac" & he is only familiar with "new ac" so it is pleasant to see this conversation talked about because I am not apart of internet discourse as much as I probably should be. So as a lifelong gamer, thank you for this video.

[@largebig79]

just finished valhalla and thought it was great, idgaf if its a "real" assassins creed game or not. its the first game since AC 3 that has made me invested in the modern day plot and lore of assassins creed and despite what i see alot of people say, stealth is a completely viable and fun option for 90% of valhalla