Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
>every possible templar we've seen from ac1 all the way to ac 4
All of the Templars in AC1 had grey areas that made Altair doubt his actions and ultimately question why he was killing these men, hence starting the climax of the game, so no, the series started off with the grey morality of the conflict and not with good vs evil, which sadly turned into good vs evil as the Borgias twisted their mustaches. Then things went back to questioning the Assasins with Ahmet in Revelations, and kept going with Haytham and his crew through AC3 (Because Connor ultimately ruined the best chance the colonies had at a diplomatic resolution by being manipulated by the most representative Founding Fathers).
Claiming that the series is all about good vs evil kind of misses the entirety of the whole debate the series has been trying to pull off since it's conception.
How can you say connor "ruined" the "only" diplomatic resolution, if the templars murdered anyone who was against them? they murdered innocents at every possible step and yet everyone praises them lol.
Did you not pay attention to what they often had to say? I mean they look like bad guys because you are often sent to kill them, but the whole point of AC3 is that Connor is manipulated and betrayed by those he works with, and ultimately the ones who would help his people are the ones that he himself kills on behalf of those who advocate "freedom".
Again, the dialogue the Templars provide in AC1, 3, Rogue, sometimes in IV and often in Unity are meant to show that neither side is good or evil, they both have people looking after their own interest aligning with either side, and those interests don't prevent said pepole from pursuing noble ideals or corrupted goals.
Al Mualim wasn't a Templar. They explicitly say so. And no, Altair did doubted his actions after every assassination because in the end his targets did not think the way he thought they did. You should really pay attention to what your targets say in the memory corridor.
If you wanna think the series is all about good vs evil then more power to you, but Imo, you're missing out on what the games have tried to say about how pointless ideological conflicts can become.
they only recently they began to persuade you that assassins are as bad as templars in ac3 and rogue, because they started running out of ideas for the game.
imo youre completely missing the point of the games. at least, the REAL point it used to be when the games were good
Well that's a bit over the top.
Like it or not, the games have always been about the Creed, wether they are the center piece or not, they are always a looming pressence, even in AC4 in which you're not playing as an Assassin at any point.
If you wanna lock the "REAL" point to the first two games then by all means do so, but as I've said before, the series started with a grey morality that fueled Altair's character development and it all got watered down in AC2. I'm not saying that's bad, I liked AC2 and the whole Borgias subject, but the series has far more to offer than pety villains with predictable motives.
Imo, the series constantly advocates the dangers of fanaticism, and that's something one can easily fall into when you consider that a group of hooded men and women who kill any who opposes them happens to be "good". They're not good, neither group is good, even Ezio went as far as burning an entire city just for one target, which ironically Bellec condemns as an act of the devil only commited by the Templars.
The series were always about 'good vs evil' hence why sacrifices were made in ac3 to save the world, because the templars couldnt do it, hence why ezio sacrificed everything in his life for the creed ultimately saving italy from the evil hierarchy and turkey as well.
btw. The only reason why you liekd the templars in ac3, was because of haytham. let me remind you who was haythams father, and who thought haytham the morals of life. Thats the only reason haytham is better than other templars, because he was an assassin first before he was brainwashed
You can't tell what I like and why I like it (Or as you put, why I "liekd"), I liked Haytham a lot, specially his final boss dialogue, but that was not because his father was Edward, we didn't even know who Edward was by the time we met Haytham and I doubt Edward ever taught him anything related to the nature of democracy which are his strongest points in AC3.
Look, again, if you wanna boil it down to a mere "good vs evil" deal then by all means, do as you please, but don't pretend the series hasn't had more to offer or that it hasn't already questioned the foundation of the assassins time and time again (Even from the first game). I'm not trying to convince you otherwise either way, and I expect you don't believe you can convince me of the contrary either, if you're gonna keep saying the same things then I'll just move along honestly.