Ass Creed rapes history some more

[Shakermaker]

Ubisoft has announced the fourth installment of the Assassin's Creed trilogy. In Ass Creed Revelations Ezio will this time travel to Istanbul to kill some more people. Because that is what he supposedly does. I wouldn't really know because I only played the first two games for about a couple of hours before I got annoyed by the game's mechanics. Plus the plot is so obviously influenced by Dan Brown that it hurts the brain. And in that aspect Revelations is no exception. From the press release:

In Assassin’s Creed Revelations, master assassin Ezio Auditore walks in the footsteps of his legendary mentor, Altaïr, on a journey of discovery and revelation. It is a perilous path – one that will take Ezio to Constantinople, the heart of the Ottoman Empire, where a growing army of Templars threatens to destabilize the region.

The heart of the Ottoman Empire is called Istanbul. Constantinople was the Byzantine name. It only makes sense if Altair makes a return and he visits the city during the Fourth Crusade. Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders and after that Westerners ruled the city for about half a century. But still, Templars hardly played a role because they were concentrated in the Holy Land. With that in mind, have a look at this picture:

In the background you can see what is most likely the Hagia Sofia. This church was built during the sixth century and was converted into a mosque after the Turks took over. You can see four minarets which means that the date has to be after 1570. One thing's for sure, there were absolutely no Templars during that time. It all doesn't make sense.

I don't know where this rant came from. Discuss, I guess.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The turks kept the name constantiinople uptill the 19th century, when the Greeks wanted to take it back by force, they changed it to istanbul.

 

[StarBob]

Well the story is actually pretty interesting if you play more than a couple of hours in to the games. There are some innaccuracies, but the whole game is this sci-fi kind of mockup so it's not really about what you see but more about what it all means in the big picture. You can't hate on a game for historical inaccuracies when you're pretty much handed straight away the fact that what you're seeing is a perceived recreation drawn from a combination of various historical reference and DNA MEMORIES... the latter of which pretty much has no scientific foundation at all. Weird ass shit goes down as the game progresses. You'd be pretty well advised to accept that the game is a work of fiction for entertainment... not a history book. Of course that's the case with pretty much any game...

 

[Shakermaker]

The turks kept the name constantiinople uptill the 19th century, when the Greeks wanted to take it back by force, they changed it to istanbul.

Not entirely true. A Turkish version of Constantinople was used until the 19th century in some official documents, but Istanbul had been used since way back in the 11th century as the Turkish name of the city. Which brings me to Starbob's post.

You'd be pretty well advised to accept that the game is a work of fiction for entertainment... not a history book. Of course that's the case with pretty much any game...

Of course, totally agreed. But at least abide by historical conventions. Like the one where Istanbul is called Istanbul after 1453, simply to make clear that the Turks are ruling the city.

 

[Mr. Djees]

Ezio would have called the city Constantinople, being an italian.

In the Assassins Creed universe the Templars are the main antagonists and exist even to this day, as an extremely powerful but shadowy organisation. Much like the Illuminati in the Brown books.

 

[Shakermaker]

Ezio would have called the city Constantinople, being an italian.

In the Assassins Creed universe the Templars are the main antagonists and exist even to this day, as an extremely powerful but shadowy organisation. Much like the Illuminati in the Brown books.

Yeah, you're probably right. Also about the story, and I guess that is what I don't like about the series. I hate Dan Brown.

 

[Mr. Djees]

Oh, I hate him too, the difference for me is that Dan Brown seems to believe some of the crackpot theories he puts out there, that's not an issue with Assassins Creed.

Also, I love stabbing dudes in the face and neck.

 

[Yorick]

Why the hell hasn't this series caught up to the present day yet? I thought it was only slated to be a trilogy

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Yeah and I thought they were done with Ezio...I like him but he's had two bloody games already. I was hoping for at least the 19th-20th century.
Anyways here's a bit more.

As predicted, Revelations is scheduled for release before year's end, in November.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/16375-assassins-creed-revelations-wraps-up-ezios-trilogy/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin's_Creed:_Revelations

 

[Tony]

Isn't he an elderly man by Renaissance standards, now?

The original plan was to keep it a trilogy with the third one coming out in 2012ish. But I guess that all went to hell when Ubisoft recognized AC as one of their flagship series and started demanding yearly releases.

 

[Mr. Djees]

Yeah, Ubisoft doesn't have that much going on right now so they are probably trying to "Activision" the shit out AC. Rayman ain't bringing in the money like he used to.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

It's a pity, while Brotherhood was 'entertaining,' it wasn't nearly as 'epic' as AC2.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

It's a pity, while Brotherhood was 'entertaining,' it wasn't nearly as 'epic' as AC2.

They are about in equal term, Brotherhood improved some gameplay mechanics from AC2 but that's about it.

This game is way too soon. And they need to get rid of Ezio and make a fresh new character in a different period of history. Somewhere around either the 30 Years War or The French Revolution.

 

[Krynn72]

 

[Acepilotf14]

They are about in equal term, Brotherhood improved some gameplay mechanics from AC2 but that's about it.

All it managed to do was shove 400x the pointless sidequests at you that have little substance and take melee combat at make it...

even easier.

I mean, that whole combo counter thing? Holy shit, it's like they took stupidly easy combat and just went ahead and gave you a 'win' button so you wouldn't have to take so long. Ridiculous and made getting caught just a chore instead of a OH SHIT I BETTER GET OUTTA HERE moment.

however yeah I couldn't even finish brotherhood because it was just THE SAME and that bugged me when I really got tired of ezio's antics and it didn't seem like a proper sequel, more like a derpy expansion pack.

I'll skip this and wait until they change the time period again I guess

 

[AtomicSpark]

But then you wont know what happens.

 

[Acepilotf14]

you lovely people can tell me when it comes to that!

 

[lord_raken]

Oh dear, I think that's a gray beard on Ezio. Come on! We've had enough of him. He was a great character, but there has to be another awesome Assassin is Desmond's DNA

 

[AtomicSpark]

I only care about the modern day Desmond storyline. ):

 

[Combine Hybrid]

I only care about the modern day Desmond storyline. ):

Modern day Demond storyline seems to be convoluted as ****. I'm beginning to hate these stupid half-ass endings in every single AC games.

 

[Gargantou]

Boring, here I was wanting an Ass Creed set in Warring States-era Japan!

 

[Yorick]

Modern day Demond storyline seems to be convoluted as ****. I'm beginning to hate these stupid half-ass endings in every single AC games.

It really is. But I'm still hoping that it'll at least be fun. Assassin's Creed 2 made some definite improvements over the first one, but it still felt like the same exact game with a marginally different setting. I didn't play Brotherhood because wtf more of the same. I doubt I'll even bother picking this one up.

The fact that they're calling it the "last chapter of the Ezio trilogy" makes me think that we're going to get TO START THE ENTIRE THING ALL OVER WITH A NEW ANCESTOR. A CAVE MAN. 70 SIDE QUESTS WHERE YOU PAINT ON THE WALLS.

 

[soulslicer]

MEH!. I'm tired of them rushing out an AC game every year now. Ubisoft knows it's a huge money making success, and probably rushed the devs to make another one. That probably resulted in this setting, reusing the same old models and all, save time perhaps?

I wanna see like 16th-18th century stuff..!

 

[Yorick]

NOPE YOU'LL GET MORE 15TH-16TH CENTURY AND YOU'LL LIKE IT.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

12th century*

 

[Stigmata]

It'd be cool if Desmond ended up being blood-related to Faith from Mirror's Edge.

 

[Yorick]

12th century*

Ezio was born in the mid 1400's there chief.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

Boring, here I was wanting an Ass Creed set in Warring States-era Japan!

Who gives a shit about warring state japan. I'm so tired of these settings. And I doubt Demond has an Asian DNA in him.

At least, do French Revolution, 30 Years War, or even American Revolution setting for game like this. Especially the 30 Years War.

12th century*

Someone obviously failed his history class.

 

[ríomhaire]

It really is. But I'm still hoping that it'll at least be fun. Assassin's Creed 2 made some definite improvements over the first one, but it still felt like the same exact game with a marginally different setting. I didn't play Brotherhood because wtf more of the same. I doubt I'll even bother picking this one up.

The fact that they're calling it the "last chapter of the Ezio trilogy" makes me think that we're going to get TO START THE ENTIRE THING ALL OVER WITH A NEW ANCESTOR. A CAVE MAN. 70 SIDE QUESTS WHERE YOU PAINT ON THE WALLS.

Then it turns out the brain machine was actually looking into the post WWIII future which you must then try to stop in the next AC game by going further into the future!

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Ezio was born in the mid 1400's there chief.

I was referring to Altaïr's time period. But it seems I was mistaken, I thought this was involving Ezio time traveling back to meet Altaïr.

 

[Dynasty]

Well the story is actually pretty interesting if you play more than a couple of hours in to the games. There are some innaccuracies, but the whole game is this sci-fi kind of mockup so it's not really about what you see but more about what it all means in the big picture. You can't hate on a game for historical inaccuracies when you're pretty much handed straight away the fact that what you're seeing is a perceived recreation drawn from a combination of various historical reference and DNA MEMORIES... the latter of which pretty much has no scientific foundation at all. Weird ass shit goes down as the game progresses. You'd be pretty well advised to accept that the game is a work of fiction for entertainment... not a history book. Of course that's the case with pretty much any game...

Exactly.

It is ultimately a game, so whilst the core fundamentals is based on history, they have to twist it for entertainment. I'm sure all the previous AC games weren't accurate, but they were awesome fun.

Doesn't really bother me if it's not accurate, but I can see the argument that if they are basing a game on historical events, atleast get those right first.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I kinda like the Ass Creed games. I just like jumping around.

'Templars' are a dumb conspiracy made-up secret society enemy rather than a historical inaccuracy, and 'Constantinople' might have just been the press release playing to people's sense of archaism over 'Instanbul'.

 

[Tony]

'Templars' are a dumb conspiracy made-up secret society enemy rather than a historical inaccuracy, and 'Constantinople' might have just been the press release playing to people's sense of archaism over 'Instanbul'.

I like how they smush the Templars into every major world event somehow. Though after Brotherhood, it's getting a little ridiculous: "Oh, they're responsible for the BP Oil Spill! NWO conspiracy!!!!"

AC has a decent story arc, but it seems like they're really stretching it thin with all these extra games. Brotherhood's war against the Vatican basically turned into "random s*** that happens in Rome"

 

[Combine Hybrid]

Templars are like cockroaches. Kill their leaders and they still manage to thrive every time.

This is why Templars are much better than assassins. Even if Altair and Ezio manage to kill their leaders, Templars still manage to beat them and even become one of the strongest organization. It's like assassins are inferior to templars in every way possible.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I'm sure if you look at it with a sharp enough eye, the story isn't exactly concrete thick, but ever since the Minerva thing I stopped trying.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I love AC2 and AC:Bro but I really never gave a shit about the meta-story. The game itself has a fun and intriguing narrative enough to keep me jumping from the rooftops - I don't need to be sucked out into some crappy sci-fi buggery every fifteen minutes to justify historical inconsistencies.

...and that all brings me back to the ridiculousness of the OP's threat title in the first place. The entire point of the Creed series is to "ass rape" history. If it was just historically accurate you'd probably die of VD before you hit 24.

 

[stuperhunt]

I never liked the Assassin's Creed games. I'm not one for sneaking around that much, I prefer just straight up killing people and causing a ruckus

 

[DEATHMASTER]

You can do that too. It's called a high profile kill, or GTA mode as I like to think of it. I'm just tired of this "kill 3 civilians and you suicide."
Killjoys.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

I'm sure if you look at it with a sharp enough eye, the story isn't exactly concrete thick, but ever since the Minerva thing I stopped trying.

Pretty much this. The whole "Those who came before us" thing is just ludicrous. AC's plot went further into the toilet drainage because of it.

 

[Dynasty]

But doesnt almost every game of this generation have a ludicrous plot? Every film? Execution is key of course, but no story line lately can be related to.

Its entertainment, something we seem to have lost sight of these days. Now its all multiplayer, stupid set-pieces, graphics and console b**ching.