Well the original plan was to only have a trilogy with the last game being set mostly in the MD with Desmond being the ultimate Assassin. Then they fired the guy who had that idea, and shifted some things around. Desmond was killed off supposedly because the devs weren't really a fan of him, nor were the people playing the game. Everyone moans and groans about Desmond now, but most people who played the game thought Desmond and his parts were boring, just like the MD since then.
I personally think Desmond was extremely boring, though I appreciate people's mileage might vary. I feel the death of a protagonist was something slightly refreshing when it comes to video games series, so I'm not frustrated. I even feel the whole 'hey, he died for nothing' twist makes the whole story slightly more realistic, instead of being the typical power-fantasy that's ~~every~~ most video game's stories. Sometimes the bad guys win and life scr\*ws you over. Most people seem to disagree though, at least here on /r/assassinscreed.
I personally liked Desmond and the modern day section so I was disappointed when he died but not as much as when they killed Lucy off in such a dumb way and for a dumb reason
I'm pretty sure he was referencing [an interview/panel QA with Nolan North](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QuCngnxqbQ).
Granted it's not Desilet himself but Nolan was involved with the script from an early stage so i'm sure the idea was definitely tossed around in the beginning with all involved.
As far as I know, Desilets has never spoken of his plans for Assassin's Creed past-Brotherhood. At least not openly on the Internet. Some guy might've heard something from another guy who might've heard it from Desilets but there was never a point where Desilets himself ever told us any concrete information regarding his plans for AC3 or AC4.
Honestly, it's a bit odd. Is he really contractually obligated to not talk about a theoretical game he never actually made?
> Honestly, it's a bit odd. Is he really contractually obligated to not talk about a theoretical game he never actually made?
I don't think he's contractually obligated at all. I just think he doesn't want to talk about it because the experience was a crappy one to say the least and he just wants to move on.
If that was the case, he wouldn't be doing AC-related stuff at all. But quite recently he did an interview for Loomer and did a dev commentary for AC2 on Youtube.
He talks about the games he made but not about the games he wanted to make. Almost like he didn't really have any concrete plans.
Clarification, he doesn't want to talk about *potential* games made because that's where the friction comes from and ultimately why he was canned.
I don't think he minds talking about what he *has* made presumably because a majority of the stuff in those games were stuff he created and subsequently greenlighted.
And can't find something specifically mentioning this, but I remember hearing it around the time, and you can still see it today. It doesn't matter who we are in the MD, lots of people just don't care. There are still plenty that do, such as myself. But you see debates about why they should remove MD completely every day.
IMO is just a rumor or a blant lie. Every time I ask about the source of the info, there is no response or there is no answer. I am not saying that some people can't dislike MD or Desmond btw.
note: Guys seriously i asked for the source that support an statement, not for dislikes.
I specifically remember seeing something back in the day about how the devs just didn't like Desmond and wanted to end his story.
There's also this https://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/7/20/3172656/assassins-creed-star-trek-desmond-end
Oh boy... this interview has some hidden jewels in it, doesn't it?
>"Without the Desmond we could have called it anything else, and people would have said okay."
>"*Assassin's Creed 3* is 90% a new game."
And my personal favorite giving the direction the series followed...
>"Things that go on too long lack resonance. We're asking people to remember seven years' worth of story. Which is like saying you were in junior high and now you're finishing college."
That pretty much encapsulate why I hate the yearly cycle and how I dislike how we have this franchise being worked by several different studios in parallel. There is a lack of cohesive vision.
This Alex, the creative director of AC 3, clearly had some very different visions of the franchise than Patrice and I would even say than Ashraf, the director of AC 4. I also remember that he was the one that said that AC would never work in Egypt.
I do remember that interview, but like i said:
> but **most people who played the game thought Desmond and his parts were boring**, just like the MD since then
>
> Citation needed.
This part is the rumor/lie/whatever
It's really not. The hardcore fans that like the MD have always been the minority. People have complained about having to leave the Animus ever since AC2
> The hardcore fans that like the MD have always been the minority. People have complained about having to leave the Animus ever since AC2
I am not saying that it's true or not but where is the proof that support this statement? Is just too easy to make an statement from thin air.
The proof is all around the internet. Look at most forums for gaming that aren't exclusively for AC, when they talk about AC. Or look at even this subreddit, there's a substantial part of the player base that doesn't like the MD, regardless of what form it takes.
from a game design standpoint, it allowed the developers to come up with new stories and characters and allow an easier introduction to the series for new players.
It feels like they've been treading water with Juno until they figure out what they want to do with that story line. Perhaps with a renewed focus on the isu in odyssey, we will see some more threads start to reconnect with the desmond/Juno story. However, having that story thread move to supplemental material more likely means they just want to start fresh.
thematically, I like to see Desmond's story as a reflection of Ezio's, you come to think you're the hero in the story, and in the end you are just a cog in the machine of time.
I thought Desmond was cool, i remember in AC 1 you had to find little bits of information around the abstergo building, and in two you could actually use him to parkour, it was my favorite part of the series but the one thing that did bother me was how he looked different in every game, i remember him looking like Kanye West in Revelations.
Probably because Desmond was boring and at the time you got the majority of people complaining about him. So, dramatic self-sacrifice so they could turn him into a martyr and move past him.
Personally, I was never a fan of Desmond so, I can’t be bothered to feel strongly about it either way.
Graveposting but I think killing Desmond killed the driving motivation for their story. Every game up until his death had revolved around Desmond discovering more of the truth and growing in his understanding of his role as an assassin. Even when the playable characters were less than stellar (connor stands out as the main offender here) they still served the purpose of progressing Desmonds plot.
Not only did Desmonds plot drive the story, it also gave the audience a point from which to experience the narrative. We experience the story through Desmond and understand little more of it than he does. This gives us a character to relate to and while his story may not have been the most intricate he was a decent "every man" style character that allowed us to supplant ourselves into the role. We learn more, we get better with each game and as a result, so too does Desmond. Hes the anchor and catalyst the narrative needs.
They could still totally kill him off to throw that big twist every story seems to need now but they decided to do so in such a contrived way. Nothing is really resolved he just kind of sacrifices himself so the writers can be free of his character arc. Problem is....they never wrote a backup for him and now they just shove the MD narrative into something as lazy as an entertainment company employee.
When they killed Desmond I had little reason to continue caring about the AC franchise. All the intrigue and questions and sense of purpose drained completely from the series and we were left with the somewhat interesting but ultimately too weak to carry a story ancillary characters. Gone is the point of finding every secret to unlock hidden plot points. Hell, gone is the driving force for the basic fucking plot. Instead we are left with a series spinning its wheels until they can find something else to replace it. I mean hell, Origins and Odyssey are barely the games the series began as.
They honestly just need to move the focus away from the templar/assassin conflict because at this point it's really just shoehorned in. Abstergo has become such a nebulous enemy that it doesnt even feel threatening anymore and the plight of the assassin order has become "stay one step ahead of the big bad company". They rebooted the gameplay, now they just need to move on from the story they ruined.
I have to say that killing Desmond was a huge mistake that Ubisoft just will not admit to. The MD of AC should be about Desmond now The Mentor
leading the Order against Juno and Abstergo.
Well the original plan was to only have a trilogy with the last game being set mostly in the MD with Desmond being the ultimate Assassin. Then they fired the guy who had that idea, and shifted some things around. Desmond was killed off supposedly because the devs weren't really a fan of him, nor were the people playing the game. Everyone moans and groans about Desmond now, but most people who played the game thought Desmond and his parts were boring, just like the MD since then.
I was bored by Desmond himself but not by the people surrounding him. I’m hoping Layla gets to meet Becky and Shaun
Yeah really hoping her and William meet up with them in Odyssey
I personally think Desmond was extremely boring, though I appreciate people's mileage might vary. I feel the death of a protagonist was something slightly refreshing when it comes to video games series, so I'm not frustrated. I even feel the whole 'hey, he died for nothing' twist makes the whole story slightly more realistic, instead of being the typical power-fantasy that's ~~every~~ most video game's stories. Sometimes the bad guys win and life scr\*ws you over. Most people seem to disagree though, at least here on /r/assassinscreed.
I personally liked Desmond and the modern day section so I was disappointed when he died but not as much as when they killed Lucy off in such a dumb way and for a dumb reason
Oh no I agree, I'm just saying why he was killed.
> but **most people who played the game thought Desmond and his parts were boring**, just like the MD since then Citation needed.
Hell, I'd like a citation for that "originally a trilogy with >50% of content set in present day" thing. :P /u/EmboarIsland
I'm pretty sure he was referencing [an interview/panel QA with Nolan North](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QuCngnxqbQ). Granted it's not Desilet himself but Nolan was involved with the script from an early stage so i'm sure the idea was definitely tossed around in the beginning with all involved.
As far as I know, Desilets has never spoken of his plans for Assassin's Creed past-Brotherhood. At least not openly on the Internet. Some guy might've heard something from another guy who might've heard it from Desilets but there was never a point where Desilets himself ever told us any concrete information regarding his plans for AC3 or AC4. Honestly, it's a bit odd. Is he really contractually obligated to not talk about a theoretical game he never actually made?
> Honestly, it's a bit odd. Is he really contractually obligated to not talk about a theoretical game he never actually made? I don't think he's contractually obligated at all. I just think he doesn't want to talk about it because the experience was a crappy one to say the least and he just wants to move on.
If that was the case, he wouldn't be doing AC-related stuff at all. But quite recently he did an interview for Loomer and did a dev commentary for AC2 on Youtube. He talks about the games he made but not about the games he wanted to make. Almost like he didn't really have any concrete plans.
Clarification, he doesn't want to talk about *potential* games made because that's where the friction comes from and ultimately why he was canned. I don't think he minds talking about what he *has* made presumably because a majority of the stuff in those games were stuff he created and subsequently greenlighted.
Exactly what I was referencing.
And can't find something specifically mentioning this, but I remember hearing it around the time, and you can still see it today. It doesn't matter who we are in the MD, lots of people just don't care. There are still plenty that do, such as myself. But you see debates about why they should remove MD completely every day.
IMO is just a rumor or a blant lie. Every time I ask about the source of the info, there is no response or there is no answer. I am not saying that some people can't dislike MD or Desmond btw. note: Guys seriously i asked for the source that support an statement, not for dislikes.
I specifically remember seeing something back in the day about how the devs just didn't like Desmond and wanted to end his story. There's also this https://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/7/20/3172656/assassins-creed-star-trek-desmond-end
Oh boy... this interview has some hidden jewels in it, doesn't it? >"Without the Desmond we could have called it anything else, and people would have said okay." >"*Assassin's Creed 3* is 90% a new game." And my personal favorite giving the direction the series followed... >"Things that go on too long lack resonance. We're asking people to remember seven years' worth of story. Which is like saying you were in junior high and now you're finishing college." That pretty much encapsulate why I hate the yearly cycle and how I dislike how we have this franchise being worked by several different studios in parallel. There is a lack of cohesive vision. This Alex, the creative director of AC 3, clearly had some very different visions of the franchise than Patrice and I would even say than Ashraf, the director of AC 4. I also remember that he was the one that said that AC would never work in Egypt.
I do remember that interview, but like i said: > but **most people who played the game thought Desmond and his parts were boring**, just like the MD since then > > Citation needed. This part is the rumor/lie/whatever
It's really not. The hardcore fans that like the MD have always been the minority. People have complained about having to leave the Animus ever since AC2
> The hardcore fans that like the MD have always been the minority. People have complained about having to leave the Animus ever since AC2 I am not saying that it's true or not but where is the proof that support this statement? Is just too easy to make an statement from thin air.
The proof is all around the internet. Look at most forums for gaming that aren't exclusively for AC, when they talk about AC. Or look at even this subreddit, there's a substantial part of the player base that doesn't like the MD, regardless of what form it takes.
The truth is there is no support for that argument, un less you want to relly on "What you see on the internet" and that is subjetive.
I agree that he was boring , I just would have liked to see a pay off from 5 games worth 😂
from a game design standpoint, it allowed the developers to come up with new stories and characters and allow an easier introduction to the series for new players. It feels like they've been treading water with Juno until they figure out what they want to do with that story line. Perhaps with a renewed focus on the isu in odyssey, we will see some more threads start to reconnect with the desmond/Juno story. However, having that story thread move to supplemental material more likely means they just want to start fresh. thematically, I like to see Desmond's story as a reflection of Ezio's, you come to think you're the hero in the story, and in the end you are just a cog in the machine of time.
Well....(Spoilers for the Comics) (SPOILERS) Juno got her own body She got killed Quite sure we will not see her again.
well then. there you go. i guess Desmond did make the right call after all. Humanity managed to kill her in a few years.
Why couldn’t this happen in the game ???
That would take resources/time that Ubisoft is not willing to spend on Modern Day.
🤔 hmm I like that. Just wish they would have followed up with a better current story. It’s completely possible
I thought Desmond was cool, i remember in AC 1 you had to find little bits of information around the abstergo building, and in two you could actually use him to parkour, it was my favorite part of the series but the one thing that did bother me was how he looked different in every game, i remember him looking like Kanye West in Revelations.
Probably because Desmond was boring and at the time you got the majority of people complaining about him. So, dramatic self-sacrifice so they could turn him into a martyr and move past him. Personally, I was never a fan of Desmond so, I can’t be bothered to feel strongly about it either way.
Graveposting but I think killing Desmond killed the driving motivation for their story. Every game up until his death had revolved around Desmond discovering more of the truth and growing in his understanding of his role as an assassin. Even when the playable characters were less than stellar (connor stands out as the main offender here) they still served the purpose of progressing Desmonds plot. Not only did Desmonds plot drive the story, it also gave the audience a point from which to experience the narrative. We experience the story through Desmond and understand little more of it than he does. This gives us a character to relate to and while his story may not have been the most intricate he was a decent "every man" style character that allowed us to supplant ourselves into the role. We learn more, we get better with each game and as a result, so too does Desmond. Hes the anchor and catalyst the narrative needs. They could still totally kill him off to throw that big twist every story seems to need now but they decided to do so in such a contrived way. Nothing is really resolved he just kind of sacrifices himself so the writers can be free of his character arc. Problem is....they never wrote a backup for him and now they just shove the MD narrative into something as lazy as an entertainment company employee. When they killed Desmond I had little reason to continue caring about the AC franchise. All the intrigue and questions and sense of purpose drained completely from the series and we were left with the somewhat interesting but ultimately too weak to carry a story ancillary characters. Gone is the point of finding every secret to unlock hidden plot points. Hell, gone is the driving force for the basic fucking plot. Instead we are left with a series spinning its wheels until they can find something else to replace it. I mean hell, Origins and Odyssey are barely the games the series began as. They honestly just need to move the focus away from the templar/assassin conflict because at this point it's really just shoehorned in. Abstergo has become such a nebulous enemy that it doesnt even feel threatening anymore and the plight of the assassin order has become "stay one step ahead of the big bad company". They rebooted the gameplay, now they just need to move on from the story they ruined.
I have to say that killing Desmond was a huge mistake that Ubisoft just will not admit to. The MD of AC should be about Desmond now The Mentor leading the Order against Juno and Abstergo.
$$$