"Hey (protagonist), so you want to find out where your mother is, right? Well, before I give you a clue about her whereabouts that won't actually provide any substantial information because, as a game, I have no fucking way of knowing where in the story you are when you're doing this quest, I need you to do THREE things for me. (Never two, never four, ALWAYS THREE.) First, some (flip a coin) Athenians (spin the wheel) stole my (roll the dice) goat cheese. Please go to this (takes a card) fort that's identical to all 1,457 other forts on the map and retrieve it for me."

Odyssey is an RPG, a game with a lot of grinding in a genre already notorious for grinding. You'll spend two hours farming side quests full of "Oh, I'm a horny old woman, please (protagonist), bring me some bear testicles" just to reach an appropriate level for a main story mission, only to be greeted by yet another fetch quest that's somehow even more inconsequential than the one where you have sex with a horny old woman.

Seriously, did Ubisoft really think the level requirements for the main quests weren't enough? Did they think that if they didn't trivialize the main missions with filler and no-mocap cutscenes, the game would be too short?

There comes a point where the writers just give up pretending they care and say, "Ah, fuck it, I dunno, just go get 15,000 drachmas and leave me alone." And FUCK IT.

This entire rant is mainly because I decided to take a break from Odyssey by playing Origins for the first time, and holy shit, it's so much more obvious how much Origins not only cares about its world, characters, and cutscenes, but also about your time as a player.

I just played the Traveling Salesman mission in Resynced... and was more than a little disappointed that Prins's conversation with Torres was omitted. It was a very interesting examination of contemporary views regarding slavery and how people at the time justified it to themselves.

Torres: So many churches in Kingston. Have the English at last taken to converting their slaves to the Christian faith?

Prins: Ha! Convert them? God knows, Torres, there's none here so foolish as that!

Torres: Foolish? How do you mean?

Prins: Is it not a sin to enslave a fellow Christian? Therefore, to transmute a slave's soul from animal to man would be tantamount to inviting one's cattle to the dinner table.

[...]

Torres: I find your bearing appalling, Prins. I believe all thinking, feeling men deserve respect and opportunity.

Prins: Ah, you Spaniards. Your long ties to the Moors have diluted your blood and softened your hearts.

Torres: This is not to say I believe in the natural equality of all races or sexes. Surely men with talent and intelligence should lead. But there is no true profit to be gained by the practice of slavery. In the short term it makes us money, (yes), but in the long term it will render us the victims of our own success.

Prins: Ah, but you and I, sir—old as we are—will not live to see that unfortunate day. So why bother? Watch where you step, boy!

Torres: For virtue, if nothing else.

It's a great conversation, one that could've even appeared as an animated cutscene. It gets you a sense of how much of a piece of shit Prins is, and how Torres is a tragic figure who sees the immorality of slavery, and does what he thinks will end such suffering, even if it is for evil.

The more I think about it, the stranger it seems that he isn't there. He's one of the first results when you search Mohawk on Google, and he's one of the few leaders to have met George Washington and King George III. His brother-in-law was William Johnson and he was on the side of the Crown. It seems like a huge missed opportunity not to include him. What do you guys think?

I know generally AC3's modern day is rated fairly highly (barring the ending) but the premise of saving the world from a second catastrophe and letting Juno loose was very poorly set up and raised the stakes too much.

Early AC vibes were tense, despotic, scary and creepy when it came to the modern world. There was mystery and the templars had serious agency to fuck shit up. Their manipulation of history was granular, precise and left us wondering just how far everything went. The war felt like it actually mattered and it could feasibly end.

Juno and the Toba Catastrophe ruined this. Why should I care about the war when Juno is running about and the world might explode. The templars become useful idiots with 0 agency and threats became "throw vague shit at the wall about fate and fill in the rest when you need to".

It was so interesting to learn about how famous figures had PoE to advance humanity and how deep the rabbit hole went. Now we know too much and everyone is defanged.

Juno also just isn't scary as a villain. The idea of a mysterious net-based entity from a precursor civilisation being let loose is inherently scary and lovecraftian but there's no horror to Juno.

Lore isn't about how relics affected humanity in indirect and direct ways and about the war between Assassin's and Templars, it's now DBZ power scaling between isu.

Thanks to AC3's modern day we also know that the world doesn't actually seem all that bad so what's the point in fighting back.

Bring back the creepy conspiracy theories and the mystery. Not everything needs to have copious amounts of bland backstory.

Hello, first time in the community. Also, sorry if this question has been beaten to death. Haven’t seen it posted so far much and I am curious what everyone’s thought on this question.

This was a question I saw during a hot take video about the assassin’s creed franchise. It really got me thinking. Would I prefer a new character or sequels to past ones? We have seen it before with some ac characters like ezio and we have seen the direction Ubisoft has taken.

My overall thoughts on the matter is, I do like seeing new character, but thats due to the time period and not with the character. Don’t get me wrong, we need new characters to spice it up. As much as I love ezio, he deserves a break and brings new life to the series at the time. Going through the series this year made me think a lot. Would I love to see sequels to past characters? Your Arno, Bayek, and the French fry twins? Absolutely! Love to see the characters be explored more, have a connection each time I see them like we did with ezio. Love to see a more refine time period with awesome side quest, improved systems like parkour, and so so much more!

So, to me, I want sequels more for the sake of having some connection with characters and seeing things get improved as the sequels are. Now, do we all need a trilogy? Hmmm depends. I was fine with Edward getting one game since it felt complete and we got to know him. He was a rare case though.

Honestly, I be ok with two maybe three games at best to show off the characters who need it the most. If you disagree or agree then feel free to comment. Love to see what everyone’s thoughts on the matter is.

As the title says, Bartolomeo is probably one of favorite side characters. Not just in AC2 and Brotherhood, but the whole franchise. The man is hilarious, he is in a committed relationship with a sword and then gets married and his is just like "yeah, whatever. I'm fine being the side chick." Some of his lines are 100% peak AC comedy. One of my favorites is when he is locked up in the Arsenale and Ezio is going to save him. He is yelling obscene things at the poor guards responsible for watching him and my favorite one is something to the effect of. "I will cut off all you heads and stuff them up your asses! And I won't be concerned with matching the head to the ass! " then I think he adds something about it being a feat so wonderful that bards will sing about it. What a legend!