• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Assassin's Creed Unity - First Footage [PC/PS4/XB1, French Revolution, Holiday 2014]

Either way, he was boring and that's what matters in the end. I wasn't the least bit interested in his story or what happened to him which is not due to my lack of trying. Seriously, I cared more for Haytham than I did for Connor and that's saying something, considering Haytham is supposed to be an antagonist in the game. The whole of AC3's story was just awful. I hope we won't see a repeat of that in Unity as I would hate to see them butcher such an interesting setting with an awful story.
Edited, misread your post.

The point is, he was supposed to be likeable. Which is why they tried pulling the twist. Hell, the whole theme of the game revolved around contrasts and he certainly contrasted Connor's personality. Loved it.

Edit 2: And that's the point of the article I linked. How Connor isn't the male powerfantasy role we're used to and comfortable with. I happily Iapped it up and enjoyed myself. Others like yourself, not so much... which is why we got one dimensional, rally ho hero for AC4 (well I'm sure his development was far enough along during AC3, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out a lot of fluff and character development was cut because of fan reaction to AC3).
 

Harlequin

Member
"Saying something" as in "this is fact because I said so"? Or "saying something" as in "I dislike him and only prefer white, arrogant protagonists like everyone else"?

What's it say because I want to know why I'm wrong?!

You conveniently read over the parts where I said "I wasn't the least bit interested..." and "I cared more for Haytham than I did for Connor...", huh? And why the fuck are you bringing race into this? I liked Haytham better because he was the more interesting character in terms of background and personality. I never said he would be a likable person in real life because he doesn't have to be in order for him to be an interesting character in a work of fiction. In fact, many people who're really nice persons in real life would be horribly boring to read a book, watch a show or play a game about.

And "that's saying something" is merely an idiom. In this context it means that me caring more for the antagonist than for the protagonist underlines how incredibly boring and uninteresting I found the latter to be. I don't understand how you could think it had anything to do with me presenting anything as fact that isn't. The fact is I found him to be boring. I never said him being boring is an empirical fact or that everyone shares my opinion.

EDIT: And I couldn't care less for male macho protagonists. That doesn't mean I want boring ones, either, though. You can write non-stereotypical, non-sexist male characters without making them utterly devoid of interesting personality traits. Not to mention that Connor's background was still utterly cliché for an action-adventure hero.
 

GladiatoR

Banned
"Saying something" as in "this is fact because I said so"? Or "saying something" as in "I dislike him and only prefer white, arrogant protagonists like everyone else"?

What's it say because I want to know why I'm wrong?!

The point is, he was supposed to be likeable. Which is why they tried pulling the twist. Hell, the whole theme of the game revolved around contrasts and he certainly contrasted Connor's personality. Loved it.

Edit 2: And that's the point of the article I linked. How Connor isn't the male powerfantasy role we're used to and comfortable with. I happily Iapped it up and enjoyed myself. Others like yourself, not so much... which is why we got one dimensional, rally ho hero for AC4 (well I'm sure his development was far enough along during AC3, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out a lot of fluff and character development was cut because of fan reaction to AC3).

That's quite the leap there.

Connor was the worst protag I've ever seen in a game. No lie. But, opinions.
 
You conveniently read over the parts where I said "I wasn't the least bit interested..." and "I cared more for Haytham than I did for Connor...", huh? And why the fuck are you bringing race into this? I liked Haytham better because he was the more interesting character in terms of background and personality. I never said he would be a likable person in real life because he doesn't have to be in order for him to be an interesting character in a work of fiction. In fact, many people who're really nice persons in real life would be horribly boring to read a book, watch a show or play a game about.

And "that's saying something" is merely an idiom. In this context it means that me caring more for the antagonist than for the protagonist underlines how incredibly boring and uninteresting I found the latter to be. I don't understand how you could think it had anything to do with me presenting anything as fact that isn't. The fact is I found him to be boring. I never said that that's an empirical fact or that everyone shares my opinion.
I'm sorry, I edited once I realized I had ignored your "considering he was supposed to be the antagonst..." part. I read it as "I think Connor sucks and Haytham rocks and that's saying something." I apologize but my other points stand.
 
Fair enough ;). See my edit.
I grew up going to powwows with my native American side of the family and American Rev war reeanctments and Masonic lodge stuff from my wife's family so as you can imagine, I'm pretty biased. Connor's multiple conflicts between father figures and mentors and leaders I found to be quite tragic especially in his innocnet and naive delivery. I just didn't find it boring but I guess it isn't exactly engaging either.. but I just don't see how it's being considered cliche. I'd like to know of similar examples.
 

Harlequin

Member
The whole "mother dies in fire in front of her son"-thing was very cliché, for example. And how he always kept fighting the good fight (even when it shouldn't have been apparent to him which fight was the good fight) and saying exactly the right things. I also think some aspects of his character sound interesting on paper but the execution is very lacking. For example, you could do a lot of interesting stuff with a naive protagonist who eventually becomes disillusioned by the world. The father-son relationship, too, although I think that was one of the few parts of the story that I actually found mildly interesting (I tend to attribute it to Haytham's involvement but Connor's inner turmoil might have played a part in it, too). One of the scenes that keeps popping up in my head when I think of Connor is the one where he talks with (I think it was Washington?) about slavery and Connor pretty much argues just the way a modern-day person would just to make him more appealing and likable to the audience. If they had really wanted to do something interesting with his supposed innocence and naivety, they would've let him suck it all up like a sponge, instead of making him wiser than a man who is not only much older than him but is also considered to be one of the greatest men of his time. That's a small example, sure, but it's one which really epitomises his awfully cheesy can-do-no-wrong attitude for me.

But yeah. some of the problems with Connor's character probably have to do with the story's presentation. It just felt like a disjointed mess which had way too many historical events crammed into it just for the sake of it and without any care for pacing or dramaturgy. Most of the characters didn't get any proper characterisation. Achilles is probably the best example in that regard. He was supposed to be an important part of Connor's life and played a very significant role in the story but we never really got to know him and then I think he died and the game presented it in a way that told me I should feel bad because this very important character had died but I just didn't because the game had never really given me a reason to care about him. But this goes for most characters, really. That weird guy who ended up being the main antagonist (I've forgotten his name), for example. Couldn't have cared less about him. I think the only characters I really ended up finding interesting were Haytham and Connor's mom. So yeah, if he had been presented in a different way, maybe I would've found him more interesting (although I would definitely have still rolled my eyes at some of his actions and statements). But as it stands I just don't.
 
The whole "mother dies in fire in front of her son"-thing was very cliché, for example. And how he always kept fighting the good fight (even when it shouldn't have been apparent to him which fight was the good fight) and saying exactly the right things. I also think some aspects of his character sound interesting on paper but the execution is very lacking. For example, you could do a lot of interesting stuff with a naive protagonist who eventually becomes disillusioned by the world. The father-son relationship, too, although I think that was one of the few parts of the story that I actually found mildly interesting (I tend to attribute it to Haytham's involvement but Connor's inner turmoil might have played a part in it, too). One of the scenes that keeps popping up in my head when I think of Connor is the one where he talks with (I think it was Washington?) about slavery and Connor pretty much argues just the way a modern-day person would just to make him more appealing and likable to the audience. If they had really wanted to do something interesting with his supposed innocence and naivety, they would've let him suck it all up like a sponge, instead of making him wiser than a man who is not only much older than him but is also considered to be one of the greatest men of his time. That's a small example, sure, but it's one which really epitomises his awfully cheesy can-do-no-wrong attitude for me.

But yeah. some of the problems with Connor's character probably have to do with the story's presentation. It just felt like a disjointed mess which had way too many historical events crammed into it just for the sake of it and without any care for pacing or dramaturgy. Most of the characters didn't get any proper characterisation. Achilles is probably the best example in that regard. He was supposed to be an important part of Connor's life and played a very significant role in the story but we never really got to know him and then I think he died and the game presented it in a way that told me I should feel bad because this very important character had died but I just didn't because the game had never really given me a reason to care about him. But this goes for most characters, really. That weird guy who ended up being the main antagonist (I've forgotten his name), for example. Couldn't have cared less about him. I think the only characters I really ended up finding interesting were Haytham and Connor's mom. So yeah, if he had been presented in a different way, maybe I would've found him more interesting (although I would definitely have still rolled my eyes at some of his actions and statements). But as it stands I just don't.
I agree with the "on paper" part because honestly, I have done more of the filling in the blanks in my head than with what the game presents to the player. BUT, I also went through and replayed several missions to 100% it and completed all of the homestead missions which really changed my tune on the game. I saw what they were going for more clearly. I mentioned my bias but it didn't start that way. I'm sure you can find negative posts from me early on in the OT, even sharing a glitch video. I hated the game. But something clicked. Maybe it was the fact that I didn't mind playing as a boring and flawed character for once. Homestead missions revolved around helping civilians doing civilian things. What? An assassin doesn't just stalk through the streets doing assassination missions all day? I found that interesting.

Ezio, the darling of this series, shares these same tropes, just in a more charming manner ;).
 
I really hope Jesper Kyd is back for this one. He's perfect for European settings.

Found this on Ubi's forums.

Jesper Kyd to be working on four major titles shown at E3 possibly one being Unity.

Fucking hnnnnnng. I'm pretty pelased about the fact it's the director who did Revelations too. I thought that was a great character focused chapter that did a great job of closing Ezio's story out. Some great stuff in that game too. I really just want a return to the sense of history and architecture that was prevelant with the AC2 games. Got good feels for this one.
 

Harlequin

Member
Ezio, the darling of this series, shares these same tropes, just in a more charming manner ;).

Ezio definitely is horribly stereotypical but with him it's so extreme that it kind of feels intentional and maybe also a little ironic (I feel like AC2 took itself quite a bit less seriously than AC3 did). Plus they managed to make him somewhat interesting despite his cheesiness and the story as a whole was way better. (Again, I guess that's at least partially connected.) But yeah, I will admit to rolling my eyes at quite a few of his scenes, too. Especially the ones that showed his womanising adventures. And don't even get me started on Revelations. That game's story was a boring mess, too (albeit not quite as messy as 3's). The only thing that redeemed it was its ending. The first game's story is still my favourite, though. Altair felt like an authentic character for the most part, the plot was interesting and well-paced, plus they managed to tell it almost without cutscenes which is impressive in a generation which is infamous for its "cinematic experiences".
 
Ezio definitely is horribly stereotypical but with him it's so extreme that it kind of feels intentional and maybe also a little ironic (I feel like AC2 took itself quite a bit less seriously than AC3 did). Plus they managed to make him somewhat interesting despite his cheesiness and the story as a whole was way better. (Again, I guess that's at least partially connected.) But yeah, I will admit to rolling my eyes at quite a few of his scenes, too. Especially the ones that showed his womanising adventures. And don't even get me started on Revelations. That game's story was a boring mess, too (albeit not quite as messy as 3's). The only thing that redeemed it was its ending. The first game's story is still my favourite, though. Altair felt like an authentic character for the most part, the plot was interesting and well-paced, plus they managed to tell it almost without cutscenes which is impressive in a generation which is infamous for its "cinematic experiences".

Jesus man. To each their own and all that but you prefer AC1's story and Altair to the AC 2 stuff, and consider revelations a boring mess in comparison? Something's just weren't to be haha. I say this only to highlight the absolute contrast between us though, not to demean your opinion, totally fair if that's what you prefer, I just don't see it.
 
Top Bottom