Ubisoft intends to rid Assassin's Creed of Desmond... eventually

Assassin's Creed 3 creative lead Alex Hutchinson said at a recent Ubisoft press event that the series needs to move on from its protracted modern day storyline about aggressively ordinary everyman Desmond Miles.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Amazingmrbrock2336d ago

Please do, desmonds been boring since the first game and very little has changed in that regard throughout the series.

Although its kinda seemed like they were working up to having him be some kind of modern day assassin he's just to bloody bland to be a good star.

ApolloTheBoss2336d ago

I was expecting him to be the playable assassin in 3 myself, but sadly that's not the case. Just hope that he ends in this one and they can move on to a better character. maybe one of Japanese descent where he's ancestor is in Feudal Japan.

rpd1232336d ago

The creative director has said that WWII, Feudal Japan, and Ancient Egypt are the 3 worst possible settings he could think of for an Assassins Creed game.

But yeah they need to get rid of Desmond. Let's be honest, nobody plays AC for the present day story. That's just kind of there. We just want to kick ass in various historic settings. The present day story has gotten more interesting, but not because of Desmond. The gods and civilization before ours make a good story and cycle of destruction.

ShoryukenII2336d ago (Edited 2336d ago )


Do you have a link? That would be a very weird thing to say, especially while they are making AC3.

KaBaW2336d ago (Edited 2336d ago )

Yeah, I've seen that before, too. Which I don't quite agree with.
At least for one of em. I can understand WW2 not being a great setting.
Mainly because it's not just 'one' setting, and the tanks and gun thing.
Egypt.. the time period itself would be awesome, I would think.
The only problem there, was I don't believe they really had .. buildings?
Not large buildings, anyway, or city like layouts for that matter.
However, Feudal Japan.. I think that setting could actually work out well.
The buildings would be neat to scale, and fighting Samurais? Ooohwee.

rpd1232335d ago


Here's an article with the quote. I think that they want to go more outside the box and get a setting nobody would see coming.


I think that WWII would be a bad setting for the game and while the political and social parts of Egypt would work, the cities would not at all. It's a desert so the signature Assassin parkour wouldn't be there. I guess they had some buildings but I don't see it being very fun to run around in. I do think that Feudal Japan would be awesome. It has good settings and samurai warlords would make a great story. But I guess we'll never see it. They did say they might do one in India, which I could see being alright depending on the time period.

KaBaW2334d ago

Seems like we have the same opinions on that matter; that's cool.
I think Egypt as a location, and time period, would be awesome..
I just don't think the .. landscape, city wise, would make for a good AC game.
And, indeed, I could see AC being pretty great in Feudal Japan.
Maybe one day they will make a spin off title that takes place there?
I could see India making for a decent game, not sure about cities there.
If it's like Constantinople, that would be good. And, elephants! :D

rpd1232334d ago


Yeah I totally agree. Egypt is good in every area but landscape. And hopefully one day a game set in Feudal Japan will be made. Samurai, ninjas, it'd be awesome. Maybe once Desmond's story is finished, we will get to see some more variations in setting. It's been pretty Western so far, with the exception of the first game.

Don't know much about Indian history, but I assume they have good cities for an Assassin's Creed game, seeing as how the creative director thinks it's a good idea.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2334d ago
Them_Bones2336d ago

You can blame Nolan North for the lack of enthusiasm he adds to Desmonds character.

ShoryukenII2336d ago

Or Ubisoft for not making him care. He seems to care a lot about Uncharted and Troy Baker seems to care a lot about The Last of Us. Maybe Ubisoft doesn't do that.

FOXDIE2335d ago

wow, Dident know Nolan played the character. Nolan North sure is getting milked this gen! :P

iamnsuperman2336d ago (Edited 2336d ago )

To be fair what could Ubisoft really do with Desmond. He is a character who's only (and should be) job is to combine the stories from other games into a sensible and logical matter. Desmond isn't the main character. Far from it. The main characters are the people in the past. Desmond enables the overall story to go forward. Expect if they get rid of Desmond then another character will replace him of similar caliber otherwise the story will get to convoluted

AzaziL2336d ago

With his genetics (Altair, Ezio, Connor), figured some of it should've rubbed off on him. Instead he's like the polar opposite of his ancestors.

Maybe his good genes were suppressed and the animus is a way of unlocking them, thus making Desmond grow a pair and become a more appealing character.

Nimblest-Assassin2336d ago (Edited 2336d ago )

Im guessing Im the only one who actually likes desmond...

Alex Hutchinson said that AC3 is desmonds final game, however they said they are going to do something really hard with Desmond

They are going to try and make him likeable, and make him a badass like his ancestors

Watch their panel at comic con, one of the Q&A was whats up with desmond

After AC3, desmond is gone, but they want him to go out with a bang

Who knows.... Desmond might become the next Raiden

jlukee2335d ago (Edited 2335d ago )

I like Desmond but I think the main problem is that he is outshone by the likes of Altair and Ezio. Ubisoft have tried to build Desmond up as the main protagonist over the entire series so far, but the protagonists of each game have stood out more.

Also, the story is set during a time when the Assassins are mostly in hiding due to the power of the Templars. So we shouldn't expect Desmond to be sprinting across modern cities in a similar fashion to how Ezio and Altair did during their time.

Like someone else has said below though, the best thing about the Assassins creed games are actually playing as the ancestor's of Desmond. Desmond's story is more a side interest or an explanation as to why your bothering to play as these ancestors in the first place.

MostJadedGamer2335d ago

Yea the AC series needs to go to history only with any Sci-Fi or Modern day garbage.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2334d ago
Baba19062336d ago

i want a female character like the vita version......

Intentions2336d ago

Wow, Spoiler alertm even though it was bound to happen and I wouldn't mind it happening better be sooner than later since he hasn't done anything in all the games, so yeah they should just kill him off now.

milohighclub2336d ago

WHHHHHAAATTTT???? you fucking kidding me????

Desmonds story is the only reason i play assassins creed....i couldnt stand playing as ezio...Desmond and Altair ARE assassins creed. I remember the story cos it was such an amazing fucking story!!!! the past story is the future story, without the future story THE PAST IS IRRELEVANT

MAJ0R2336d ago

It's ok, I'm sure they won't kill him until after Assassin's Creed 10 releases in 2014 ;)

Them_Bones2336d ago (Edited 2336d ago )

Altair and Desmond both suck.
Ezio to me is the star of the series, at least he has a personality.

Altair was boring, he might have been first but he was extremely dull and almost felt like a mute for the most part of the game and he fought like sh*t whereas Ezio could take out an entire battalion without taking damage and actually could crack jokes that in some cases are even funny.
Ezio >>>>>>> Altair.
Get over your nostalgia.

WetN00dle692336d ago (Edited 2336d ago )

Actually Ezio was the one that sucked!
Out of the two Altair was the better Master Assassin! Ezio could only wish he was just as great!

JoySticksFTW2336d ago

If you played Revelations, which sections were more enjoyable and exciting?

Ezio or Altair's?

Altair's sections was one of the only good parts of the game for me. And when my man Altair showed up and people were like "Welcome back, Mentor! We've needed you", that was the best.

You can say Desmond is bland. But Ezio while cool especially in AC2, does not top Altair.

milohighclub2335d ago (Edited 2335d ago )

I don't care if they don't have personality because their story is just that damn good. Ezio was good in AC2 but then 2.5 n 2.75 were just milking it and had nothing interesting to say. I love Desmond's story because its so full of imagination. You can say he doesn't have personality(not true btw) but you can not deny that his story is so much more compelling than that of Ezio's, to ignore this is just plain ignorance.

MostJadedGamer2335d ago

Thats the dumbest thing I have ever heard. AC has always been about the epic historical settings. Not Desmond or Sci-Fi crap.

The selling point of AC games IS epic historical settings.

milohighclub2335d ago (Edited 2335d ago )

actually you are wrong the story is desmonds, why do you play in history??? because desmond needs to unlock his genetic memories to find the piece of eden......did you even listen to the story?

Canary2335d ago

While I feel a bit like I'm wading into an argument between several prepubescent kids, I think I ought to point a few things out.

MostJadedGamer is completely correct. From day 1, Assassin's Creed has always, as a franchise, revolved around the concept of setting players loose in various historical settings, with narratives woven together with various historical events, encountering various historical figures. This is the ^key^ element--or "selling point" of the franchise.

Milohighclub is absolutely wrong. The "future" element of the game--Desmond's story--is not the "story" of the game. It's a framing device, in place so that the franchise--which, again, is about exploring history--can be made into a single, coherent series despite including disparate eras, characters, etc.

And as for Ubisoft eventually ridding the franchise of Desmond... well, that's obvious. The thing about using Desmond's story as a framing device is that, well, it was a pretty naked attempt. It was clear from the get-go that his story basically only existed to justify various elements of the game. His story is not there because it's a good story, it's there because it's a necessary story--and that necessity, that perfunctory presence, is a large part of what makes the story fail.

It simply doesn't work. Which is why the Desmond segments of the games have steadily been marginalized. With each new installment, he takes on less and less of a role. In the first game, he was always there. In the second game, he was only present at certain points in the narrative--in the "breaks" between acts. And in the third game, he only bookends the story.

His story doesn't work, doesn't drive the franchise forward, and Ubisoft clearly realizes this. I'm sure AC3 will end his arc in a suitably "epic" manner, but don't expect to ever see him again afterward.

Show all comments (44)
The story is too old to be commented.