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.
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.
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.
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.
@rpd123 Do you have a link? That would be a very weird thing to say, especially while they are making AC3.
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.
@Shoryukenll http://www.oxm.co.uk/40413/... 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. @KaBaW 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.
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
@KaBaW 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.
You can blame Nolan North for the lack of enthusiasm he adds to Desmonds character.
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.
wow, Dident know Nolan played the character. Nolan North sure is getting milked this gen! :P
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
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.
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
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.
Yea the AC series needs to go to history only with any Sci-Fi or Modern day garbage.
i want a female character like the vita version......
Yeah, do so.
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.
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
It's ok, I'm sure they won't kill him until after Assassin's Creed 10 releases in 2014 ;)
Altair and Desmond both suck. Ezio to me is the star of the series, at least he has a personality. @WetN00dle69 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
assassins creed in japan with ninja skills now that would be awesome for the next title but im pretty sure they will go there sometime in the future
or do you mean sometime in the past ;)
you're so right! it's pointless to remove the justification of going back to the past. I could understand if it's not related or if assassin's creed was purely based on crusades, middle ages and etc, but the fact that it's all intertwined together by desmond's story, the actual cat and mouse game behind the assassins and the templars, makes removing him the dumbest idea I never thought. What's the point of playing this story driven franchise if the core of the story (desmond's) is never going to go forward? IMO, I believe ubisoft missed the boat with Desmond's gameplay parts since AC1. Ridiculous.
They cant kill him off, he is the plot point for being able to go back in the past. I would actually like to see what he can do in a modern setting sometime.
if it isn't for the gameplay i wouldn't be playing assassin creed. last one i played is AC2.
I won't miss Desmond at all. I've felt no connection with him throughout the series, he is so bland and average I am surprised he wasn't killed off after the first game.
like others here, i thought ubisoft was gearing Desmond up to be the modern day assassin in his own game not just the bit parts he has been playing. seem's they had run out of ideas for that character, also Nolan North seem's to be sleepwalking the part to be honest.
Desmond dies, confirmed.
Maybe after the "bleeding effect" of all his ancestors' he will star in his own game, Assassin's Creed IV or V maybe? These games while they don't focus on Desmond a lot, they are definitely building up towards what I believe will be a modern day setting AC game. He's also wears a hoodie but has yet to wear his hood. When he finally puts on his hood he'll be a master assassin jumping between rooftops of the city. I don't know, I'm just making suggestions. It's up to ubisoft in the end.
I still want an assassin's creed game where you play as an ancestor from the first civilization. Big futuristic cities, the design of which the developers and artists have complete free reign over. They could just come up with all this original architectural stuff and make all sorts of new ways of negotiating the world of the game.
yes kill him when he does a leap of faith just remove a pile of hay when he lands.
like when wiley coyote falls off a cliff, wheeeeeee pufff!
I honestly cant see the appeal in this series. What am I not seeing here other than the same game with a new coat of paint and maybe a fancy new move or two? I've done ALL of this shit before...over and over again...in a city setting.... and once again in a city... over and over....Now I get to do it over and over again...Oh wait for it, this time in snow and trees!? Oh boy! Cant wait! I couldnt bring myself to finish either 1 or 2 due to sheer repetitive boredom in its so called "missions". Ca-raaap. Go to kill this person and run away... fight this person and run away.....now pick up some milk and take it to Timmy so he can eat his stale bread... now take Timmy's note to the farmer thanking him for his fine milk.... (insert limp plot/twist here) ad nauseam. FEH. Ubisoft needs to rid itself of this stale title.
You're absolutely right. That is precisely why no one likes any of the Final Fantasy games. Or Dragon Quest games. Or Resident Evil games. Or Professor Layton games. Or Phoenix Wright games. Or Mario games. Or Zelda games. Or Call of Duty games. Next time you try to make a point, do all of us a favor and spend some more time sharpening it up.
How about...ITS FUCKING BORING?
Good Nolan sucks.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.