S.T.A.G.E. said:
I'm not naive at all. Everyone else seems to get the point. They killed Desmond's so they could milk the story. It became evident that Desmond was going to be the one to kill the templars. Without him the modern core story became shallow and plain. Everyone here who has responded except for you seems to understand that point. Of course the animus missions were more important to gamers but the thread holding it all together was Desmond. It's the reason they keep bringing us death up in the script. Desmond was supposed to face off against the templars once and for all, fully trained in 2012 when the world was supposed to go pretty interesting circumstances. It's one of the reasons they let you fight as him in the main game.some of my friends finally got into assassins creed an are playing the franchise on their 360. They are big movie nerds. I guarantee you that when Desmond dies they are going to give up on assassins creed. The older you get the more story matters. |
I'm not entirely sure how anything you just said is supposed to refute anything I just said. The milking is going to continue for some time, unless AC sales nosedive off a cliff, and with that being the case, their overarching, modern/future story will continue to be irrelevant tacked on drivel, because by necessity if the series is gonna keep going, the overarching plot (if you can call it that at this point) is never going to reach it's climax. And if your story doesn't have a climax, you're simply wasting everyone's time with it. Plus they've already spent so much time neglecting their modern/future day setting, at this point you have entire generations of AC fans that barely even know there was ever any kind of meaningful overarching thread that connected them in the first place. Ubisoft threw away any chance they had of making that stuff matter with AC3, and if they wanna pick up the pieces all this time later, good fucking luck lol
