Im Glad people are into this whole story trying to analyze it  and such.. Too bad most of my friends didint even bother do the clusters and pay attention to Mineva and Juno's Dialogs. along with subject 16s along with everything related. :/

I'm pretty good at figuring out complex story lines, but whole story line doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Could be because I never got into the subject 16 stuff, and the adam and eve story.

i just beat the game and for a good 5 minutes i had goosebumps as i thought about the different possibilities.  as soon as the credits ended i just turned off the system because i felt so burnt out. 
my initial theory was that Desmond wakes up at Abstergo because the british dude and the other chick was knocked out by the employees.  However the british dude and that chick save him some how and Lucy is still alive.  Initially i thought Juno wanted her dead because she would get in the way of Desmond saving the world because he develops strong feelings for her and has to make a decision at AC3 which would require him to sacrifice something or whatever.  im assuming Lucy gets in the way and Juno wouldnt seem like a bitch.
 
However, i read these theories all you users have and holy fuck...  what the fuck.  i am mind fucked.  i really sped through this game without getting out of the Animus and doing all that extra shit so i learned some new things about the story.  someone mentioned that Lucy was looking for the Pieces of Eden for 14 years and shes only 24.  everyone's saying how she is possibly a traitor but what if she lives, and does something completely selfish.  she spent over half of her life looking for those damn things and plus subject 16 said that shes know what she seems or whatever.  i know people are saying that its pointing to the fact that shes a double agent but maybe all this is pointing to the fact that Lucy is going to betray everyone but not for Abstergo.  
 
what do you guys think?

Great speculation. Am I the only one who reacts the same way to every single AC ending? Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed II, and now Brotherhood.... at the end of every game I always find myself saying "What the f......"

Great speculation. Am I the only one who reacts the same way to every single AC ending? Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed II, and now Brotherhood.... at the end of every game I always find myself saying "What the f......"

@Ygg said:

@Super_Sonic_Awesome said:

Great speculation. Am I the only one who reacts the same way to every single AC ending? Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed II, and now Brotherhood.... at the end of every game I always find myself saying "What the f......"

I didn't make it to the end of the first game because of how repetitive that thing was. Really enjoyed II and Brotherhood because they actually have a likeable protagonist and you don't do the same 3 things over and over again. @___@ I hate all the time spent outside of the animus with Desmond, annoying British dude and that really butch engineer chick. *cringe*

The only part I enjoyed about leaving the animus was hoping Blond Girl would finally put out for desmond, of course now shes dead, poor blond girl...

In assassins creed I was surprised by Mulahalim going all bananas.

But we don't even know if Blond girl is dead, you spent a bunch of your time as Ezio saving people from being poisoned, so it can't be that hard for you to save someone from a stab wound.

@DJSire said:

@Ares42 said:

" Well, hmmm.... not quite sure of what to make of the credits... 2 new male voices... "

I got the impression that Desmond is another memory being played out be a descendant... which would make Ezio a memory within a memory, which would be badass.

They'd just call it Assassin's Creed 3: Inception.

@haggis said:

I was liking the assassins fine until the point when they got linked to ideas that killed a whole lot of people.

so you liked assassins until they became associated with killing people?

@misterhaan: No, I said a wholelot of people. Millions, in fact, in this case. And jeeze, this is an old thread.

Ok you people are really REALLY missing everything about AC i don't think you guys understood the series. First of all, the enemies in AC are not the illuminati nor the freemasons ( although this possibility is not confirmed) they are the templars. Second, in case you haven't noticed, AC3 will be on the french revolution. And third, the real assassin's were just like described in the game, they never took Hashish. That ideal was actually created by the christians (not blaming any christians on here, it was the pope in the 1100 that got it out)that said they were druged people, but they were only saying that to make christians believe in their religion and hate the muslims (assassins). hoping to have cleared your mind. By the way, i am not a now-it-all i just learned it in history class.

I just finished the game and I didn't understand anything that happened. At all. Does the killing lucy, being controlled by the apple, having a 'son', even thing get explained in Revelations or AC3?

@AlisterCat said:

I just finished the game and I didn't understand anything that happened. At all. Does the killing lucy, being controlled by the apple, having a 'son', even thing get explained in Revelations or AC3?

Lucy was a templar.

Pretty epic necro there too.

I just finished the game and I didn't understand anything that happened. At all. Does the killing lucy, being controlled by the apple, having a 'son', even thing get explained in Revelations or AC3?

@themangalist said:

@AlisterCat said:

I just finished the game and I didn't understand anything that happened. At all. Does the killing lucy, being controlled by the apple, having a 'son', even thing get explained in Revelations or AC3?

Lucy was a templar.

Pretty epic necro there too.

Well I thought it was better than creating a new thread. I'm behind on Assassins Creed.

@pyrodactyl said:

@AlisterCat

I just finished the game and I didn't understand anything that happened. At all. Does the killing lucy, being controlled by the apple, having a 'son', even thing get explained in Revelations or AC3?

1-it is explained in revelation dlc no one played 2-the explanation is contrived bullshit and bad storytelling 3-half the implication of this endding are retconed out of existence in ac3

Well I am probably going to play Revelations so hopefully I'll figure it out then.

@AlisterCat: you won't hear a single sentence addressing the ending unless you buy the dlc. Hidding critical story developpments in dlc, videogame storytelling at its best

@pyrodactyl: I'll be getting the PC version, and I'm sure the DLC will be bundled with it on Steam in a sale or something. That is pretty crappy. Especially adding it as DLC for an annual franchise.

@AlisterCat: I would recommend skipping that game entirely and just going here.

@AlisterCat: I don't fault you for that. Well, I always thought Brotherhood pulled a cheap shock ending that the creators did not know how to wrap up at the time of development. Lucy is a major character and it's wasted potential to kill off the only character that was with Desmond through the first three games.

To be honest, none of the story stuff in Revelations matters (it's also painfully generic). Desmond's, 16's, Ezio's, Altair's... Don't go in with too much expectation for any story-related stuff and you'll have a good time. I haven't played 3 yet, am looking forward to seeing how the Desmond story could be any worse.

Man...where did this franchise go so damn weird and wrong

@AhmadMetallic said:

Man...where did this franchise go so damn weird and wrong

So I finally admitted to myself I am never going to play any part of this series, and just looked up a synopsis of the whole thing, and Jesus Christ.

I mean, maybe I'm missing out on some super awesome gameplay, but even that, by most accounts, is "run and jump around some cool historical environments" and "get into combat where you just counter the fuck out of everybody", and I can live with skipping that. But man, what a trainwreck of a story. The ending of AC1 actually must've been kinda promising at the time, since they hadn't introduced any of the forerunner civilization stuff yet, but holy hell, every Desmond plot beat from AC2 onwards is fucking insane. I feel really bad for anybody who has been following this series for the story.

Especially the part where Desmond is forced to kill Lucy, and then they only explain that in DLC for AC: Revelations, which is just cruel. And then AC3 just ignores/retcons a bunch of the questions raised by the ending of AC: Brotherhood. And then the ending of AC3 just sounds like complete garbage.

It's like, the Animus is this cool contrived excuse to allow you to play a game in historical settings where you're this badass, but then the writing staff started taking the present day stuff WAY too seriously, forgetting that it's just a contrived excuse to enable this cool historical game. I am genuinely glad I never got invested in this series.

@BisonHero: While I agree with you and often find myself wondering just what the fuck happened to this franchise I once called a favorite, I think you've missed out on two of the most amazing games ever made (AC1 and 2).

Some of the my most immersive, enjoyable and challenging gaming memories happened in the shoes of Altair and Ezio, some of the best story moments as well. And, being the gameplay afficiando that I am, I believe Brotherhood is, gameplay-wise, one of the most exciting games I've ever played.

It's a shame that the story writers got so pretentious and up their own asses that they turned the intriguing, underlying conspiracy vibe of the first game into this mess.

The story became kind of.... ye....

I think the animus was not a great idea to begin with. There was no need to bridge the games togehter if they were good. Just make each game the story of on of the assassins and that could naturally lead up to the present day.

But i guess the animus had potential, till that whole forerunner mess... ugh. The ending was so bad.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@BisonHero: While I agree with you and often find myself wondering just what the fuck happened to this franchise I once called a favorite, I think you've missed out on two of the most amazing games ever made (AC1 and 2).

Some of the my most immersive, enjoyable and challenging gaming memories happened in the shoes of Altair and Ezio, some of the best story moments as well. And, being the gameplay afficiando that I am, I believe Brotherhood is, gameplay-wise, one of the most exciting games I've ever played.

It's a shame that the story writers got so pretentious and up their own asses that they turned the intriguing, underlying conspiracy vibe of the first game into this mess.

Yeah, I was maybe a little quick to dismiss the gameplay, but I play games much like Vinny, so A) all of the collection stuff in AC2 and onwards would kill me because I would be strongly tempted to get it at all, and B) I really do play a lot of games for the narrative, and would've been extremely disappointed by the 2012 stuff, and it sounds like Connor's arc was a little weak overall as well.

Maybe I'll pick up AC2 and Brotherhood in a Steam sale, and just play them for the Ezio stuff and ignore nearly everything else.

@BisonHero: The collection stuff is mostly fine. It was only a real clusterfuck in AC1, but in 2 I managed to get most of the feathers on my own without cursing like a madman, only resorting to using an Achievement Hunter map for the last 20 or so. After 2 it's even better, since the collectibles are revealed from the get-go (or require synchronizing viewpoints). Hell, in 3 it actually works as a good incentive to explore the map, due to the fact that now the map has fog of war.

And seriously, I recommend 2. It's not a hard game, but Ezio's journey is great, it's paced very well (it doesn't have the problem of being super boring in between the exciting parts that AC1 had and it doesn't lose momentum after the first act like Darksiders II does) and the overall experience is so thoughtfully made it's a lot of fun to play.

@BisonHero said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@BisonHero: While I agree with you and often find myself wondering just what the fuck happened to this franchise I once called a favorite, I think you've missed out on two of the most amazing games ever made (AC1 and 2).

Some of the my most immersive, enjoyable and challenging gaming memories happened in the shoes of Altair and Ezio, some of the best story moments as well. And, being the gameplay afficiando that I am, I believe Brotherhood is, gameplay-wise, one of the most exciting games I've ever played.

It's a shame that the story writers got so pretentious and up their own asses that they turned the intriguing, underlying conspiracy vibe of the first game into this mess.

Yeah, I was maybe a little quick to dismiss the gameplay, but I play games much like Vinny, so A) all of the collection stuff in AC2 and onwards would kill me because I would be strongly tempted to get it at all, and B) I really do play a lot of games for the narrative, and would've been extremely disappointed by the 2012 stuff, and it sounds like Connor's arc was a little weak overall as well.

Maybe I'll pick up AC2 and Brotherhood in a Steam sale, and just play them for the Ezio stuff and ignore nearly everything else.

How about not judging games before you play them? Christ.

@BisonHero said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@BisonHero: While I agree with you and often find myself wondering just what the fuck happened to this franchise I once called a favorite, I think you've missed out on two of the most amazing games ever made (AC1 and 2).

Some of the my most immersive, enjoyable and challenging gaming memories happened in the shoes of Altair and Ezio, some of the best story moments as well. And, being the gameplay afficiando that I am, I believe Brotherhood is, gameplay-wise, one of the most exciting games I've ever played.

It's a shame that the story writers got so pretentious and up their own asses that they turned the intriguing, underlying conspiracy vibe of the first game into this mess.

Yeah, I was maybe a little quick to dismiss the gameplay, but I play games much like Vinny, so A) all of the collection stuff in AC2 and onwards would kill me because I would be strongly tempted to get it at all, and B) I really do play a lot of games for the narrative, and would've been extremely disappointed by the 2012 stuff, and it sounds like Connor's arc was a little weak overall as well.

Maybe I'll pick up AC2 and Brotherhood in a Steam sale, and just play them for the Ezio stuff and ignore nearly everything else.

How about not judging games before you play them? Christ.

@pyrodactyl said:

@AlisterCat

I just finished the game and I didn't understand anything that happened. At all. Does the killing lucy, being controlled by the apple, having a 'son', even thing get explained in Revelations or AC3?

1-it is explained in revelation dlc no one played 2-the explanation is contrived bullshit and bad storytelling

I guess what really crashed and burned was the way Ubisoft delivered the twist. They had left some clues here and there inside the first three games about Lucy being a triple agent (a Templar pretending to be an Assassin pretending to be a Templar), like what Clay/Subject 16 says about her. It wasn't retconned out of the blue in a following game. The thing is, between the extremely cryptic way the clues were delivered (Juno's talking some shit about a cross while she makes Desmond stab Lucy) and the fact that the bulk of the explicit explanation was found in a DLC nobody wanted to play (because, frankly, the first person platforming sections of AC:R sucked donkey balls) made the whole twist look extremely stupid.

And, AFAIK, nobody addresses what happened with Lucy in ACIII. Not even to say "Hey, that was pretty fucked up!". She's been completely ignored out of existance. I wonder is there was some bad blood between Kristen Bell and Ubisoft at the end of AC:B...

@pyrodactyl said:

@AlisterCat

I just finished the game and I didn't understand anything that happened. At all. Does the killing lucy, being controlled by the apple, having a 'son', even thing get explained in Revelations or AC3?

1-it is explained in revelation dlc no one played 2-the explanation is contrived bullshit and bad storytelling

I guess what really crashed and burned was the way Ubisoft delivered the twist. They had left some clues here and there inside the first three games about Lucy being a triple agent (a Templar pretending to be an Assassin pretending to be a Templar), like what Clay/Subject 16 says about her. It wasn't retconned out of the blue in a following game. The thing is, between the extremely cryptic way the clues were delivered (Juno's talking some shit about a cross while she makes Desmond stab Lucy) and the fact that the bulk of the explicit explanation was found in a DLC nobody wanted to play (because, frankly, the first person platforming sections of AC:R sucked donkey balls) made the whole twist look extremely stupid.

And, AFAIK, nobody addresses what happened with Lucy in ACIII. Not even to say "Hey, that was pretty fucked up!". She's been completely ignored out of existance. I wonder is there was some bad blood between Kristen Bell and Ubisoft at the end of AC:B...

@pyrodactyl said:

To be fair, there is optional dialogue with members of the crew that address the whole lucy situation in ac3. Still pretty funny how desmond just says something like "I can't believe she was a templar". Someone who played all ac games would find that part pretty fucked up and out of context since it's never mention out of the revelation dlc

I've only just started Sequence 4, so, so far, the only dialogue I've had with Shaun, Rebecca and Desmond's dad was... well, Desmond's dad telling Desmond to fuck off.

Another example of how bad Ubisoft screwed up the way they presented the twist.

@JoeyRavn: Probably she was originally contracted to do three games for the series and it didn't work out trying to extend that when Brotherhood and Revelations came into the picture. Both were originally planned to be included into AC2 if the announcements and pre-production were anything to go by. For example, originally it was stated AC2 would take place from 1476-1503 so Ezio from 17 until the end of his adventures in Rome more or less. And some of the Constantinople artwork from Revelations was actually released alongside the AC2 stuff going off the artbook I got with it so Constantinople was actually planned from the start of AC2 if the artwork was anything to go by.

To put it simply, they probably had AC1, AC2 (With Constantinople DLC) and AC3 planned and Kirsten would do all of it but the decision to split up AC2 which was smart considering how fractured that could have been all things considered meant the 3 games changed to 5 and as such her contract would have needed renewing which might have been very expensive or as you said impossible due to bad blood.