So I just finished Assassin's Creed 3 and I am a little shocked that they decided to end it how they ended it. I was not expecting Desmond to die and I was not expecting for the world to be fucked by Juno. Was there a lesson behind all of this? The only thing I could gather was that the lesson of this series was to coexist with your neighbor. I feel like Ubisoft wanted this game to translate to a lesson for us to learn for a modern time, such as our presidential election. Now is a time more than ever that our political parties need to cooperate as one to solve issues in this country and in the world. Minerva mentioned that we were too late because of the thousands of years of conflict between the Templars and Assassains and the entire game revolved around alternative views with the same goal in mind. What do you guys think?

I'd say that there was very much a philosophical point that the series started with. As flippant as this may sound, it's probably "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." The idea that there is no destiny, no god, only you and how you choose to act. Then again, there's also the opposing Templar view which takes on a far more pragmatic tone that I feel the majority of people agree with. The idea that people are dumb, that they need to be shepherded by the few wise among us, and that if left to our own devices we'd devolve into territorial animals.

I think ultimately what you get out of Assassin's Creed and its apparent philosophy depends on you as a person.

I think whatever lesson they tried to give us is now lone gone under too many (useless) sequels and spin-offs that propelled the storyline into an oversized mess.

The one lesson I had from AC1 was that everybody you killed had their motives, and in the end, they weren't evil and made you doubt your acts. As for the rest, well uh... beware of december 21ts of 2012 because we're going to get Mayan'd multi-killed?

Possible spoilers?