Before I begin, let me just say that AC is one of my favorite series ever. Some of the games aren't as great but overall it's a solid series.

However, I'm really disappointed that in their grand transition of making you play as a Templar, Ubisoft wasn't able to make the gameplay any different. When you play as a templar (AC3, AC: Rogue) you have the exact same abilities as an assassin, you hunt your targets just like an assassin and you use the same weapons as an assassin. You are basically an assassin but you're not because....uhh....the story says so.

The fuck Ubisoft? If you're so hell bent on showing us both sides of this epic struggle, why am I playing every game in the same exact manner? When I was hunting templars in the middle east, I always envisioned them to be these mighty warriors, wielding big swords and sporting giant armor, but as it turns out they're just a bunch of dudes who learned the ancient ways and techniques of a thousand year old secret society and can do everything theses "assassins" can do without issue.

Even your own damn fiction dictates that the Assassin Order is a society where every single member is trained in the art of the kill and the Templars are powerful people who can command armies using magical trinkets, political influence or brute force. Fighting fire with fire is just lazy Ubisoft, give me a templar game where being a templar actually makes a difference. You're releasing two games this year, surely you could gamble on at least one of them and make some real changes to the gameplay.

Am I the only one who feels this way GB? (I'm not). Why should Ubisoft keep the core intact? Why should they change it? What do you guys want to see in the future for this series?

I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere the central character is an Assassin who defected to the Templars, so it kind of makes sense that the character would know how to do assassiny things.

That said, I agree with you that it would have been much cooler to just have you start as a Templar from the off, rather than setting the plot up just to recycle gameplay mechanics.

While I completely agree with you, that begs the question of what a 'pure' Templar game would be. I imagine it would focus more on the Templar Brotherhood, or at least your guy being a commander like Haythem. So expanding on the Brotherhood mechanic from ACB, ACR, and AC3. No big chases or leaping assassinations, you could command your allies to blockade a road/alley to stop a running target. Give us a big crossbow or rifle to shoot down climbing Assassins, maybe expand on that with the ability to target legs to completely neutralize their climbing abilities. Instead of the counter mechanic, the combat could focus on brute force: You don't counter, you dodge, then strike. None of the elegant dance AC1 through ACR were known for, just brutal force smashing them when they're vulnerable.

And as far as climbing goes, I'd imagine the big step would be no climbing. Ladders, stairs, and so on would still be fine. Jumping and grabbing onto ledges, fine. But a Templar shouldn't be on the roofs. Instead, it could play into some kind of area mechanic, like the Borgia towers/Fortresses: Bust in, secure the area, it's yours. If an Assassin gets on the roofs in one of your secured areas, you can yell for rooftop guards to fire on them while you yourself are on the ground. Knocking them off the roof, potentially, or at least dealing damage.

Templar's are always portrayed as being the ruling force in an area, having command/sway over the guards. So why not give us that ability in a Templar game to make up for our lack of climbing skills? And put a bigger focus on indoors/rooftop access via stairs to give us a way up to the rooftops even without climbing abilities.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I mean, it sort of makes sense that the Templars would have their own 'Assassin hunters' or whatever, but the whole ex-Assassin turned Templar thing is about the laziest premise they could have come up with. The brainstorming session for this game lasted until literally the very first idea and then they all went to get coffee.

edit: And as for what would I like to see: I'd like to see some Assassin civil war business. A group like the Assassins would fall out over the finer details of the Creed the entire time and immediately form splinter groups and start killing each other. How about some Assassins think Altair is an asshole so they give the Hawk motif a rest for two minutes and try on some different clothes / moves / jumping from building noises.

I also want to know, why the FUCK do the assassins have the whole hidden blade thing. It makes NO SENSE.

I mean sure if otherwise completely unarmed it might be cool, but in every game you're walking around with swords, knives, guns, blowguns, crossbows, bows, axes, ect. strapped all over you. WHY DO YOU NEED A HIDDEN BLADE WTF?

But i also love the series.

I agree! That's the problem with the premise of Assassin's Creed, a lot of the time it surpasses the games that Ubisoft are able to put out.

@jonsmith: I like the way you think. The combat itself in the games doesn't need a major revamp, because as far as I know templars are capable fighters too. It's their ability to jump roof to roof and air assassinate that irks me. And yes templars are usually in charge of the area, I'd love to have some sway over the guards in the area.

You are just one guy with some great ideas, kudos. It bums me out that a whole room brainstorming this stuff couldn't come up with anything more than "uhh you can just do the same stuff". This is Ubisoft too, they came up with Spies vs Mercs in Splinter Cell, one of the most original adversarial modes ever, I'm sure they could come up with something similar for AC.

haha yeah I guess that never crossed my mind. Besides the cool factor, I can't see a reason to have "hidden" blades when you're prancing around with all those weapons exposed. I remember in AC 1 you could pose as a missionary (or whatever those guys were) because you had a similar outfit, but the guards never noticed you were heavily armed when you walked past them?

Because making playable characters in Assassin's Creed games who don't have those sweet parkour and stabbing skills would actually require Ubisoft to revamp the gameplay in a noticeable way. And it seems like this guy, much like Haytham, is an Assassin who defected to the Templars so of course he likes to stabby stab.

Would a Templar game be an RTS or some other sort of strategy game? Would it be a business management sim? It's hard to come up with something a (mostly) behind the scenes group would do if they had a game of their own. I'd be interested in it.

Most of you will disagree with this, but I am quite excited with this game. Yes, he is not a pure Templar. However, being someone who is sort of between worlds and this time lands on the Templar side is interesting to me. Especially because it allows for fighting abilities and tech that was more difficult to obtain when playing as the underdogs. Also, I have to point out "Assassin's Creed" would not be a very fitting title if the character had no Assassin abilities. It has become a trademark of the series for better or worse.

I have been wondering throughout the series, especially after the conclusion of AC3, what makes the two sides so different and why do we assume the Assassins are right? Anyway I am looking forward to being an ice-pirate mega killer. Looks cool.

Both Templar's that we get to play in the AC series have been Assassin's that later converted to Templar's. But aside from that, in the modern story, the Templars are using the Animus in order to train their soldiers to be able to do things that the Assassin's can do.

This whole thing just reinstates my opinion that the Templars and the Assassins are just two sides of the same coin. Part of the same bland and blind coin that don't quite seem to understand the inherent flaws in both of their broad ideologies.

Breaking News: lore in popular long-running video game series is poorly thought out and makes no sense, more on this unprecedented turn of events as it unfolds...

The multiplayer characters from... Revelations, I think, were the same way. They had/used all of the same skills as the Assassins, they just weren't equipped the same way. I'm not sure if they are considered "canon", but I believe they did show up in the single player missions. I guess the difference between an 'Assassin' and a 'Templar' is ideology and a logo (and whether you get a hidden blade, I guess).

I would hope, if nothing else, that since he's killing assassins then asinine tricks that always work killing templars wouldn't be enough. Then again, when you fight assassins in AC4 they're dumber than a bag of bricks too. God forbid they update the code. Eh whatever, at least this one has pirate stuff in it.

Yeah it's a good point, as are the rest in this thread.

I think the missions in the series need major work and that's an aspect that's at its total breaking point for me. I enjoyed the trimmings around say Black Flag but he core missions are still totally rotten and simply not fun. I hope Unity is going to fix things. I feel like the series should be open and allow more freedom.

In Rogue, just like in AC3, the character you play defects from the Assassins. It's pretty lazy. Though in Rouge, it actually seems to be building towards a cool little Cain and Abel story. Always love some brother against brother action.

Thinking about it, I feel like a Templar game would be more standard open world game. Territory control, maybe some personnel management like Brotherhood has had, and a normal kind of open world game progression through missions and a story. Maybe you go pretty deep into a strategy or management angle but that basic framework.

And then I feel like an Assassin game should be more open and free form, focusing on accomplishing large objectives and taking on major targets. Something like the structure of the first Assassins Creed. Just hopefully done way better.

Feel like a templar game would be like Kingdom Under Fire, in that you toggle between controlling (disposable) squads of dudes in order to get your task done. Probably wouldn't be all that fun because templars were never set up as formidable individual foes with interesting unique gadgets.

Templars murder people for a practical reason, Assassin's murder people just 'cause.

Another way to think of it is the Templars murder people, and then the Assassin's murder Templars because murder is wrong.

Both the Brotherhood and the Templar Order are composed of people with strong genetic links to the First Civilization. That explains both organizations having agents that have Eagle Vision.

Don't forget petty personal vendettas.

The hidden blade was the only weapon I used apart from the gun 99% of the time. For it to be hidden allowed myself to be somewhat inconspicuous in the crowds and not draw attention for prancing about with drawn weapons. It does make sense.