-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Do you actually like the Animus in Assassin's Creed? should it stay or should it go
- Thread starter Hero of Time
- Start date
Imagine wanting to remove the very foundation from which the series was built upon. I get that modern day sucks, but ultimately removing the animus would further damage whatever plot remains that ties the franchise together, and make me question 'what is even the point?'. You're encouraging the writers/Ubisoft to continue ignoring the animus instead of looking at where and why it falls short.
They have the opportunity to bring the series back into the overarching narrative and for it to make some sense, but removing the animus seems completely against the whole idea of what Assassin's Creed originally stood for.
They have the opportunity to bring the series back into the overarching narrative and for it to make some sense, but removing the animus seems completely against the whole idea of what Assassin's Creed originally stood for.
Last edited:
Modern day was the best part of AC for me, but after they killed off Desmond the modern plot turned into a cluster fuck, they even ended Minerva's story arc in the comics because they couldn't bother to make it a proper ending into the game, they couldn't even bother to finish what they started in the first place, modern day became such a joke that not even the old hardcore ac fans care about it anymore
They need to double down on it if anything. Make it glitchier. Make it invadeable. Make it horror-esque at times with it fucking with your perfecption of what is real. Make it into the matrix but history basically. I mean otherwise you might as well make a new series called "Stabmen through history" since you will be getting rid of one of the most interesting cores of the franchise.
This, basically.
I was being drawn through those first few games by the mystery of the animus, the bleeding effect and the hint that we might one day get to see the modern outside world playing an assassins creed set in modern day was very compelling. And then they just shat it up the wall with how Desmond's story ended.
I'm still OK with it being there, it's nice to have some overarching plot to these games even if it is now very minor, but I'd love to see them give it the focus it deserves again, either that or kill it off completely like others have said.
This kinda ties into that bizarre gamer psychology where series that are of book origin are seen as different to series that are of videogame origin. Cyberpunk is not "new". The Witcher is not "new". It's a fairly old novel series at this point. James Bond is a very old novel series, then a film series, and then there were some successful games.
Ubisoft created Assassin's Creed. They created an elaborate universe with rich backstory. They've ruthlessly retconned key aspects, but the games are successful and they continue to make them. They also continue to pursue their narrative goals. This is no different to Bioware's Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Or Valve's Half-Life universe. Those universes have potential for interesting stories to be told in them, and interesting gameplay experiences. Sequels can explore these elements.
Also, Assassin's Creed has changed drastically between entries. Far moreso than The Witcher 3. You can't get much more of a shift than a series designed around not changing the past turning into a choice-driven RPG.
There is nothing stopping Ubisoft making an open world RPG in any game series they wish. The existence of Watch_Dogs is not stopping Ubisoft from making Splinter Cell. The existence of Assassin's Creed is not stopping Ubisoft from making Beyond Good & Evil 2.
Almost every single Stephen King novel is set in The Dark Tower universe. They all manage to be great novels that explore different aspects and different dimensions of this universe of his creation.
Ubisoft could make a new open world FPS series. Or they could put the Far Cry label on the box, incorporate some loose callbacks to older games, and make even more money. This is the same logic behind games being called Call of Duty. It's why Battlefield: Hardline is called Battlefield. It's why Battlefront is a Star Wars game. Even Ubisoft they did create another FPS series -- or maybe even make King Kong 2 -- why retire Far Cry? It's hugely successful. A popular game series is nothing to sneeze at. The only reason they call these games Far Cry is because they Crytek sold the license to them. If Crytek had still owned Far Cry, Crysis would have probably been Far Cry 2.
Look at Horizon. Horizon could have been called Far Cry: Zero Dawn, and it would have been the same game. Just as Titanfall 2 could have been called Call of Duty and nothing would have changed. Some people love Horizon so much they want Killzone to disappear forever. There's this idea that one must die so the other can live. The idea of GG making Killzone and Horizon at the same time puts some people off. They see Killzone as tired and pointles. "Make something new". "You know that universe you put heaps of effort into but never really explored in the games? Just trash it all instead of trying to use it in interesting ways. NEW IP! NEW IP! NEW IP!"
Last edited:
You can't compare The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk because they are different IP
If Ubisoft released what was essentially a new Assassin's Creed RPG but without the modern stuff and called it something else, they would be wasting the Assassin's Creed licence, or they would also need to release it alongside a new Assassin's Creed game which would just accelerate franchise fatigue
If CDPR made another medieval European fantasy RPG that essentially played like and looked like the Witcher that would be a bad idea too, it's why they moved away from that and tried something completely different with Cyberpunk
If CDPR do decide to make another medieval European fantasy RPG it makes way more sense to make another Witcher game than to make essentially a Witcher game in all but name just so they can step away from a handful of aspects a few people dislike about the series
Edit: To expand on your point that "A lot of people are tired of Assassin's Creed and all the Animus-Abstergo-Assassins stuff"
I can't comment on the two latest games but I beat Syndicate and Unity recently, and both took me about 30 hours, and each had less than 1 hour of modern stuff. It's really not worth throwing away the brand recognition and goodwill with fans to get away with removing a tiny percentage of the game some people dislike, more so when the IP itself is extremely fluid in what it can do from one entry to the next anyway
If they use it like desmond's Game where it feels like you are going in and out of the animus and intracting with characters or doing missions then ok but if it's lazy like the games after AC3 then sadly I'm ok with it gone
if the animus wasn't a big part of what makes assassins creed assassin's creed, then no one who dislikes the concept would be bothered enough by it to want it gone.
I get the general, often-repeated idea: "if it didn't have that shit then it would be my thing. I would like it more if it were just the other part of it."
by that token there must be people who would like it less if it were not there. Whom? Well, since it's a very popular series that sells millions of copies, and since sales began to decline after two games in a row that heavily minimized the animus aspect, (among other issues (talkin bout Unity and Syndicate)) probably most of the Entire Fanbase.
Does that maybe put anything in perspective? Anyways, I like it.
I like having a reminder that history happened in the world that we live in, and that it has meaning and implications for our future. I like the weird metaphysical stuff, especially the way the secret temples in Origins broadened and complicated it. And I like the spooky, techno-magical feel it lends to the games in so many aspects. The best OSTs in the series wouldn't have been so memorable without the striking mixture of electronics, distortion, and period-appropriate/themed instruments that defines them all in their own unique ways.
Digital sparkles tucked away in a Venetian gondola marking the location of a treasure are just as ingrained in my memories of that game as the faithful recreations of famous landmarks i'd visited in real life only a year or so previous. Hearing modern characters talk about things that happened long after these events, or draw parallels to their (our) own time period doesn't distance me from the story; it draws me in.
They could make an assassin's creed without the aspects that are so endlessly debated about. I don't think they should. Not because it "wouldn't feel like AC" or even some boring profit calculation you could extrapolate from my first few points. They should just keep doing it because it's weird as fuck, it either inspires an intense aversion or irresistible curiosity, and that's a special thing.
Origins floated the possibility the animus could be used to actually alter history as you relive it, by breaking the rules of reality and time. I love it. keep getting weirder with it.
EDIT: oh, also please stop doing any assassins creed games two years in a row. yearly breaks should be the standard forever on. but that's another thing.
I get the general, often-repeated idea: "if it didn't have that shit then it would be my thing. I would like it more if it were just the other part of it."
by that token there must be people who would like it less if it were not there. Whom? Well, since it's a very popular series that sells millions of copies, and since sales began to decline after two games in a row that heavily minimized the animus aspect, (among other issues (talkin bout Unity and Syndicate)) probably most of the Entire Fanbase.
Does that maybe put anything in perspective? Anyways, I like it.
I like having a reminder that history happened in the world that we live in, and that it has meaning and implications for our future. I like the weird metaphysical stuff, especially the way the secret temples in Origins broadened and complicated it. And I like the spooky, techno-magical feel it lends to the games in so many aspects. The best OSTs in the series wouldn't have been so memorable without the striking mixture of electronics, distortion, and period-appropriate/themed instruments that defines them all in their own unique ways.
Digital sparkles tucked away in a Venetian gondola marking the location of a treasure are just as ingrained in my memories of that game as the faithful recreations of famous landmarks i'd visited in real life only a year or so previous. Hearing modern characters talk about things that happened long after these events, or draw parallels to their (our) own time period doesn't distance me from the story; it draws me in.
They could make an assassin's creed without the aspects that are so endlessly debated about. I don't think they should. Not because it "wouldn't feel like AC" or even some boring profit calculation you could extrapolate from my first few points. They should just keep doing it because it's weird as fuck, it either inspires an intense aversion or irresistible curiosity, and that's a special thing.
Origins floated the possibility the animus could be used to actually alter history as you relive it, by breaking the rules of reality and time. I love it. keep getting weirder with it.
EDIT: oh, also please stop doing any assassins creed games two years in a row. yearly breaks should be the standard forever on. but that's another thing.
Having started playing AC with Syndicate I don't really follow a lot of the lore and I don't really care enough about it to read up on what happened in past games. I quite like finding all the Isu stuff in the historical settings but I hate getting pulled out of the game to run around the modern world for five minutes. It just feels pointless. If they committed to it and made the modern day portions interesting, with actual gameplay and story and well-developed characters, it could work, but as it stands it's just a chore to get through and easily the worst part of any game.
The modern day stuff, if done correctly is fucking fascinating and incredibly cool. I remember back during the days of AC2, solving all those puzzles you could find on buildings which unveiled massive conspiracy theories and lots of really cool mythology kept giving me goosebumps. I simply couldn't wait where the story will be taken next. The first time the Isu speak to Desmond through Ezio, the implications of what's going to happen, racing to stop the end of the world... man, it was such a great over arching story. It kept giving the player just enough to be satisfied but held back considerably to keep your interest up.
But after AC3's ending it gone downhill. Black Flag and Rogue's first person implementation wasn't bad, if a bit weird not having an actual character anymore, but the story actually seemed to go somewhere, which was nice. But then with Unity and Syndicate they just removed all the interactive elements. With Origins, they brought it back but hit the reset button on the story and simply relegated the ending of the Juno story to comic books. Origins' modern day also felt incredibly low budget, as if the whole thing was merely an afterthought. In Odyssey, the actual modern day is so minimal again that it's hard to really say anything about it, though at the very least the stuff happening in it was interesting. They once again set up something REALLY interesting, but given the series of disappointments I've endured with the modern day of AC in the past few years, I'm not too hopeful.
It just seems to me that the truly interesting stuff is now part of the "extended" universe and the games themselves just get a few throaway bits.
So my answer is... Yes, I want it used because it's really unique and it has tremendous potential. I still think that the shoddy implementation of the past few games is better than not having it at all.
But after AC3's ending it gone downhill. Black Flag and Rogue's first person implementation wasn't bad, if a bit weird not having an actual character anymore, but the story actually seemed to go somewhere, which was nice. But then with Unity and Syndicate they just removed all the interactive elements. With Origins, they brought it back but hit the reset button on the story and simply relegated the ending of the Juno story to comic books. Origins' modern day also felt incredibly low budget, as if the whole thing was merely an afterthought. In Odyssey, the actual modern day is so minimal again that it's hard to really say anything about it, though at the very least the stuff happening in it was interesting. They once again set up something REALLY interesting, but given the series of disappointments I've endured with the modern day of AC in the past few years, I'm not too hopeful.
It just seems to me that the truly interesting stuff is now part of the "extended" universe and the games themselves just get a few throaway bits.
So my answer is... Yes, I want it used because it's really unique and it has tremendous potential. I still think that the shoddy implementation of the past few games is better than not having it at all.
I find your argument bizarre. Video games, movies, books, tabletop RPGs are all very different media, so if e.g. some book IP has been adapted into a video game, with respect to video games it's a new IP. Also, there are differncies in popularity, why would I care that Cyberpunk was a tabletop IP if I never played and never intend to play said tabletop games? And in any case this experience would be extremely different to the video game experience.
I really can't imagine how one can think that Assassin's Creed games changed more drastically between subsequent installments than Witcher games, so let's agree to disagree.
"Never really explored"? Really? How is this relevant to Assassin's Creed? Eleven mainline games is "never really explored"? Yes, it's completely possible to create interesting new games within existing IPs. I just personally feel that AC baggage at this point is pulling Ubisoft down, the changes are too incremental (even when taking into account the last two games, which changed a lot of stuff from the formula). I think that in this case going for a new IP (for videogame world) would help Ubisoft to achive new heights.
They are actually doing something with it now. I think for a long time Ubi just didn't know where exactly to take the modern storyline after Desmond without ending the war, since they had to keep making the games. But you can have self contained arcs inside a grander never ending storyline if you want.
Which is exactly what they are doing with Layla. Origin was the first time since AC2 that your main character outside the animus got something substantial to do other than just talking to people and reading emails. And it's only been built upon in Odyssey. It seems like it's leading to something big!
Which is exactly what they are doing with Layla. Origin was the first time since AC2 that your main character outside the animus got something substantial to do other than just talking to people and reading emails. And it's only been built upon in Odyssey. It seems like it's leading to something big!
Firstly it's not a new IP because it's well...not a new IP. You not experiencing them prior (or ever )does not change that.
And yes the change between Witcher 2 to Witcher 3 is indeed small compared to AC Syndicate to Origin because the systems are the same despite one being open world and other being hub based, even the combat/hexes are very similar in how they are used and performed. It was the change from Witcher 1 to Witcher 2 which was substantial and that was primarily due to the difference in combat because even that game had the same structure.
The games have sizeable improvement in production values and writing with each entry, but systems wise they are pretty damn similar.
Last edited:
Assassin's Creed went from open world assassin simulator to open world adventure game to pirate themed open world action adventure to huge choice based open world RPG
The Witcher went from western RPG to western RPG to open world western RPG
I warmed up to the modern day scenes / Animus in Black Flag (the first AC that grabbed me enough to keep playing until I finished it, still in the process of rediscovering the series now), and I've been fine with it ever since. I even find it interesting. Keep it.
Where's the "I'm indifferent" option? 'Cause that's where I am at the moment. I don't mind if when I hop out, Layla gets to do some cool things. I mind if its just "Oh hop out, talk to people, hop back in."
Basically, more
, and a lot less of "make sure you take some drugs before you go back in!" :P
Basically, more
assassinations in "real life" and diving into the sea to discover Atlantis
I enjoyed it in the first few games, once they abruptly ended the Desmond stuff is when I started to ignore most of it.
I think its a good idea and part of the Assassin's Creed 'DNA' to be going into people's memories. Removing any mention of it would be an odd choice and would disappoint me in clearly catering to the vocal minority that have issues with it. It's part of the IP's identity and makes it unique from other historical IP. The last modern day element I really enjoyed was walking around the studio in Black Flag and some of the story built around that, but since then it really has taken a back seat. Since the Desmond story they haven't had anything to really make me care about the present day characters. They just need to do a better job in making it more engaging, not remove it.
I really enjoy the animus stuff, in some games more than the actual core gameplay. Admittedly it did start to get a bit silly with Desmond, but I appreciate the breaks from the action. I'm the kind of guy who loves a good mystery/point'n'click/puzzle/RPG/walking simulator. I find these types of games typically more entertaining than anything action orientated.
Now my memory isn't so good, but I remember really enjoying the game where you were in first person, exploring the Abstergo offices and hacking into peoples computers. I can't remember what AC game it was, or even the content itself, all I remember is really enjoying it and being pissed off that I had to go back to being an Assassin.
Now my memory isn't so good, but I remember really enjoying the game where you were in first person, exploring the Abstergo offices and hacking into peoples computers. I can't remember what AC game it was, or even the content itself, all I remember is really enjoying it and being pissed off that I had to go back to being an Assassin.
I kind of enjoyed it, but AC2 was the highlight. I felt like it was meant to be more though like you learn to be an assassin and then use those skills in a modern environment, that never fully materialized apart from short sequences in a couple of games.
Though I did have a hoot going around hacking co-workers computers because I am secretly a dickhead in the office as well XD
Though I did have a hoot going around hacking co-workers computers because I am secretly a dickhead in the office as well XD
I loved it and think its sorely missing from Origins and Odyssey (I have completed both). In odyssey there is a cool bit but essentially Ubisoft have all but removed it from the series.
For me... it opens so many interesting story possibilities that they are ignoring. I can imagine some cool Day Of the Tentacle type puzzle solving/teamwork between the main protagonist and the person in the Animus. Or simply a better device for explaining away some of the wishy washy bullshit in the main story.
For me... it opens so many interesting story possibilities that they are ignoring. I can imagine some cool Day Of the Tentacle type puzzle solving/teamwork between the main protagonist and the person in the Animus. Or simply a better device for explaining away some of the wishy washy bullshit in the main story.
Yeah, I loved how they handled scaling back the Animus in Odyssey. It was still crucial to the plot, but all the ancillary real world stuff was basically regulated to exploration.
Honestly, there's no real way to do AC without the Animus or the present day plot. That is the game's main story.
Yep. I was super into it until they shat the bed with the Desmond story in III. Such a disappointment, all that build up for nothing.
This would be great.
I used to love that aspect of the games, but they completely fucked it with how they handled Desmond's story. That aspect was constantly building and building, but then they just dumped the meaningful elements to insure they could keep the series going in perpetuity, and now it has no stakes or reason to exist, or at least any I'm willing to buy into.
It's not Assassin's Creed without the Animus and modern day stuff.
If that goes then the last vestige of the original, good games is gone.
If that goes then the last vestige of the original, good games is gone.
I couldn't care less if the modern arc world is coming to an end while I'm trying to immerse myself in renaissance Italy. It just doesn't matter to me, even if it had better writing or better characters. I'm there for the digital tourism and I don't need an excuse for it.
Didn't think it was necessary. I see a lot about it trying the games together. The games don't need to be tied together. There is nothing wrong with them being similar games with no story connection like FF. Maybe a sequel/prequel here or there. Always thought the Animus bits were forced and really added nothing to the AC games I played.
OP
OP
Appreciate all the different and detailed opinions! Admittedly there isn't much I can contribute to the discussion as I can only offer my perspective as a newcomer to the series, since I've only played Origins (hell I haven't even finished it yet!) So I really wanted to learn what longtime players of AC thought about the subject.
So, the no Animus option is in the lead but there are still many who want the Animus aspect to continue. However, It seems that a decent amount of people who want the Animus to remain, also think the modern day portions in the last few AC games are lacking and could use some large improvements going forward.
I'm not sure how Ubisoft can please everyone, since it looks like removing the Animus would upset many, but seriously improving the modern day portions in the games and making them more interesting not only from a story perspective, but also gameplay, seems like a good start.
So, the no Animus option is in the lead but there are still many who want the Animus aspect to continue. However, It seems that a decent amount of people who want the Animus to remain, also think the modern day portions in the last few AC games are lacking and could use some large improvements going forward.
I'm not sure how Ubisoft can please everyone, since it looks like removing the Animus would upset many, but seriously improving the modern day portions in the games and making them more interesting not only from a story perspective, but also gameplay, seems like a good start.
Last edited:
I've never been able to articulate my issue with the Assassin's Creed series but by golly you've done it in one sentence. The only difference I would argue is that the animus has done nothing to elevate the series and Ubisoft has made an artform of wish fulfilment history revionist wankery and blind corporate greed by producing these games ad nauseum.
Can someone tell me whether all of the games follow the similar beats? Here is the formula:
• Introducing protagonist character
• Protagonist character is already a vigilante/medjai/mercenary who is skilled at combat/assassinations
• The protagonist discovers the traces of Illuminati
• The protagonist discovers that Illuminati is everywhere and almighty
• In addition to being good vs evil, there is always a personal reason to go after the cult
• Something something ancient alien artifacts
• Protagonist works against the cult, killing all/most of their known members
• The battle is won, but the cult lives on, see you at the next game
The modern-day stuff is just the immersion-breaker reminding you that you ARE NOT IN GREECE OR EGYPT but in some horizontal fridge...
The constraints for the main quest are severely limiting of what the actual main-quest storyline could be. It is like watching prequels for the show (present day stuff) which will never end, nor it is any good to begin with.
• Introducing protagonist character
• Protagonist character is already a vigilante/medjai/mercenary who is skilled at combat/assassinations
• The protagonist discovers the traces of Illuminati
• The protagonist discovers that Illuminati is everywhere and almighty
• In addition to being good vs evil, there is always a personal reason to go after the cult
• Something something ancient alien artifacts
• Protagonist works against the cult, killing all/most of their known members
• The battle is won, but the cult lives on, see you at the next game
The modern-day stuff is just the immersion-breaker reminding you that you ARE NOT IN GREECE OR EGYPT but in some horizontal fridge...
The constraints for the main quest are severely limiting of what the actual main-quest storyline could be. It is like watching prequels for the show (present day stuff) which will never end, nor it is any good to begin with.
Me, from the "Your controversial gaming opinions" thread:
So yes, I'm the person who thinks that the Animus adds interest to the underlying storyline. I don't think I'd be as *intrigued* by the series if it wasn't there. I'd still enjoy the gameplay, but it'd impact my interest in the worldbuilding and universe as a whole.
(That said, I don't disagree that they sometimes screw up the pacing and timing of those moments, although they're markedly better at them than they have been in the past on occasion)
So yes, I'm the person who thinks that the Animus adds interest to the underlying storyline. I don't think I'd be as *intrigued* by the series if it wasn't there. I'd still enjoy the gameplay, but it'd impact my interest in the worldbuilding and universe as a whole.
(That said, I don't disagree that they sometimes screw up the pacing and timing of those moments, although they're markedly better at them than they have been in the past on occasion)
I love the Animus (and the whole Assassins vs Templars story) and I'm really annoyed at Ubisoft since it's obvious they don't know what to do with it. The ACII trilogy was amazing because of it and I think it's integral for the cohesiveness of the franchise. I hope Ubisoft finally realizes how important it is and expand on it.
