Get Tuitt: Season 2 Teaser

So, I put this little trailer together to promote my Youtube channel. What is it about making videos that gets me so jazzed up? Is it the fact that I love being silly on camera? Perhaps it's my constant need for attention as a Class A attention whore. Whatever it is, I enjoy making videos and I enjoy the fact that others enjoy them, too! 

Assassin's Creed 3 VS. Mass Effect 3: Who has the worse ending?

Happy Black Friday, folks! Thanks for stopping by for my 100th post! I haven’t posted on my blog in a while. Sure, I’ve been writing, but the material has been used for my videos on Youtube. Thanks to everyone watching/reading my material!

WARNING: This post contains spoilers for Mass Effect 3, Assassin’s Creed 3, and the Matrix. Please stop reading if you have not seen/playing any of these titles.

Earlier this year, the debacle with Mass Effect 3 and its lore-breaking story/ending took over the web. Whether you believe the game was good or not, no fan can deny that there were unacceptable elements of the game that no company in the industry should adopt. Like that situation, Assassin’s Creed 3 was release recently with a disappointing conclusion. A friend of mine was explaining his satisfaction with the gameplay, but otherwise utter disappointment with the story and its resolution.

I later came across a thread on Hold the Line with the same topic, and I felt the need to write about it. I chuckled because my friend was as adamant about his opinions as I was about Mass Effect 3. Then he said it; the thing that stopped me in my tracks and caused me to ask him to repeat what he said. I quote, “The ending to Assassin’s Creed 3 is even worse than the ending to Mass Effect 3.”

To which I replied, “Whaaaaaaaat?”

Granted, these are his opinions, but I felt obligated to dispute them on the grounds that I’d be doing the gaming community a disservice if I simply let that statement roam these lands unchecked, unchallenged.

I was quite respectful. I let him explain his reasoning which (to sum up), was mainly based on the dissatisfaction he felt that, “Desmond went out like a punk. Bitches be crazy son”.

I kid, of course. What he really said was, “It seemed rushed toward the end and Desmond didn’t get a more satisfying death. He just touched the orb and then died.”

I have to begin by saying that, while I have not played the game, I watched and enjoyed the collection of cut-scenes compiled by Vikz9211 on Youtube. Desmond is the main character. The journey through his ancestors’ lives is just to help him save the world. He is the one to do it. In his genetics lies the key to unlocking the secrets left behind by the First Civilization. In the first game, Desmond Miles was the looking glass through which we experienced the trials of Altair Idn-La’Ahad (an Assassin that lived during the Crusades). I cared more about Altair’s life in the past than I did about Desmond here in the present.

Desmond became the main character at the end of Assassin’s Creed 2, in my opinion. Ezio Auditore da Firenze (an Assassin that lived during the Renaissance) has defeated his enemies and enters the Vault under the Vatican only to be greeted by a hologram of a member of the First Civilization. Ezio tries to speak with her, but she insists on his silence as she isn’t interested in talking to him, but through him. Her message was for Desmond! This means at some point that, these people saw their doom, and laid the pieces out for us to find, including messages to the one they choose millions of years ago to stop a worldwide catastrophe from repeating itself.

When she was finished, she left Ezio confused, Desmond dumbstruck, and I was left enamored. When it cut to the credits, I put my controller down and applauded. No one else was even there, but I had to applaud because that’s a cliffhanger. That’s how you do it! Similar to Halo 2 and its ‘Sir, finishing this fight’ moment, I was compelled to wait for another chapter of the series, and I knew that Desmond was important.

Ubisoft reaffirmed Desmond as the main character two games later in Assassin’s Creed Revelations. Towards the end, Ezio (now an old man), finds a library left behind by Altair. He realized now what he was too young to understand when he came across that first hologram. Like Altair, he was but a conduit through which a message could be passed. These messages weren’t meant for him to understand, but he understood that he played his part and that it was time to retire. With this, he speaks these words to an image of Desmond directly.

Now we come to Assassin’s Creed 3 where Desmond finds the final temple and needs to make a choice; give his life to save the world or let the world die and become a prophet for the survivors to help rebuild. There is a twist to giving his life for humanity, though. If he does, he will release an ancient from the First Civilization who will enslave the human race. It’s only a choice for the character, however, because Desmond chooses to save the world, releasing the evil chick. He does this in hopes that other Assassins with rise up and find a way to stop her.

Compare this to the Mass Effect 3, a rushed mess that put the nail into the coffin of the Mass Effect storyline. I won’t go into too many details because there are plenty of videos and articles to go around about exactly why the story is broken and forced. I will just make one point that explains the biggest problem I have with the game; the Catalyst. A character that is introduced at the finale of the game without any inclination of his existence in any of the other games, introduces a new ‘conflict’ that he started and can easily solve by just going away. The Catalyst’s existence completely negates the point of the first two games and everything he says makes no sense when put against every piece of lore the Mass Effect universe has to offer.

Assassin’s Creed 3 doesn’t introduce any new conflicts in its conclusion, nor does it introduce any new characters. There are no concepts dropped on the player that weren’t introduced in previous games. It wasn’t openly said but we all knew Desmond was going to die. In fact, there were interviews with people who worked on the game saying that Desmond’s story needed to end. The tone was there, the pieces were set; all we needed to do was let it play out.

I have to disagree with those who compare Assassin’s Creed 3 with Mass Effect 3. I respect their opinion, but it seems like a bold statement to make after everything that went wrong with Mass Effect 3. AC3’s conclusion may have been a bit disappointing and abrupt, but I know why. A main character such as Desmond (who has been established over five games) should be given a proper goodbye where the music plays and his life flashes before his eyes. Maybe he has a more heartfelt goodbye with his father. We expected AC3 to be the conclusion of the series, but not because Ubisoft advertised it as such. We assumed because series have gone by the same format for years. Sequels are par for the course in the US. Can you believe Robocop got three movies? How about the Saw franchise?

The reason Desmond didn’t get a proper send-off is because the story isn’t over. It wasn’t meant to end at AC3. Ubisoft never advertised it as the end of the story. Desmond’s death was necessary to springboard the next chapter. The crisis has been averted, but another is born; Juno. Desmond put his trust and faith in the other Assassin’s, but while he was built up as the main character, what happened shows that he is not all important. Characters don’t always get to live at the end. A lot of heroes and villains died in Marvel’s Ultimate universe during the Ultimatum story arc, but life goes on. Speaking of heroes, didn’t Neo give himself to the machines in order to save the human race from their cycle of extinction? What about when Mordin went up into that tower to manually stabilize the release of the Genophage cure? AC3 illustrates that Desmond is just a piece in a large puzzle like his ancestors before him. Everyone has their part to play, and Ezio explains that in Revelations. We’re all just people, but we give ourselves titles and build ourselves up to make us seem important, but we die eventually.

In conclusion, we are used to never-ending series, trilogies, and martyrs. Am I disappointed with Desmond’s send-off? Yes. But if you ask me, I would rather be disappointed and have an ending that makes sense (with the notion that there will be another sequel) than be utterly crushed because nothing makes sense and the entire series is ruined (for the sake of being deep and meaningful with concepts that were never established as things we should care about). 

Yes, I wish that I didn’t have to remember so many elements of so many games to be caught up to Assassin’s Creed 3, but I’m glad that it all ties together and comes down to this moment. I will take AC3’s ending of the ME3’s ending any day ten times over. With this ending, we know there is going to be another game. What do you want to see in it?

Here are some things that I want to see:

Tombs and Glyphs. AC2 included the Assassin’s Tombs and the glyph decryption. I’m not really a history or geography buff, but there are huge cities with which to hide tombs to find. It was a great mechanic to have where you find all the tombs and unlock some special armor.

The glyphs were fun to decode and provide a unique payoff that was most unexpected in Assassin’s Creed 2. The video clips they unlocked pooled together to reveal some ancient memories from the First Civilization. Most notably so is the fact that the people in the clips were of the first humans to rebel, Adam and Eve. It wouldn’t be too much to add this little mechanic, also.

A bigger city to explore. Perhaps London or New York City? What about Tokyo? In previous titles, parts of the map would be blocked off as you explore your ancestors memories. Why not bring the story into modern day now that Juno has been released? This way, there would be no more synchronization, but it would open up the entire city for you to explore. Perhaps Ubisoft could have the next game set in multiple cities around the world in present day.

Less linear missions. I understand that the story is leading you to a single point, but do the missions have to be so linear? Can’t you choose your missions and how to go about them? This is reminiscent of Dishonored where it doesn’t matter how the target is executed as long as the job gets done.

Yes, make the actual plot-integral missions linear and give specifics to how a job should be done. I just think it would be better to have the rest of the game be less rigid. In a game where cities and landscapes are open, shouldn’t the missions be?

Multiple genders and creeds of Assassins together. I’m a big believer in more diversity in video games. Having female Assassins is great, as well as having different colors mixed in there, too. I say knowing that Liberation stars a black, female Assassin, but as I don’t have a Playstation Vita and don’t do well with spinoffs, I don’t count that one.

A longer development time. AC3 took two years to make while developing a new engine AND working on Brotherhood/Revelations. Those two games were good, but not worthy enough to be released as full releases at full price. I would have preferred to axe all those stupid tower defense missions and just released them as DLC expansions onto Assassin’s Creed 2.

Why not? We don’t need a trilogy within a trilogy since we already explored ten years of Ezio’s life. Why can’t we just explore more of Ezio’s life through DLC. Keep in mind that in ‘real time’, Desmond is only experiencing this through a few short months of going from location to location. Again, Brotherhood and Revelations were good, but I would have rather paid $20-30 for them as expansions than have to sit through hours of meaningless side missions that just draw out the game a bit longer.

The linear, one-game-a-year formula works well for shooters like COD or Battlefield, but not for historical, period games. When it comes to franchises like Assassin’s Creed, it’s important not to rush any of the installments. I have to say that by the time Revelations came around, I was satisfied, but tired of Assassin’s Creed. Nothing in the first ten minutes of the game compelled me to want to keep going. This surprised me because I was so into the trailer, but the fact that I’ve done this dance for three years in a row with three games in the same franchise was disturbing.

Unlike Call of Duty or Madden, Assassin’s Creed is full of beauty and depth, and it’s filled with tidbits about things from ages passed. I enjoy the idea of tying this entire Assassin versus Templar thing into historical events. I just hope that more time is allowed to expand properly and give up a truly enriching experience.

My advice to Ubisoft: STOP trying to compete with other companies. Take your time and tell the story you want to tell. And tell it right. So what if you take three years instead of two to make the next game. You won't go bankrupt because a new Assassin's Creed game isn't coming out next fall, and the loyal fans will not forget about you. Actually, they will be waiting for however long it takes for you to give them what they love about you and your products so much: QUALITY. 

Gaming Bytes #2

Another episode of Gaming Bytes is up! I began this news segment show on Hold the Line to help them out with their media, but I'm having so much fun doing it. Check it out and then check out their site! Hold the Line

Enter the Budget Story Gamer Part 3

And now the conclusion to my Enter the Budget Story Gamer series, and thus, the season. Thanks to you guys who have been so supportive of my progress. I'll keep bringing you my best if you keep deciding to Get Tuitt!

Exciting Skyrim/Halo News!

I have a new video up, in case you guys were't aware. I've been pretty active on my Youtube material, so I apologize for not being on Blogspot as much! But if you like my videos, don't be afraid to subscribe!