Ubisoft won its twelfth major competition in the Assassin’s Creed series, Valhalla. The series has struggled since the first game was released in 2008, and although the journey has had its bright spots, there is one thing the series has slowly lost: good, cohesive writing.
While each individual game may have a perfectly adequate story, we have long since lost any sense of overarching plot. And it struggles because writing the first game promised so much. In fact, I want to go so far as to say that the writing in the series since that first game has not been really good or has shown so much potential.
Say what you like about the original Assassin’s Creed, but it actually attempted a greater Assassin vs. Templar conflict – a war between two morally ambiguous sides believed in something. The dying speeches of Altair’s victims, though somewhat uncomfortable, still sound more interesting and speak of more internal character than just about anything that came out of Kassandra or Arno’s mouth:
‘You would kill us all, for no other reason than what was asked of you … Do you see the irony in all this? No, it does not look like it yet. But you will. ‘- Talal
‘You take the lives of men and women, strongly in the belief that their death will improve the lot of those left behind. A little evil, for a greater good? We are the same. “- Abu’l Nuqoud
“We will see how sweet it is, the fruit of your labor. You do not liberate the cities as you believe, but rather condemn them. In the end, you just have to blame yourself. You who speak of good intentions. ”- Willem van Montferrat
Especially the long conversations between Desmond and Templar Warren Vidic in the first Assassin’s CreedAlthough poorly directed (letting the player stand still and listening to the two, it’s a terrible way of making an exposition.) It at least tried to dispel the idea that both sides have ideologies, for sale:
Vidic: Your ancestors had almost the right idea, Mr. Miles. If the death of a few people – evil people, no less – can save the lives of thousands of people, it’s a small sacrifice.
Desmond: What do you mean, “almost”?
Vidic: They did not go far enough! To use it correctly, corruption is no different from cancer. Cut out the crops, but do not treat the source, and you buy at its best. There is no real change to be made without comprehensive, systemic intervention.
Desmond: Chemo for the masses.
Vidic: Education. Re-education, to be exact. But it is not easy and it does not always take.
Desmond: Let me guess – you have a better solution. What is it then?
Vidic: That would be telling now.
The commentaryUnit Assassin’s Creed games had their moments, but no one came up to say something so definitive about either side. Instead, they are literally showing us everything but that.
Part of the problem is that the series has increasingly focused on the Precursor races and their Piece of Eden artifacts. This means that the real conflict that was at the heart of the series – the Assassins vs. the Templar Order – not only has it been expanded, but it has not even been worked out yet. addressed over a period of time.
We are twelve games in the series, and they have yet to tell us what the Templars want. Not the historic Templars or the Order of the Ancient, organizations largely manned by Saturday morning cartoon villains, but the modern Templar Order. What is the end game as an organization? Or what is the purpose of the assassin? What do they do do or want it does not involve cleaning up after the Templar group of the day?
When was the last time one of them said the Assassin’s Creed? Or investigate what it means? Interpreting the Creed was a mainstay of the series for the first four Assassins or so, but then they apparently forgot about it after Edward’s pirate adventure.
Maybe I can offer one small suggestion for how the series can get back on track. Ubisoft has shown us a character who can be a perfect introduction to the modern Assassins and what they are up to – a character who is not even into Assassin’s Creed.
In Watch Dogs: Legion, the backbone of the game is the ability to select any random Londoner and recruit into your post. Ubisoft earns this by offering the ability to bring characters from other Ubisoft universes via DLC into DedSec, including the previous Watchdogs games and the Assassin’s Creed series. Granted, they can not bring in any of the assassins you have met before, as most of them are historical figures who would be quite conspicuous to walk a modern London street (or at least, I assume it’s the internal logic is). So they had to create a new, modern, British assassin to play:
Meet Darcy. She’s a member of the modern British Assassin’s Order, and we know nothing but little about Ubisoft’s video before the release. But looking at her concept art is enough to stimulate the imagination. She is recognizably an assassin, styled in the curious “hackpunk” way Watchdogs, with an absurdly long hidden blade on one side and a … I mean torch? … in the other.
I’m not saying Ubisoft should make it random Watchdogs DLC character a main character in the following Assassin’s Creed games. But she can at least tell us something about the assassins of today: the weapons they use, how they incorporate social stealth into crowds, perhaps what role technology plays in their adventures.
Certainly in the information age, the conflicts between order and freedom represented by the assassins and the Templars would be grayer and more complicated than ever before. So Show us who have conflict, Ubisoft. Use Darcy – or anyone, I would accept anyone – to tell it and give this series the interesting philosophical edge it had in the beginning.
Or, you know, we could have another very serious episode of Where on time is Carmen Sandiego? and neglects any meaningful modern narrative to play as Layla again. I know which one I would prefer.