Assassin's Creed: Gamer Girls' Choice

An introduction to read while you brew your tea...

I know very few gamers like me. Most people I know who game do so for mere entertainment. They game because none of their friend's are available, or because they heard of that new title; the one where you can perform a supernatural whoop-de-do and they thus get suckered in by the novelty. Others game competitively, and as a sidebar, I think it's the games they play which can rightly be called video games. I say the word "game" apart from the word "video" and I think of those things in boxes that contain a board and some pieces and perhaps a few dice. Or gambling. I think of that too.

Anyhow if you're not following me, I'm essentially doing a wrap-up, aristotelean style. You've got your big category of entertainment. Under that there's a slew of things: music, art (i.e. paintings and whatnot), film (motion picture or still photography), drama, sports, and somewhere in there we get what's commonly called today, video games... but there's probably an etc. in the slew as well.

But it's the category of video games that concerns this philosopher. Broken down, I'd argue you can go into two major groups, the first one being 1) the True Video Game and 2) the Narrative Game. I call the True Games as such because they adhere to a simple game format: beat the game by completing a certain challenge through strategy or chance. These are the pure puzzle games like Tetris, Pong, Space Invaders, Packman or even the early side-scrollers. Newer games in this category could be the multiplayer versions of games like Starcraft, Call of Duty, Halo, Super Smash Brothers, League of Legends and so on. Some of these True Games are single player vs. CPU, others are player vs. player, or PvP. But what they all share in common is that they have no or virtually no narrative element involved. Tetris players don't need to know why they are guiding blocks down the screen level after level. Indeed, their narrative starts at I turned on the machine to have fun playing Tetris, and now I will commence having fun.

These games are games that could theoretically be played without digital simulation. Even an RTS like Starcraft could probably be played if one had enough people and time. It's a True Video Game because it is at it's essence, a true game. It just happens to be in digital format on a digital medium, because slavery nowadays is expensive and quite illegal.

"Come on already!" You cry. "What does this have to do with Assassin's Creed?"

Tea done yet? We're about to start...

Okay, I'll tell you. I classify Assassin's Creed not as a competitive game. Yes, I'm aware some of the installments have multiplayer game modes, but honestly, what AAA dev isn't going to try their hand at a multiplayer just incase it helps rake in a few extra million? But AC didn't start off multiplayer, it started off in the other camp: the Narrative Game. The big deal? Well, with a True Video Game, success, sales and popularity depend largely on good mechanics: a TVG regardless of the amount of players, must be programmed to be a challenge but not an impossible one. An NG, on the other hand needs attractive gameplay, graphics and a compelling narrative story. Now graphics and story are a no-brainer, but what exactly is gameplay? My definition is threefold 1) basic game mechanics (i.e. how the game plays and is manipulated via controls), 2) physics and 3) overall game experience (i.e. how the game felt.

My take...

I remember when this franchise started. The thing that drew me into it was that intense minute or so trailer (seen here). And why not? This has all the makings of a really sweet game. Spying on a target from afar, stealing through a crowd to get in close, taking down multiple targets as if it were child's play, and finally killing off the one you sought with... get this: a hidden blade! But that's not all. The city guards are in hot pursuit. Let's elude them by doing some fancy footwork onto the nearest rooftop, taking down another guard unawares, and topping it all off in the nick of time by immersing yourself in a pool of monks just fresh out from their daily worship.

I still love that video to this day, but it's sad because it reminds me of how much better this series could've been. Most of my problems with the game center around the story, but I have many bones to pick with the gameplay as well. Since I'm of the assumption that most gamers only really care about the latter, I will begin here. Oh, but where to start? Ah, I know.

Dat parkour though...

First let me tell you that I've only played and completed the titles as follows: AC, ACII, AC: Revelations, and ACIV: Black Flag. The neat thing about these games however is that the engines and mechanics don't change much, so most of my beefs issued will be for all of these. Nevertheless, I won't be able to touch on the all specifics unique to each game, though I mention some.

• One of my main problems that I encountered in every game was that it was too easy. In the interest of not getting me wrong, I do NOT mean that it is user friendly... in fact I found the games to be quite the opposite, but we'll get there soon enough. There are very few penalties for messing up in the game aside from sustaining damage to yourself and possibly your armor ('cept Black Flag! And I—surprise surprise—lament this heartily too). The damage in question is only dealt if you fail to block or doge an attack, or you fall from a too great a height. The damage you do take is lacking in brutality as well. Melee warfare and weapons are vicious and I can appreciate the games for demonstrating this when you slay an enemy, but I think it's only fair if the same can happen to you. Still, I'd like to see more brutality. I'm supposed to be a goddamned, stone-cold assassin! Is it too much to ask for some dismemberment? Hell, that could have been implemented in the gameplay: clean kills are difficult, but make for stealthier jobs; brutal massacres are easy but gain you more notoriety. And speaking of... I know people have critiqued the game before for making the player character... a bit obvious for an assassin. Like, isn't anyone in a hood with loads of unique weapons automatically suspicious? To be fair, I think it does get a bit ridiculous, but only in the later games. In Altair's time, I can suspend my disbelief enough to accept white as a very common color, that fashions weren't as hard and fast (especially for the poor), so as to excuse the hooded robes (and also Christian monks did wear hooded robes), and I also don't find it hard to swallow him decked out with weapons as the world was a tumultuous place back then. It's characters like Ezio, Connor and Edward that make me scratch my head why the guards don't pay more attention to them. Oh yes, ACII did have a notoriety meter, but I found that a silly attempt to make the game challenging. Later on in II, I simply stopped trying to lower notoriety in order to give the game a bit more realism. I mean shit guys, for sure there's a lot of people living in Italy, but when you see a man in highly stylish clothing and armor cut down ten city guards (BTW, guards you might know personally as a citizen of the town), and flee the scene by scaling the side of the nearest building, you think you'll ever forget that man's face, clothes, weapons or actions? Maybe in the AC universe, every NPC has as much mental capacity as Brick from Anchorman. And then there's parkour. Something I am by no means an expert in, but something I can tell by looking at it that it takes skill. The AC games just give it to you as a freebee. No hours of mastering button combos, no gruesome accidents as results of failed attempts. Just hold down a button or two and run toward something. Anything. You can probably climb it. Forget misjudging distance; autoleap's got your back. Can't tell whether or not a roof tile, iron bar or bit o' masonry can support your weight? No worries, apparently it all can if you're an assassin... unless you're in a gigantic underground tomb. Then shit will break on you all the time—but don't fear; remember autoleap? All in all, AC games rank one notch above Fable in terms of challenge, but at least in Fable you could fart in people's faces and flip them off...
• What challenge I did get from AC is it's horrid UI. If you want a game to tell you next to nothing when you start a mission—oops I mean memory sequence—then I'd recommend this game. I fully understand that there are games out there that make heuristics a selling point, but AC doesn't do this. The standard formula runs more like a GTA pre-mission cutscene: Edward approaches quest giver, they talk about locations I've either never been to or just flat out don't remember (doesn't matter I've got radar blips); they talk about people who's names I can't connect to a face (doesn't matter I've got radar blips and on-screen text to tell me what to do with said person-blip); they talk about stuff just to allow room for character growth (dubious, but it's the gameplay that matters, yes?). Okay, I think I'm set! Let's tackle this memory with all our assassin romance and finesse! Alright, I'm after a man aboard slave vessel? No sweat! I can't sink the vessel because of the slaves on board? No problem, I've been fighting ships long enough to know that I must damage them into the red before they sink. Hey, why you getting angry? I just told you I have to pummel the ship into submission... wait what? WTF? Why did I desynchronize? Target destroyed? No I didn't, I was just damaging it enough to... [After a few more desynchs] You mean I had to just pull up NEXT to the ship WITHOUT damaging it THIS ENTIRE FUCKING TIME!?!? ANYONE PLAN ON FUCKING TELLING ME THIS!? This is just one example of the many times during memory sequences I absolutely ate shit because of a lack of information to the player. Perhaps they should use more visual cues instead of explaining things via conversation with some guy whose hat feather is distracting me, or some girl who's boobs are doing the same. Of course, it's not always this bad. I understand when it tells me to "tail target without being detected" or "kill that guy." But even then I suffer from lack of info to the player. I'm not above chalking it up to myself and the way I read instructions but I've encountered a much similar feeling in other games. For example, in Hitman Absolution, there's a part where you gotta take out this weapons scientist in a huge warehouse setup for testing out the company's land mines... on pigs. I tried numerous times to make it through that part without being seen and without kills. I couldn't do it. I fell back on kills, but still tried hiding the bodies. No dice; again I'd get seen or someone would discover the corpse before I had time to hide it. It's aggravating in the extreme when the name of the game is stealth, but it takes 1000 tries to obtain a perfect stealth record when out and out slaughter is just as viable, or indeed promoted as it is in the many scenarios of AC. In short, I felt like the game was saying to me, "Hey, what's with all the sneaking around? This isn't a stealth game you know; I didn't give you all these weapons just so you won't use them. Oh, trying to proceed without kills or k.o.'s eh? Just so happens there's a rooftop guard here, here, here and here. Oops, too bad! You've been had! Guess you have to kill them now..." And then we're back at bullet point one. The game is about assassins for pete's sake, you'd think stealth would be a lot more integral to the gameplay. Oh, I guess someone at Ubisoft confused stealth with parkour... or maybe it's just that in the AC universe, guards can't look up.
• Speaking of assassins, this game never made me feel like one. Perhaps that's my fault. I dunno. I mostly felt like a giant douche with some weapons who, for reasons unknown, never gets caught, never gets reviled by normal people, never gets spat upon by even the lowlifes in the slums. No, apparently for the assassins of AC, life is one big, glamourous party. Sure, half of your family might get killed, but eh, *shrug* unlucky. I guess the world was a different place back then. Murderers were celebrated in the streets (although prepare for a reprimand if you loot your victim's corpse). People are ready and willing to trust you if you wear a hood, kill town guards and officials by the score, and if they aren't, you can always throw money at the herald who talks shit about you (though honestly I don't think anyone listens to him; you ever see a random Joe or Jane Citizen call the guards on your ass because they heard some anti-you propaganda? Nope). Don't worry about sir herald either, that guy is as corrupted as they come. He'll always accept your dough, although, I mean in reality you could just kill him and silence him for good the next time you draw the eye of the templars down on you because of your hijinks... Well fuck it, cash isn't hard to come by anyway. Speaking of which, what's the best way to get cash? What? Assassin contracts? Hell no! What do I look like, a killer for hire? It used to be an assassin made his money by sequencing memories (don't ask me how that works). Another good way to accrue funds is by taking a small town under your wing and renovating shops and guilds to gain maximum profit over time. Assassins making a living through killing people? It was never thus! Yep, turns out we got assassins wrong all this time guys, just like dragons and vampires. They don't kill for the money, they kill for world peace and... liberty, I think... oh, and I suppose because it's also a thrill.

And it's with this last bullet point that I feel it appropriate to turn to the story critiques I promised in the above.

I play it for the plot...

• Story is incomprehensible. Mismatch. Heh, me and my shameless allusions. But yeah, speaking from the heart guys, I think the AC series could be so much better than it is if it simplified it's plot. I had an author/screenwriter tell me once that when a movie promises depth, he's probably going to judge it more harshly than a movie that doesn't. Compare Tree of Life to Napoleon Dynamite, and I think you'll see what I mean. I know there are people out there who like a story that will get them thinking (and to grossly misquote Shakespeare, "If it be a sin to covet intellectual entertainment,  I am the most offending man alive") but if you as an author are going to attempt a thought-provoking masterpiece in any medium, you better be goddamn good at it. So good, in fact, that even your haters have naught to do at the end of the day, but disagree with the message presented. I argue from the standpoint that we feign thought-provokingness in our entertainment. The motion picture Inception was a good example of this I think. The film promises to put viewers knee high in some deep, involved plot. What I got at least was another action flick; standard race against the clock tension, standard violence possibly rendered a bit more meaningless in that the enemies were actually manifestations of someone's subconscious. There was standard, strained romance backstory too! All in all, I can walk away from Inception like I can from Die Hard, save that feeling where one film was more honest with me than the other. You wanna see shooting, explosives and stuff? Yipee ki yay mutherfuker. Translate what I'm saying into this popular stealth action/adventure series, whose main title revolves around the silliest creed I've ever heard: nothing is true, everything is permitted. Who ordered the deepsauce pizza with extra cheese? Sorry, we were out of ingredients, so we had to make that an imitation deepsauce. That'll be $60 please. I'd been waiting since game one of the series for someone to explain the logic behind this creed. It seems the player character does too when he inevitably asks about it. "Doesn't that mean I get to loot and plunder anyone I want?" asks Captain Kenway. "No," says James Kidd. "Hm, well perhaps because nobody knows what it means, there's wisdom behind it, and it should be applied to all aspects of our lives..." Said no one ever. If loads of people in this world reject common faiths like Christianity, Islam or Judaism (to name a few) why would anyone band together under a creed that makes less sense than the Immaculate Conception? "Oh actually, it's because it promotes freedom." Oh. Good. And how in the hell is that different from all the OTHER creeds, beliefs, religions and philosophies that promote freedom? What even is freedom to the assassins? In Black Flag, after Kenway takes down a target (I forget who), he accuses the templar of wanting to fashion a world where everyman is an obedient, docile, and most importantly, unknowing slave. It was a touching scene. I look out at a nation that cries for the intervention of it's government at every turn in life, like a child spoiled rotten, whining for mommy. We depend on the state because we're too scared to take control. It's our boys in camo and cop uniforms that do the fighting for us. Guns kill people; let's keep the men who use them separate from those of us that don't. It reminds me of this old Latin fable: a wolf struggling to survive comes across a well-fed dog and asks him how he manages to stay thus. Dog replies that he works for a man by watching his house all day. Wolf says it sounds like a sweet gig and wants to get in on the action. Dog mentions in the fine print that you have to be chained up during the day, to which wolf decides against trading his freedom for comfort. By and large, this is the textbook formula for the state to enslave its people, by increasing dependance on the central government. Again, prominent ancient Greeks—history's poster children for democracy—won people over not merely by showing off how smart or handsome or strong they were, but by giving handouts to the poor and needy. This is why Presidents always appear in public with rolled-up sleeves. After all, they're just like the next working class schmuck. So there you have it, freedom is not having chummy dictators who would like to feed you till you've become too fat to move. Freedom is not always fun. Freedom is painful at times, and not everyone wants to be free. In an ironic stroke of fate, I am the very person Kenway was talking about; the obedient, docile slave. I'm sitting here in my comfy chair—playing a game that was mass-marketed in much the same way they portray Abstergo (A.K.A. the bad guys) doing—and NOT starting my own assassin's guild, much less living by their creed. How's about next time you go to school or work or on a date you don't put in any effort at all? Everything's permitted, yeah? Good philosophy if you're looking to get expelled, fired and rejected. Real freedom is not doing whatever the hell you want. I, for one, am of the politico-philosophic persuasion that freedom abhors a vacuum. Think of it this way, if one man had the freedom to do whatever he pleased, his desire would eventually conflict with the desires of another person. The story of King Ahab illustrates this well. In the Bible, we're told of Ahab and his desire for this pretty sweet vineyard under the care and loving oversight of a dude named Naboth. Bartering for it was out of the question, and Ahab rage-quitted to his kingly chambers, refusing even to eat! Jezebel, his wife was like, "Quit thy whining likened unto bitches, O husband. Just kill the guy and take his vineyard." And one politically correct scene later, Ahab's got himself a shiny new vineyard! Had someone asked him at the time if he felt what he did was an exercise of freedom, I'd think he'd answer affirmative. Was Mr. Naboth free? No, his freedom was squelched. Ahab was, in one real sense, enlarging his freedom while Mr. Naboth's freedom was being greatly diminished, yea verily until he was denied the right to draw breath. If we drew a Ven of freedoms here, you would have one circle (Ahab's) and the other (Naboth's) with the overlap in between being the sacrifices they both make to keep each circle equal size. After the vineyard incident, Ahab's circle grows, enveloping the overlap portion (as no mutual sacrifice was being made here now) and Naboth's circle until the only circle left was Ahab's. "Aye, but that's just it," you say, "Ahab was a king. Of course kings will be dicks. AC repeatedly shows us this." To quote a character from a show I never watch, "False." AC doesn't really show governmental dickism except in very superficial forms; sure a guy might get an unprovoked (so it seems) beating by some city guards, but what does that tell me about ruling powers? Am I suppose to get pissed to the point of thinking that all governments sponsor this brutality on their own people? It's tempting to think that way, but I argue that's a narrow-minded way of looking at it. Maybe they're, unbeknownst to their superiors, simply corrupt men; maybe they'd be oppressive in another life and form too, like the asshole boss who's mean to his employees, or the gangster who outrages a defenseless woman, or the dick who cuts your coin purse and goes off free-running, never to be seen again... oh wait those are the assassins. Oh well, it's not like you needed that money to feed your family or anything. Let's hope another one shows up flinging his florins about the street, though not likely. Yeah, apart from bits of dialogue like, "We're only pillaging the Kings' men... the biggest crooks out there," or "They're just pirates in uniform," AC really provides no solid evidence for me to be confident that the Templars really are the bad guys. No matter which way you slice it, a person can try enlarging his freedoms by stepping on his neighbor's, whether he's a prince or a pauper. And this makes me wonder...
• Who are the bad guys? The series obviously wants us to woot for the assassins and boo for the templars, but after a lot of what I've mentioned in the above, there's room enough to argue there's no justice to be found in either camp. Sure, the assassin you're playing as never historically killed civilians (hell, he must have historically never eaten or slept either), but who's to say that's not Ubisoft covering their asses? If you think about it, AC and GTA have a lot in common; player is set in a world where thousands of NPCs live. NPCs are all defenseless and bound by in-game laws; in GTA, the laws are driving to the rules of the road (mostly) and in AC the laws are no parkour (mostly). In both games, their lives have no ultimate meaning for the player character. In juxtaposition, look at many of the NPCs in a Fallout or Elder Scrolls game; most have their own names, stations in life, unique personalities, methods of defending themselves if attacked, ideologies, etc.... If you went on a rampage in one of these games, you'd probably end up killing someone who might have offered you a unique quest, or had some kind of information. At the very least, you won't be seeing that character anymore because that was the only Veronica, or Lydia. Conversely, in GTA or AC universe, people that walk the streets from day to day are glorified, nameless cardboard cutouts. At a glance, it looks like they've got precious, busy lives, but don't be fooled; they're really only there to make it feel like the surrounding world is vibrant and inhabited. They also come with the added bonus of using them for tricks, stunts and targets for your griefing. And before you object, yes, you can grief the NPCs in AC. I remember playing ACII and beating up every unlucky man, woman and woman within a mile radius of Ezio... because boredom. Hey, he never historically killed any civilians, right? It was terrible: knocking down hordes of people, grabbing ladies by their garments and punching their faces in, seeing how many townsmen I can lay out before the guards notice, at which point I'd either lose the guards via killing or hiding and start my reign of terror anew. Faced with these facts, I can only conclude that Ubisoft really didn't give a shit about the lives of these NPCs, but (unlike Rockstar) they didn't want to draw unwanted attention of the bleeding-heart-game-violence-watchdogs, and thus assassins cannot kill civvies. Ironically, Bethesda games permit the wanton destruction of NPCs, but smart players will realize that harming them may hamper the game experience in the form of fines or execution, imprisonment or exile, not to mention you might axe somebody who gives you an important quest. Of course, at the end of the day, these are only NPCs and they don't/shouldn't bear any moral impact upon the player if he/she chooses to hurt or kill them. I bring NPCs up because AC brings them up. The NPCs are the "people that the assassins are fighting for," and yet, you can steal from them, use them as accomplices to murder (prostitutes/mercenaries), kill them accidentally with no recourse, trespass on their private property, and be a general nuisance. The guards, in all their inability, try to protect and serve these people from guys in the game like you, and yet somehow they are the bad guys. I guess this is one of those "greater good" situations...
• Let's talk about the Romanticism for a bit shall we? Don't misunderstand me here; I am no enemy to slicking things over with the ol' romanticization brush, even if the game is supposed to be historically based. I said in a previous post that I like Final Fantasy VIII mainly because of it's overall aesthetic! I will go so far as to say that I like the character designs in FFXIII (freaking XIII!), especially Lightning, despite the rest of the game leaving a horrid taste in my mouth and despite the hundreds of thousands of haters she has on mere association with the title. So allow me to take an aside to let the reader know that I respect AC's creative liberty where appropriate. Remember: I thought the trailer for the first game was really cool! The thing I am an enemy against here is over-romanticization. This is why I chose to title this post what I did, because these games get as ridiculous as the swan scene in The Notebook. In fact, I'd go so far as to posit that the AC games are really just playable chick flicks. And here's where I give a genuine applause to Ubisoft, for they have pulled off a marketing rarity in this game. The AC series is one of the first North American game releases that appeals to more girls than guys, while the guys dig it too. I realize I have no super-concrete evidence to back this up, but in true Phoenix Wright style, I do have an intuition—especially when there exists a blog on Tumblr specifically for showcasing yaoi fan art of AC characters (Here if you so dare). Ignoring rule 34 for the moment, let's consider the following: one of Ubisoft's top executives behind AC, Jade Raymond, is a woman. This shows if you know what to look at. I'm not saying that women are devoid of artistic brilliance; rather men and women are susceptible to their own pitfalls. Men can—and often do—pack as much gratuitous violence, sex and dissipation as they can into any given form of entertainment. Not much is gained from this. Women can be tempted to pack as much gratuitous drama, emotion and empowerment as they can into movies, books, and—I'd argue now—video games. Of course I'm not saying only women worked on AC, but I can't help but see a large female influence in the series' design; from the handsome, able and intelligent foreign player characters (not raging-bull, alpha males typical of a CoD, Gears of War or God of War), to the beautifully detailed cityscapes and locales, to the friendships. One thing I think stands out above the rest is the lack of general grit, and I've skirted this before in the gameplay section. I want to see consequences for my actions. Show me the weeping wives and children of the thousands of men I've killed. Give me the ability to solicit prostitutes if I choose (I mean, I can get drunk and murder people, why not this?). Go above and beyond the mild blood spurts; give me shrieks of pain and mortally injured who grovel on the floors, begging in vain for their lives to be spared. Be brave: let the main character be racist, sexist or religious. I'm not looking for a sweet guy who can take me to the heights of Il Duomo di Firenze to watch the sunset. I'm looking for a killer. His motivations could be evil or pure, but regardless there must always be a heavy, lingering regret for the things he's done and the things he will do. Watching events unfold in AC makes all the violence in history feel like I'm shoe shopping at the mall. Never in a AAA video game has death felt so cheap and unfulfilling for me. I realize it sounds like I've just asked for all the gratuitous stuff I only finished condemning moments ago, but consider the nature of the game. Assassin. What should be a word associated with darkness, brutality and killing (oftentimes for money) now makes for a nice fantasy date, where the player can run around with limitless energy, fell enemies with little difficulty or consequence and pretend all the while that he/she is saving the world in the process.

IN. THE. ENNNNNND!!!!

Whew. I've said a lot. I could probably say more. I'll summarize instead. For a game series that is critically acclaimed and has a pretty wide fan base, I am not a fan. For a game that should have been heavier on the stealth action, it's overall controls were an insult to my intelligence at best and jerky at worst. In classic Ubisoft fashion, replay value in this game is based on collectibles and completion records. The games are unchallenging and despite peppering the series with historical tidbits here and there (most of which are optional reads), hasn't motivated me to further broaden my knowledge of the world we live in. The weak and incoherent narrative is good for delivering the loads of emotional porn women crave, while flying under the radar of the series' fanboys.