The Assassin's creed series was woke from the beginning
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
I will actually disagree with this and I'll provide the arguments why it WASN'T always woke as someone who played 1 to Black Flag:
AC1: The templars had infiltrated EACH side including the Assassin's and when they were eliminated the Crusaders and Saracens came to a peace treaty without Templar influence.
AC2: The church wasn't involved until the end when Borgia became pope to acquire the artifact, Brotherhood they were more involved under Cesare's influence while his father the Pope was against it and when the Pope was killed by Cesare, the new church officials thanks to Ezio eliminating Cesare's allies sided secretly with the Assassin's. In AC2 it was Nobles working against each other under Templar influence.
AC3: this one was more mixed as Connor through his actions though ended up helping to an extent the Americans gain independence, made MORE people suffer since the Templars were doing damage limitation through the British like trying to protect the native tribes from the patriots. After it looked like Americans would win, they tried replacing Washington with a Templar and was the few times Connor was SUCCESSFUL in stopping something bad.
This is the thing in that it was played as a more nuanced take with both sides wanting peace but the Templars believing that it only comes through top down control and the Assassin's with it must be learned through free will knowing how much suffering would occur in the process.
Once the writing became more shit, is when they started to lean more on the woke side.
Sounds pretty woke.
You might be able to say that but I'll be honest, the tribes were the most stupid groups in the game, self sabotaging themselves because they couldn't see the bigger picture (guess that's where Connor got it from)
Though that might be some of my bias, from AC1 to Black Flag, I think Connor was the WEAKEST protagonist because his personality was like Altair with no character growth or Ezio just after his father and brother were killed, just throughout the entire game making constant shortsighted decisions.
That's historically very accurate. lel
I was about to say the same. They were so busy fighting each other they didn't see Europeans as much of a threat.
Gotta agree with this assessment about the first three games, especially the third game, which had the most nuanced take.
The Twitter OP failed to account for the fact that Connor failed to save his people because they failed to save themselves, and they even FOUGHT him because he was trying to broker peace with the Europeans.
At the end of AC3 Connor was no longer with the Assassins because he rightly pointed out that they were idiots with a dumb code that didn't hold weight when measured against the realities of the world, and he ALMOST sided with the Templars after his talk with his father (who actually had one of the most sensible monologues in the series), but it looked like they ran out of time and rushed through those sequences toward the end.
But the general theme of AC3 was creed means nothing if what you're using it for is only self-serving and destructive, and it was one of the only times the series took a deep dive into each side, showing the intentions and motivations. Haytham actually was presented really well as a Templar with good intentions and motivations and goals aimed actually bettering society.
We don't need a deep dive into the lore to see that its woke shit.