Fun fact, this video was actually being made a couple of days before Assassin's Creed Shadows was announced. So it was just really coincidental timing. Here's my take on Shadows though. Don't buy it, because Ubisoft is a terrible terrible company. However the fact the game stars a black guy is absolutely NOT among the reasons you shouldn't buy the game.

I think Ezio's sentiment says it best: Freedom of choice; not freedom from consequence.

The one thing I disagree with is AC3's portrayal of Haytham. I don't think they treat him as unequivocally evil at all. He's the first Templar to have a direct familial relationship in the series and provides a level of charisma that hasn't been seen in the Templars before or since. Especially considering Rogue followed it, a game all about the Colonial Assassins getting corrupted with power, I think Haytham's point *was* to be the voice of reason for the Templars, and to challenge our way of thinking. Even ignoring that, we spend 3-4 hours playing as him at first too and build sympathy with him.

10:32 No, you're right on the money. This is something that was acknowledged as early as AC2, in Altair's Codex. "What follows are the three great ironies of the Assassin Order: (1) Here we seek to promote peace, but murder is our means. (2) Here we seek to open the minds of men, but require obedience to a master and set of rules. (3) Here we seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet we are practitioners ourselves. I have no satisfactory answer to these charges, only possibilities... Do we bend the rules in service to a greater good? And if we do, what does it say of us? That we are liars? That we are frauds? That we are weak? Every moment is spent wrestling with these contradictions and in spite of all the years I've had to reflect, still I can find no suitable answer... And I fear that one may not exist. Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. Does our creed provide the answer, then? That one may be two things-opposite in every way-simultaneously? And why not? Am I not proof? We of noble intentions, possessed of barbaric means? We who celebrate the sanctity of life and then promptly take it from those we deem our enemies?" I don't remember if the codex (or the series in general) ever provides some suggestion on how to resolve or reconcile this.

"If I have absolute freedom, then I have the freedom to take your absolute freedom away."

Rogue wanted to explore the hypocracy of the creed,but ubisoft gave them almost no time so they had to reuse black flag's assets VERY heavily

I came here to expect a critique on the saga and i found an analysis of the problem of the two ideologies on assasins creed. 10/10

Order without Freedom is Tyranny, but Freedom without Order is Chaos. You need both in balance. Adam Jensen says it best in Deus Ex Human Revolution; absolute freedom is no better than chaos. Ordinary men and women have to choose. Slowing down change when its negative, speeding it up when its good.

I haven't played any of the games beyond Black Flag (which I didn't finish, but did enjoy the pirate gameplay), but I've always viewed the Assassins as a sort of regulatory body. I don't think they want to outright dismantle society, otherwise your objective every game would be to slaughter every guard and leader figure that you run across. I remember in Assassin's Creed 2, you protect a member of a noble family that the Templar's specifically targeted so they could usurp power. If the true goal was complete and total anarchy, I would assume that the entire royal family would be up for assassination. Hell, even when Rodrigo Borja takes control by becoming Pope, Ezio lets the miserable bastard live. My take away is that the Assassins step in when the Templars start stomping on people below them and claiming power for their own gain. If society collectively agrees to democratically elect leaders, I don't see the Assassins going to oppose it, but there could be evidence to the contrary that I'm blotting from memory and I'm open to being wrong.

The way the Assassin-Templar conflict is portrayed in AC2, Brotherhood, Unity, and Syndicate, is basically if they inversed the morality of the assassination targets from AC1. You know how in AC1 how most of the targets were ruthless, but somewhat well-intentioned extremists? Majd Addin is the exception, as he's just a power hungry maniac with no redeeming qualities or noble intentions. AC2 and Brotherhood decide to flip it on its head and make the majority of the targets like Majd Addin, and very few of them are genuine extremists or sympathetic. Two notable exceptions in AC2 are Uberto Alberti, if you read his letter in the database, and Dante Moro, if you watch his database entry video and read the letter from his ex-fiance.

"Hmmm...An AC video right after the latest twitter drama? I dunno, I like TBP a lot but-" TBP: This video isn't about Yasuke "OH THANK GOD!"

This is going to be good. I loved the series when it felt like they wanted to tell an interesting story in modern day to balance the individual stories in the past. Each ancestor added as a way to develop Desmond. Even 4 was good. But they seem to be floundering. There's no modern day story and the ancestors don't feel like they connect in meaningful ways. The stories themselves just seem to be unconnected attempts at keeping the franchise alive because the developers have no idea what it should be after 3 and 4.

Haytham isn't the villain of AC 3. That's the best part abt that game. There's only one villain and that was Charles Lee. Other characters are neither good nor evil. Characters like Haytham, George Washington and even Achilles are shown as morally gray characters. Whereas, Connor is the only main character in AC 3 who is a good hearted person. His biggest weakness is his Naivety. After all he was raised as a native American until he was 13 years old and ventured beyond the frontier to Homestead. Haytham was actually right about everything he said. But the problem was, he was way too loyal to the templars. That was the whole plot of AC 3. Haytham was trying to earn his trust to his son. And when the truth came out, Connor was confused. Just like the audience on whom to root for. When it was revealed that George Washington was responsible for Connor's mother dying. That's the moment we the audience realized, THERE'S NO GOOD VS EVIL AND EVERYONE ARE MORALLY RIGHT AND WRONG. This game was the first Assassin's creed game which is close to a realistic approach of telling an Assassin vs Templar story.

12:26 This sentence alone says it at all.

Ubisoft never cared about the ideology conflict of Templar and Assassin. In most game, it's Assassin good, Templar bad, because we play as Assassin. When they made a game that we play as Templar, it's Templar good, Assassin bad, because we play as Templar.

Egregious oversimplification inbound, but I've often felt it boils down to Templars: We have power of control, and so we can control whatever we want. Assassins: We have power of freedom, and so we are free to kill whoever we want. Both are motivated by immense levels of self-righteousness, and that is why they are both flawed.

This is my belief or how I see this conflict: Basically The Assassins are trying to safe keep the democracy and keep the person/organisation who is trying to oppress the innocent and weak in check so free will can be protected. If they wanted anarchy then yes they would have attacked and dismantled every government body they came across but that is not the case, they do actively work with the system, where corruption hasn’t spread. Yes there are instances where Assassins are corrupted themselves but that is the thing the person is the one who is corrupted and weaponising his beliefs, the Assassins ideology wants the people to have freedom and free will through fair regulation. Templars wants peace by controlling it by the people who they seem to be fit, Assassins wants peace by maintaining an order in the society by democracy and free will. This is the two ideology in my opinion, but sure for any person on both the side it can be used for bad or good. That is why this conflict is interesting to me. Templars are not straight up wrong, but their methods by which they want to gain peace is problematic.

I know you said you haven't played Unity, but I just want to point out that a huge part of the experience for me was playing through it with friends. It was extremely fun with 2-3 friends running around causing havoc

Assassins creed had a vision in the first and second game. the first game has the most social stealth aspect to it with you having to plan out every assassination and plays almost like a medieval hitman game, it can also be very punishing if you get spotted. Though it is a flawed game, what's there is very solid. It's hard to pin point where the series got hijacked, but it's likely the end of brotherhood with the stupid ending. In fact I still debate if brotherhood and revelations were planned or if it was Ubisoft being greedy. Don't get me wrong, BH,Rev,3 and 4 are really good games, they probably were not planned though. I do know that 3 was always planned and the games were building up Desmond being the ultimate assassin with the abilities of all 3 assassins. It's probably the most unfortunate video game series of all time, because when it was good, it was really good. It's pretty much become the video game equivalent of The tv series Lost.

Wow, all of your points are fantastic. Yes, true the brotherhood are supposed to be the “underdog” but they never really had an organized end goal when it came to their freedom plans. It was just take down tyrant and that’s it. The only one that did have a bigger picture in mind was Connor. It would’ve been cool if George Washington and other patriots helped Connor rebuild everything(with Connor & his team being the hidden guardians of the USA or something). I mean, we have other famous historical characters, helping Ezio & Ed Kenway with a lot of things but they really dropped the ball with this in AC3. A lot of the historical characters in the third game felt so distant and The majority of it was just bad writing(including false advertising ) from Ubisoft. Also, this is my hot take: I don’t think the protagonists it should be “assassins”. They should’ve been given a different name.

Didn’t Ubisoft address this problem in Assassins Creed Odyssey? After you defeat the cult of Kosmos, Pythagoras tells Kassandra in some kind of Isu technology vision that she has set in place the start to a never ending conflict. With total control comes Authoritarian totalitarianism, and with complete freedom comes chaos. The assassins are set to be “the never ending sand in the Templars shoe” and with this conflict strikes a balance. With neither complete chaos or complete order taking the reigns for human civilisation. Humanity won’t fall to the fate of either as a result.

You left something out that I think is very important and integral to these games. Correct me if I'm wrong but the driving conflict of both the Assassins and the Templars is that they have been given a prophecy that the world will end in the year 2012. So the groups are both polar extremes for the same purpose. Which is that they are both seeking to somehow stop the end of the world and allow for the survival of mankind. Within that context it makes the Templars themselves so much more interesting in my opinion. Because for a lot of people it makes their actions much more palletable. They beg the question "what would you do to save the world? How far would you go?". Would you commit acts of evil and work with evil people? Would you decide that in order for humanity to survive it must be forced to surrender it's free will? It's a hard question to answer for a lot of people but it's one that ties the two groups together inexorably. They're both groups willing to do certain things that could be called evil or immoral for the greater good and their conflict (as you correctly pointed out) mirrors the conflict between democracies and dictatorships all throughout history. As for your assertion that the Assassins essentially inexorably represent anarchy I both agree and disagree. There are times in the series where they are supportive of and friends with people in positions of the existing power structure such as the Medici. So they support organization and existing power structures to a certain extent. The issue with them is that they essentially deem themselves the sole deciders of who is or who isn't benefitting the people. Which they enforce at the point of a blade. The hypocrisy then as you pointed out is that how are you not a totalitarian at that point? You're concentrating power within a small group of people based on the assertion that it's justified because your power structure should be trusted to be a better judge of character. And that's an awfully thin line to be the only thing that is supposed to stop you from being that which you are supposedly fighting. In the end I think it's these moral dilemmas that were at the heart of what fans of the series would call the "good" Assassins Creed games. I think recently they've focused so much on gameplay systems and there's been such a lack of identity since the end of the Desmond arc that it feels like they've kind of lost a lot of this narrative dynamic.

Yeah, the Assassins only really work as the protagonist because they are the underdogs, and Ubisoft doesn't has any interest in exploring that side of the Creed

6:27 No. The doctor behind the French model of that machine was not contracted. He wanted a method of execution that would be as quick and painless as possible. He only suggested doing something similar to the Italian patibulo or the Scottish maiden or the halifax gibbet and had absolutely nothing to do with the actual construction (be it physical or even just by means of supervision). In fact, he was horrified when he later learned that, since nobody really wanted any part in it, they named it after him. Also, another reason for the French version to exist is the fact that it would make every person condemned to death face the same means of execution, independently of social status. And this also seems like a good opportunity to debunk the myth that its inventor ended up being beheaded himself. It never happened. 1: Doctor Guillotin was not the inventor. 2 : It's another doctor with the same name who was beheaded. Still, that's a very good video. Keep them coming. 😎

As a fan of every AC game the one thing I've learned is that life is about balance. Both the Assassins and Templars are wrong. But the two together are the great societal balance throughout the ages. It's not the best but it's what we've got. That's what I love about the AC series, no good guys, just ideologies.

"Before a society can move forward, all must agree on the rules" Galvatron, G1 Transformers episode "Fight or Flee"

I only ever played Syndicate, and then I only played the gang conquest portion. Once I got Jacob to level 10 and 100% London I didnt feel compelled to keep playing: mandatory stealth in games is one of my biggest pet peeves, AC combat is turn-your-brain-off easy, and the vaunted "parkour" just felt so slippery that I almost was tempted just to walk everywhere.

This was very interesting, one of the most interesting video I’ve seen in a while on KZfaq. So thank you sir ❤

It’s stated in universe even by assassins that Haytham had a point. Problem was that most assassins weren’t too keen on listening to the words of a Templar. Additionally it’s stated in the lore that during the Wild West to WW2 eras, the Assassins actually worked for various governments even under Templars, keeping them in check to make sure things never boiled over. But each of the aforementioned wars were the result of that system backfiring. I know a few fan stories that attempt to explore this, but those aren’t canon so unless you’re interested in that I won’t bore you with it here.

3, rogue and unity criticize the creed but outside of rogue the stakes are more personal

In my opinion, Assassin’s Creed should’ve ended after 3. The whole story ended with Desmond sacrificing himself at the end of Assassin’s Creed III, so there was no point in continuing the story unless Desmond survived his death. Assassin’s Creed IV is what I feel like started the downfall, due to it being Assassin’s Creed III again, but explores Connor’s grandfather instead of Connor himself. And without Desmond, there was simply no way to explore more Assassins without the original audience sergeant. It’s Assassin’s Creed lost it’s mojo.

Great video. I didn't expect to hear about the "Metal Gear Solid 2 solution" here unironically though. 😅

Are we like 20 games into this series? I am literally incapable of conjuring any emotion for it other than indifference.

Such and important video for our time. Why as a legend would you make it so short? You’re awesome man, looking forward to the next one.

I know you usually don’t do videos like this, but this is definitely one of the most interesting subjects you’ve discussed. Great video.

I dont know if its intentional, or if it meant to be an issue that affects the series, but this doesn't feel like an issue. This feels like it can be used as a more nuanced story of the flaws between two ideologies.

Part of why i love Assassin's Creed Rouge was because Shay realized that the Assassin's were becoming no better than the Templars in fact at that point of time the Assassin's were doing more harm than good Achillies only realized that too late when they were at the sight in the arctic.

The contradictions of the Assassin Brotherhood can be resolved as followed: 1. "We seek peace, yet murder is our means," That is based on the assumption that killing a corrupt official is murder instead of just killing. The basis for that is the legal standing that murder is the direct and voluntary taking of a human's life. And while both of those conditions are met, when does someone forfeit their right to life? When they conspire to usurp control of a country? Commit genocide? Or how about endorse and practice slavery? 2. "The Assassins seek to open the minds of men, but require obedience to rules." Those two statements are not necessarily opposed if you think about it. Knowledge and discipline are not diametrically opposed. And the ability to remain composed in the face of the sublime, such as the extent of our free will, is definitely a matter of mental constitution and discipline. 3. "The Assassins seek to reveal the danger of blind faith, yet practice it themselves." That is only the case if their mentor is not being wise to the true extent of what the Assassins are about. It is easy to try to consolidate power and authority to generate a desired path, but that is not the aim of the Assassins. The Assassins, in their truest form, aim to promote an anarchist vision of peace where all are treated with equality so long as the foundations of that peace is authentic. The Brotherhood of Assassins are agents of the authentic, not good, justice, or even freedom.

12:43 Congratulations, you have discovered Scythe

I'm an Anarchist and I don't particularly think assassins are, in essence, anarchists. At least not political anarchists, maybe morally anarchists. The templars have a very good point but their solution is stupid while the assassins don't have a plan, and that's why I think the creed sounds crazy when you think about it. To understand the creed it is important to first understand that the assassins don't care about how the people will organize themselves. Yeah, some individual assassins might care, but as an organization the creed doesn't give a shit. The brotherhood exists to balance stuff, they are born from a class of warriors who's sole purpose was to protect the people, not to rule them (as shown in AC: Origins). Which is absolutely different from the templars, they are born from the desire to rule. Not in a bad way, even though they end up fucking it up every single time, but they want a better political system, one that's only possible by controlling the people and using the ISU technology. In their seek for control, they end up crossing the line with the ones that were born to protect the people: the assassins. That's why when a Templar talk they make sense but the assassins feel like a contradition. Freedom for them seems to be a very, very particular thing and that thing only.

Companies like Blackrock, Vanguard & state street own Companies like Ubisoft, insomniac, Naughty dog, disney, marvel, Warner bros, DC, 2K (rockstar), activtition etc. But also poltics & they even have their influence in the Government. Here two quotes to get a better picture of the most powerful Company, Blackrock: "The Narrative is More Important than Money." "We from blackrock we are forcing behaviors." ~ Larry Fink (CEO of Blackrock) 3:48 - 4:44 a good way to describe their worldview

what is that game you show at 10:21 and also at 10:08 it looks like a remake of Assassin's Creed 1. i do not know what this game or games are.

I still think Ubisoft were cowards for not just having a game set in the middle east and went with the whole scifi plot

Revelations was peak in story. Felt so epic and cinematic/endgame like

Great video, awesome analysis. However, I would have liked you to add some comments about the Assassins' perspective on Templar philosophy. For example, Edward Kenway's words to Governor Torres: "You would see all of mankind corralled into a neatly furnished prison, safe and sober, yet dulled of reason and sapped of all spirit."

I always felt that after 3 Ubisoft didn't have much of a plan for the series and each subseuqnet entry is treated as it's own enclosed story with very little to branch off of. I still have fun with the games but it's hard to look back at what was a large scale story across multiple games with interesting themes on humanity.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”-James Madison

This is the kind of discussion that has been forgotten from current AC. The philosophical discussion about freedom itself. It's a shame that the series has gone for so long, it was pretty clear that the series was supposed to end a long time ago. Now the point of what these plots were supposed to be has faded away due to Ubisoft being Ubisoft. If you ever want to continue with the series, I recommend to stop at AC Origins, since it's when the series started to fall off for me. Not that this points of discussion isn't debated about (in fact, in Valhalla you can find audio files by Desmond actually debating these points while in the Grand Temple), but it is so hidden in the background that it might as well not be there.

Reminds me of the law vs chaos of Shin Megumi Tensai, both sides benificial but not without It's major flaws. An AI Goverment does sound appealing since It has no material/wealth desire, but will humanity listen, or defy It out of personal views or through Influence of others who want to gain the system? We're all screwed no matter what.

cool video, changed the way i looked at the series. i feel like the series started with the acknowledgement that both sides were equally flawed but ended up losing its original goal and making whichever side the main character is on the good side. hope to see an assassins creed game in the future actually take into account the flaws of both sides.

So it's basically Law / Order VS Chaos ? Assassin's Creed is secretly a Shin Megami Tensei spin off !

This is how i see it from an in-universe perspective: Both Templars and Assassins know about the Precursors, and want humanity to reach that level of progress, they differ however in how they want to do make that happen. The Templars have a very heavy handed approach, they'll make the change happen no matter the cost, the Assassins on the other are more subtle, and want to make the progress to be natural and not forced. Here's an example: we're in the 19th century, there is an island in the pacific inhabited by an isolated nation, they have a slavery and a caste system, their religion also practices human sacrifices; The Assassins would infiltrate that island and start spreading new ideas, creating the conditions for change, and possibly a revolution; The Templars would simply use the military might of the british empire to wipe out the local nobility and religion.

You are wrong about power. Power doesn't corrupt. Power reveals. Only when someone gets the power to do what they want it will be shown true intent

Order, purpose, direction! No more than that. I mean freedom is great, but at a certain point, someone really needs to call the shots. May the father of understanding guide us.

IMO, every point has been made already in AC-III and the fact is that the ubi should've moved on at that point instead of bragging us to prove a point which is totally pointless...

This is one of your best vids buddy

I'm only half way through the video, but everything you talked about so far is in Karamora - russian miniseries from couple of years ago. It is set in pre revolutionary russian empire and it is about the conflict between anarchist terrorists and ruling elite who are secretly vampires. It is a better live action Assassins Creed than the movie was.

Not a bad video, and I respect you tackling politics head on, since most youtubers would be too afraid to touch these subjects. But you still fall into the trap of conflating anarchy with the abscence of rules. Anarchism is an ideology that aims to abolish state and/or any other monopolies of power and authority. It dors not equal the abscence of laws, rules or order and actual anarchists support societal organizations, as long as they're democratic.

A very well articulated, interesting discussion and thought provoking conversation. 😄👌

I agree, the perfect solution is a middle ground between total freedom and control. You can't have Yin without Yang, balance is the answer.

great essay! I can totally agree. in the end it all comes down to the core: balance. the constant balance of "good, evil", chaos, order. absolutes never worked and never will (in the long term)

That could be a cool gam if the Assassins conquered the modern world and turned it into a hellhole. You play as the surviving templars, ironically saving the world from the Assassins. This would result in an equilibrium, bringing up a new golden age before humanity inevitably forgets the lessons they learned, causing the cycle to begin again. I feel like the city of Rapture from Bioshock would be similar to an Assassin-controlled world.

Ubisoft doesn't consider the Assassins to be more altruistic than the templars. Both are political secret society factions with both being flawed. It just happens that assassins are the chosen protagonists and so, Ubisoft only portrays certain time periods and certain regions where the assassins have the moral high ground, but it is always very clear that assassins aren't perfect and neither are the templars. Now, about personal freedom, there are some things we can change that allow for more freedom while upholding accountability. One of those things is how we enforce the rules in any situation. Right now, the way enforce rules is way too rigid and not adaptable to specific contexts.

Every single animal that lives in a social system has a hierarchy, we need rules and regulations or there would be chaos. Social animals need rules to live by or we would go extinct. Rules benefit the whole not the one

Assassins exist to prevent templars from getting their hands on ancient artifacts left by the first civilization that allow to literally control people's minds, since initially people were slaves of the Isu and they wanted a way to control them. As I understand, assassins do not necessarily want anarchy, they just serve as guardians to make sure people leave in peace and no one takes totalitarian control over them.

It’s funny when you think about it how the sci fi element of the plot of assassin’s creed actually has practically nothing to do with the assassin’s creed aside from the use of the objectified power seen in the pieces of Eden. Like the end of the world that gets avoided in assassin’s creed 3 with the sacrifice of Desmond feels like it’s part of a completely different game and has nothing to do with the assassins or the templars at the end of the day

I feel people look at life in a way that blinds them in different ways and this if reflected heavily in AC, imo the reality is that life is many things for us, hypocritical, beautiful, and painful all at the same time, Christianity i feel like answers this best, life is hypocritical because it is with sin, we are constantly battling our desires. I feel like when one recognizes this life becomes easier to mentally handle, recognize what you cant control, recognize that everything is hypocritical, and nothing is perfect but life itself. Its sad AC has strayed so far imo from its nuance and morals, and maybe some will call me naive or foolish for this but i feel like the Assassins are most definitely the good guys its just as with everything touched by humans there is sin and therefore bad, but in principle free will and the responsibility of consequence isnt a bad thing its when anarchy which i dont think is an Assassins goal is when things get bad because chaos only begets chaos, even in the Bible God speaks of order, law, and justice. And obviously there are bad people who are corrupted by power and positions of it regardless or even because of intentions.

I've played Assassin's Creed, AC2, Brotherhood, Revelations, AC3, Black Flag, Freedom Cry, Rogue, Liberation and I think halfway through Unity. As I look back on what those characters' explanations on their reasons for fighting, to me it all boils down to these facts: 1) There will always be conflict so you should prepare for it 2) If you are done fighting for whatever reason, take an apprentice to ensure your line of work is continued 3) Beliefs taken to the extreme results in destruction Basically, we are in a never-ending cycle, or more likely a roller coaster ride that goes up and down in random directions when you least expect it. To fight against that system is to fight nature at your own peril.

We have seen when assassin ran the city.. It was in Nassau in ac4 black flag.. It didn't end well

they are not even bothered to change the horse voices from 2017 with bayek

If you are wondering how a world run by assassins looks like, look at AC Rogue. In that game the Assassins control the cities through crime syndicates, spy on the public, mass produce poison and kill anyone who is a potential threat to their cause. Don't forget meddling in things that are essential to the world and screwing it up. The Brotherhood in North America could have been tyrannical, if it wasn't destroyed by Shay and then later rebuilt by Connor.

The corruption among assassins was literally seen from the first game, where your Mentor is a templar

4:00 Totalitarianism is beneficial in time of war. They cease to be beneficial when the dictator dont let go their power in time of peace.

This is why Altiar made the assassin's hypocrisies. Rogue also portrayed Assassin's as anarchists, the Assassin's had become corrupt, but there were other Assassin's that were basically Freedom Fighters, fighting for basic rights. Ezio and Arno have two different takes on what the creed means. Ezio said it was an observation or reality, Arno considered it a warning. They were free to interpret it differently. The hypocrisy and gray areas are just our real world. One side will always view the other has the bad guy. Everyone whos joined either side has done it for different reasons. The Borgia were Templars because they were the rich kids on top that didn't want to be toppled. While a character like George Monroe did it for the safety of the people, ensuring their were laws to keep people safe and accountable, while also making sure there was food and such so people could be content and keep the peace

Do have to love this dude forgets to mention about the Templar plot to launch a Piece of Eden into the atmosphere to try to mind-control the entire Earth on a mass scale.

I’m so glad you made this video. I loved the games until Odyssey, but I always laughed at my friends who were rooting for the assassins. If they won, all that would do is create a power vacuum which would eventually return things to the way they were before.

This was an excellent video. Since you're so interested in this topic, you absolutely need to play Deus Ex (the one from 2000). The game hits on exactly the points you make. Don't be fooled by the age of the game, it's a timeless masterpiece that still hasn't been bested in my eyes. I played it in 2020 for the first time and it's been my favorite game since. Cannot stress enough how much the game hits every single point you've made across the board.

Haythem was spittin on the rooftop🔥🔥

I love Altaïr and Ezio, but Edward is my personal favourite protagonist. As for the antagonists, Haytham is a no brainer, but Al Mualim is a close second.

Pricey

He said AI to govern humanity and my first thought went to AM. Then again, humans messed that one up to get it like that.🤔

13:15 reminds me of that Tommy Lee Jones quote from Men in Black

I miss the games being about this.

A number of issues: 1. In many assassin's Creed games they support a form of government contrary to what you indicated. AC 2 they support the ruler of Venice revelations they support Suleiman, AC Syndicate they support the Queen etc. 2. The French Revolution in AC Unity (spoiler alert) was instigated and created by the Templars. 3. Within both the Assassin's and the Templars there have been different factions. A good example is AC unity where both sides have different factions. Even in Brotherhood Machiavelli clearly didn't think much of the common ppl. 3. For about 90 percent of AC history the Assassin's have tried to avoid anarchy not cause it. 4. The Assassin's were initially started as (spoiler alert) the hidden one's. They were never supposed to be in the public eye which is why its founder was not among the statues at the villa in monteriggioni. 5. Also it is important to note that the creed has been interpreted differently among different assassins. Please let me know your thoughts.

Tbh the only one I liked was black flag, the other is was bored minutes in because I had to do a lot of sneaking, and black flag let me be a murder hobo or pirate in this case and because rich before I got the Jackdaw

I dont like the "Uhh Humans so bad" aspect of the video but other than that i agree. AC has denfinitly lost a lot of its.... philosophical Core throughout the years. AC1 tried to show through its story that a lot of your target were not the quintessential evil People Al Mualim made out to be, but instead in some instances even while doing heinous acts could be argued to do good in the end. AC1 might have had repetitive Gameplay but its Story, philosophy was one of its own. If the Ezio trilogy could be critisied for one aspect then its this: the templars are generic bad guys be it Rodrigo, Ceasare or the guy in Revelations. AC3 with Haytham tried what the the first game did but the rushed process of creating this game (or so it felt) made the Story somewhat incomplete in some parts. Yeah and after that? Generic bad guy, generic bad guy, generic bad guy etc...

Discussions like this are why I enjoy watching KZfaq.

The first game was amazing the second also was a good game. never went back to the series There is always a particular magic in the origins of a video game series that first initial experience in that unique world was pretty special at the time after they redo and remastering essentially the experience reskinned 25 times over it's not as special anymore

Listening to all this makes me wonder if there's ever gonna be a game where the Assassins and Templars are getting along and working together...

Good video

Not really about the issue of Assassin's Creed but this made me open my eyes to the fact that there could never be a perfect society. Someone is always gonna trampled over or left out. No matter how hard we try to include everyone

the problem with personal freedom all costs as a ideology is somebody has to be in charge for society to function. if libertarians got their way and we dissolved the government, we just have rule by the wealthy. well, more direct rule by the wealthy than we already have anyway

I could call myself AC fan, but yeah, Assassin's just make a vacuum of power templars eventually take once again. They are poetically balancing eachother, making history go in spiral. It's a shame that there is no proper Templar game about regaining order and peace in chaos and anarchy assassins made

Well said

6:41 😢 i love you!! Ive been saying the same ever since, Templars ACTUALLY make sense unlike Assassins. A student of mine was.shocked when i said this in class, after explained why law and order matters, he understood my position

A.I WILL END UP LIKE METAL GEAR SOLID 4

I've always hated this series solely because it marked two things. 1, the death of Prince of Persia and 2, the downfall of Ubisoft

The interestibg thibg is The writers addrese this in the last few ganes and even since ac 1 ther ar times whervther Tal about working together with Templer but how that would never work so this flaw is aculy worked in on purpose. Oddysey even Sets up that goel of findibgng a middleground.... a plotpoint the writers likely arent alowd to folow or ac ends. The Narative Director of AC Darby aculy mentioned how that is kinda a point that its a endless strugle

I think the Assassins and Templars work well as an example of a conflict based on extremes. Or at least it did before everything went weird.

IMO is that you get the most freedom and equality when you're living in a small independent community, where direct democracy is feasible. However, the standards of living of the modern world are only possible in large communities.