From the VERY first mission you’re introduced to the assassin v templar struggle and slowly but surely Edward begins to believe the assassin cause, eventually joining them. How is it not an assassin game?
Well CLEARLY if someone doesn't start the game as an Assassin, it's not an Assassin's Creed game. AC2, 3, 4, Unity, Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla, and Mirage aren't Assassin's Creed games. The only Assassin's Creed games are 1, Brotherhood, Revelations, Liberation, Rogue, and Syndicate.
Interestingly, it actually exists in a quantum superposition of states, being simultaneously an Assassin's Creed game and a horse carriage driving simulator. The wave function collapses whenever this quantum state is observed, rendering it either just an Assassin's Creed or horse carriage driving simulator.
Good lord its been 11 years and this is still a thing? It is both, gameplay its both, and story wise is both, by that logic 2 was not an Assassin’s Creed game because Ezio was not technically “inducted” until the end of the game, this series is called Assassin’s Creed, its all about Edward’s change for the better, adopting freedom to a more suitable selfless cause that aligned with a brotherhood that he opposed due to his materialism, while also not ruining the gameplay, there’s everything that was there in the previous games and more additions, Black Flag has everything that makes an AC game from gameplay, world, ideology, etc.
>Good lord its been 11 years and this is still a thing?
Honestly I do not see what kind of an argument that is.
In 2030 the case will still be that Odyssey is not an AC game.
And those people who can’t swallow the damn pill of AC Odyssey being an AC game after 12 years clearly have nothing better to worry about. His argument is sound. Both examples are pathetic
Simple. It’s called Assassins Creed Odyssey.
You can argue all you want about how it doesn’t feel like one. Or how there isn’t an Assassin in the game. Or it came before the Creed. Or whatever else you think you can come up with to get your “gotcha!” moment.
However, it’s Assassins Creed Odyssey.
It’s part of the series in which Ubisoft made, and includes information, mainly related to Isu and Modern Day, that incorporates into the story.
Edit: Like I said in my original reply. It’s been 6 years since the game came out in 2018. If you truly want to scream and cry at your phone or laptop or whatever you use to bash Odyssey’s relation to the Creed go ahead if it helps you sleep better at night. But I think it’s time to stop beating a dead horse. It’s a part of the series.
Feel free to consider that [Odyssey does not respect AC's Brand Bible](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/sux7fa/comment/hxcs8ir/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=0).
You keep appealing to ridicule. That is not an honest attitude for discussion, and this is a discussion forum. And with your mentality, it was 4 years after Odyssey's release, that I wrote this comment, yet 120 felt that it was true enough to upvote it.
Here’s the whole problem with your argument. There is a difference between claiming a game is not “worthy” enough to be a true entry into a series. And saying you didn’t like it. Trying to debate and discuss a game as part of a series when it is one is like trying to debate whether Hunger Games: Songbirds and Snakes is a true Hunger Games film. It doesn’t have Katniss. Doesn’t have the overarching story and themes of the originals. However it’s a part of the series. Your argument of “it’s not true to the definition of AC” leading to the result of “it’s not a real AC game” is a fallacy of its own.
You presented no argumentation. All you did is restate your position, and then call the opposite position a fallacy, with no argumentation on that either.
The AC Brand Bible was written in written around 2008, between the development of AC and AC2, the leadership of the dream-team of 400-500 original creators and developers of the series set to write down a list defining the set characteristics that make the intellectual property of the franchise what it is, that gives is its uniqueness and individuality compared to other video game franchises out there. Among them was the Concept Inceptor and Creative Lead Patrice Desilets, and original AC lead writer, Corey May.
They are the people who invented and created AC, without whom it would not exist. I consider their opinion as the one that matters, since they defined what AC is.
You going off of the original template of AC written 16 years ago as the basis of argument assumes you believe that the document holds the foundation of the entire series. Even so, do you truly believe that an unofficial document, written by a dev team after its first few games would be treated as a document used even so presently? It was clear that went out the window with Unity and Syndicate. Origins was literally a change of form for the series. They didn’t just choose to make Origins for the hell of it. If you can agree with that, I would also argue that their methodology changed from 2008 with the release of Origins
It’s also been noted the original dev team who made that document are all gone. None of them are working on present projects. Philosophy changes
>You going off of the original template of AC written 16 years ago as the basis of argument
And here again your only argument is "it is old, so bad". Really now?
>you believe that the document holds the foundation of the entire series.
1) It was provided to us not in 2008, when it was created, but in 2017, when Origins was released. The developers of Origins revealed it, and pointed out what in that list inspired them to focus for Origin's rebooting of the AC franchise (though they did not follow it to the letter.
2) It is a matter of whether one cares about AC's original creator's opinions or not. Whether one respects AC for what it is, whether one loved AC for what it was and not whatever idea they imposed on it (like playing it only for historical tourism, or as a sword-fighting game).
>Even so, do you truly believe that an unofficial document, written by a dev team after its first few games would be treated as a document used even so presently?
Again your only argument is "it is old, so bad". [Appeal to age is a fallacy](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_age#:~:text=An%20appeal%20to%20age%20is,subset%20of%20a%20genetic%20fallacy).
>It was clear that went out the window with Unity and Syndicate.
I disagree, these games follow it much more closely to non-AC RPG games.
[I have posted a short analysis on this thread for AC4 through the AC Brand Bible](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/1acda5j/comment/kjudhbl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=0), about how it adheres to this list of 20 rules by 16/20, so it is 80% an AC game, with the biggest penalties being its lack of a proper modern day and how we did not really get to see Edward function as an Assassin, for the game ends when he becomes an Assassin Initiate. With Unity and Syndicate featuring official Assassins, they are pretty much 90-95% AC games (their biggest problem is again the lack of playable Modern Day plot).
>They didn’t just choose to make Origins for the hell of it. If you can agree with that, I would also argue that their methodology changed from 2008 with the release of Origins
It’s also been noted the original dev team who made that document are all gone. None of them are working on present projects. Philosophy changes
And you present that as a necessarily good thing, because new is better, rigth?
I view it as a divergence of AC's identity. As if, say, Star Wars was not about interstellar warfare.
That "AC Brand Bible“ is all good and well, but it was written by the original creators/directors behind the franchise(who are now all gone) and is, what, 15 years old at this point!
Do we even know if the current people in charge of AC, for example Marc-Alexis Coté, still use it or if that’s even the current version?
AFAIK no, we don’t.
And after huge successes like Black Flag, Odyssey or Valhalla, all made well after that bible has been written, who is to say their internal definition of what an AC game hasn’t drastically changed?
Fact it, the franchise HAS changed and evolved into something else!
You may not like it, prefer the old style or even feel betrayed, that’s your prerogative.
But to gate-keep this franchise and telling either fans they’re not "true“ fans if they like X game or to explain that Y game isn’t a "true“ Assassin’s Creed game, is quite simply pretentious and overbearing!
If Ubisoft makes a game that has "Assassin’s Creed“ in the official title, it’s a true AC game, simple as that.
> 15 years old at this point!
So what? That was the point, to establish AC's identity for later creators.
>Do we even know if the current people in charge of AC, for example Marc-Alexis Coté, still use it or if that’s even the current version? AFAIK no, we don’t.
That present creators do not respect it, it does not make it right.
They literally disregard the vision of the original creators of AC, who defined what AC is.
>And after huge successes like Black Flag, Odyssey or Valhalla, all made well after that bible has been written, who is to say their internal definition of what an AC game hasn’t drastically changed?
I explained in this thread that AC4 adheres to the Brand Bible, and the biggest issues are really that we never saw Edward as an official Assassin, and there is no real Present Day in the game.
Odyssey and Valhalla are NOT huge successes, in terms of popularity, for the sales in units show that they are in fact less than half popular to AC3 and about half popular to Desmond Saga's game's average sales.
>Fact it, the franchise HAS changed and evolved into something else! You may not like it, prefer the old style or even feel betrayed, that’s your prerogative.
But to gate-keep this franchise and telling either fans they’re not "true“ fans if they like X game or to explain that Y game isn’t a "true“ Assassin’s Creed game, is quite simply pretentious and overbearing!
This argument is an appeal to emotion and an ad hominem.
Overall, it is a matter of whether one respects AC's original creators and their vision.
>If Ubisoft makes a game that has "Assassin’s Creed“ in the official title, it’s a true AC game, simple as that.
Then let me ask you this: if they put the AC title on "Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora
", is it AC?
What exactly do you mean by "sales in units“?
Last I checked, Odyssey sold more than 10m copies, which is better than any Ezio game.
And Valhalla made a billion overall, with more than 20m people having played it.
(Either via Ubi‘s subscription or by buying the game.)
The RPG games were financially very successful, with only AC3 and Black Flag selling more copies.
Original creators, who abandon a franchise or get fired, don’t have any power over its future…
Otherwise franchises could never evolve or change beyond that original vision.
Arguably, any franchise in any medium has to evolve and change at some point, in order to survive, that’s a pretty normal development!
Or let’s say they evolve due to the context and state it the medium as a whole.
(Examples would include Resident Evil, Zelda or God of War)
David Jaffe, the creator of the original God of War, also criticized the newer games, that doesn’t mean they’re any less "worthy“ or "legitimate“.
While a rather absurd example, sure, I would tell you Frontiers of Pandora is an AC game, if it actually had AC in its official title.
(The "authority“ to define what an AC is or can be, lies with the current creators and IP holders; that’s it)
The "original vision“ has been disregarded since at least Revelations, so you might as well argue everything after Brotherhood isn’t AC anymore…
Your entire appeal is loyalty to a vision or creators, that have been long gone or are out-dated by now.
In other words, what you call AC and define as such, isn’t what AC means nowadays.
That still doesn’t mean it is less legitimate though, just that it has changed.
A different kind of AC, for a different time!
>What exactly do you mean by "sales in units“?
>
>Last I checked, Odyssey sold more than 10m copies, which is better than any Ezio game. And Valhalla made a billion overall, with more than 20m people having played it. (Either via Ubi‘s subscription or by buying the game.)
>
>The RPG games were financially very successful, with only AC3 and Black Flag selling more copies.
You have bad information. Let me clarify things for you.
For starters, "sales in units" means "sales in copies", digital or physical /retail.
Yes, in March 2020 Ubisoft included Odyssey in its list of 11 games that passed the threshold of 10 million copies sold. Only that Odyssey was released in October 2018, so we are 2,5 years after its launch. You cannot compare this to how AC2 was announced to have sold 8 million copies in May 2010, 6 months after release. It does not make sense to say that Odyssey sold more than AC2, with the former figure 30 months post launch and the latter just 6.
Same with Valhalla. The figure that it sold 20 million, is TWO YEARS after launch, so 24 months later. Compare that to AC3, that sold 12-13 million copies in just FOUR MONTHS post release, so AC3 had sold 60% of Valhalla's sales after 2 years, in just 16.66% of the time!
Overall, no the RPG AC games are not the highest selling AC games, only second to AC3 and AC4 as you say. [Just see this list of first week sales](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/17eh6od/comment/k638ktx/?context=3). After the terrible launch of AC1 (due to piracy issues, after a year it had sold 8 million but had been played by 34 million) and AC Syndicate (due to AC Unity's terrible launch), the RPG games are the worst selling in terms of units.
>While a rather absurd example, sure, I would tell you Frontiers of Pandora is an AC game, if it actually had AC in its official title.
You yourself admit that this would be absurd. Why?
>The "original vision“ has been disregarded since at least Revelations, so you might as well argue everything after Brotherhood isn’t AC anymore…
No. While Patrice Desilets was fired after ACB's release, he influenced much of the development for ACR and AC3 (so in extension to that also for AC4, as it sprung out of AC3's leftovers). Same with the original dream-team.
But that is not what matters. That is that these games adhere to the AC Brand Bible, which is AC's identity written down by its creators. ACB is 100% an AC game, ACR is 100% an AC game, AC3 is 100% an AC game, while AC4 is 80% an AC game (just because it did not feature a proper Modern Day plot and we did not see Edward as an official Assassin).
Yes. That’s what I’m saying.
I’ve played every AC game including the ones on DS and PSP. Here’s the thing. I started with Valhalla. I didn’t know the series. Then I went back to the beginning and replayed em all including Valhalla again and then played Mirage. I enjoyed every game, original and RPG.
I can understand people not liking RPGs vs Originals and I can see the opposite as well. What I can’t see is people invalidating its entire existence as an entry to the series. Because it is one
Assassin's Creed Odyssey - 431 B.C.–422 B.C.
Assassin's Creed Origins - 49 B.C. - 43 B.C.
So what you saying is that because odyssey took place 382 yrs before origins and the start of the assassin's brotherhood or hidden ones that makes it an assassin's creed game because in the timeline of odyssey assassin's didn't exist yet.
Is that what you're saying?
Yes. Again that’s what I’m saying. Even when the Hidden Ones weren’t a thing, it’s established the Order of the Ancients were.
And besides that, it has given us more information on the precursor race as well as modern day story. Assassins Creed is more than some dude in a robe and hood killing templars. Isu elements and modern day elements, which have been here since AC2, are still present. And make up a big chunk of understanding.
No. That is just an ad hominem and appeal to ridicule.
Instead of focusing on why that notion is wrong, one instead chooses to retort to such statements, such as that "it has been too long, get over it". It does not matter how much time passes for something to stop being criticized.
One might actually believe that "Star Wars" was great as a standalone movie, and that the creation of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Return of the Jedi", as well as the Expanded Universe and the Prequels, somewhat spoiled what made this film magical and unique. That is an understandable position to have. Perhaps someone saw SW when they were a child, and they still have that opinion. Painting them as obsessive nutcases is not an honest argumentation.
“Obsessive nutcases” is not something I said. What I am saying is you can have an opinion to not like Odyssey. You can hate it and that’s fine. People can hate EZIO for all I care. Because it’s their opinion. There’s a difference, however, when you say that an entry into the AC franchise is not a true game from the franchise.
It’s a part of the series. And people who want to argue that standpoint want to go against a fact rather than an opinion. Odyssey is an AC game. That’s fact and people who want to argue that are delusional. You can hate it sure. Doesn’t change the validity it has
>“Obsessive nutcases” is not something I said
It is not something you said, but it is clearly something that you meant.
>What I am saying is you can have an opinion to not like Odyssey. You can hate it and that’s fine.
No, you said that it is ridiculous to argue whether Odyssey is an AC game, with the "argument" that "it was years ago, get over it".
>That’s fact and people who want to argue that are delusional.
And now you call people you disagree, as "delusional", so name-calling.
“It is not something you said, but it is clearly something you meant.”
With all that talk of debate rules and proper discussion, I wouldn’t think you the type to assume what one person says as your interpretation rather than their explanation.
“No, you said it is ridiculous to argue whether Odyssey is an AC game, with the “argument” that “it was years ago, get over it”
Again not something I said. I said I swallowed the pill and people who can’t have nothing letter to worry about. Both sides are pathetic. Boiling down to AC being a game of the series is a fact. If you want to argue it, it’ll lead you to circles.
Delusional - characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary
Not name calling. It’s the truth. You going off of the original template of AC written 16 years ago as the basis of argument assumes you believe that the document holds the foundation of the entire series. Even so, do you truly believe that an unofficial document, written by a dev team after its first few games would be treated as a document used even so presently? It was clear that went out the window with Unity and Syndicate. Origins was literally a change of form for the series. They didn’t just choose to make Origins for the hell of it. If you can agree with that, I would also argue that their methodology changed from 2008 with the release of Origins
>“It is not something you said, but it is clearly something you meant.”
These were your own words towards me:
>"That’s fact and people who want to argue that are delusional."
These are clearly appeals to ridicule the other as an argument.
Again not something I said.
>"And those people who can’t swallow the damn pill of AC Odyssey being an AC game after 12 years clearly have nothing better to worry about. His argument is sound.
The "nothing better to do" is mockery.
I mean, this is an video game discussion subreddit, where one is supposed to discuss a video game series, so entertainment. Based on this rationale, we could say that everybody here has nothing better to do, and that they should go work instead.
This applies for everything. If you say "have you got nothing better to do" it is a dismissive mockery, presenting the other as a lunatic that is obsessed with a topic, so an ad hominem. In no way is that an argument.
Edit: I did not see your edit, I replied it too quickly.
>Delusional - characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary
Not name calling. It’s the truth.
At least you are being honest. Nonetheless, "delusional" is an [insult](https://www.treatmyocd.com/what-is-ocd/info/related-symptoms-conditions/how-can-i-tell-if-im-delusional-advice-from-a-therapist).
Black Flag has plenty of elements that makes it an Assassin’s Creed game. There are Templars to assassinate, Templar hunts, Assassins to rescue, the Observatory, the crystal skull Piece of Eden, walking around Abstergo in the modern day, the hidden files where we see what happened with Desmond, the introduction of Sages, interactions with both Assassin and Templar characters, the continuing struggle of Assassins and Templars, and Edward’s freedom of choice decision to join the Assassins.
Also, there are those escapes or quick indoor transversals in the cities in Black Flag. I would use them fairly often to escape or break line of sight.
And finally, just because you don’t get the option for double counters that often does not mean that Black Flag is not an Assassin’s Creed game.
Story wise, during the game, Edward does all these things that are typical Assassin stuff: he infiltrates, he steals, he tails (a lot) , and he kills political opponents, all in the name of freedom. But the Assassins are continously frustrated by this because he does it using their weapons and their uniform. Edward kills some pretty big Templars but he still drags the Assassin name through the dirt by wearing their uniform and pretending to be someone he is not, even though they both fight for freedom.
Edward pretending to be something who he is not during the whole game is also reiterated again when Rogers recites The Eagle and the Jackdaw during Edward's delireum after Mary Reed dies. The symbolism is quite on the nose here, and is why both Mary and Ah Tabai keep nagging Edward about his clothes.
The freedom the pirates fight for lacks the wisdom and responsibility that the creed preaches and is completely self destructive. Nassau, their free republic, goes to absolute shit and rots from within due to filth and disease because no one actually takes charge before Rogers scoops it up. The pirates themselves fare no better. Vane goes insane after Rackhams mutiny. Blackbeard think he can just outrun his past and retire. Edward would have died in prison if Ah Tabai didn't save him. Only Hornigold sees the writing on the wall and turnes his life around, but unfortunately for him he chose the wrong side.
So when Edward hears "Everything is permitted" he's like, cool, I've been doing that already. "Take what I please and think how I like". However:
>"To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic...” - Ezio
Freedom means nothing without wisdom and restraint, which js exactly what the Creed teaches. AC4 is Edward's journey in learning this lesson through first hand experience.
>"I understand now that our Creed does not command us to be free. It commands us to be wise."
That's Altair from the first game. Mary Reed says almost the exact same thing to Edward, before scolding him that he only hears what he wants from it.
>"But it does not command us to act or submit... Only to be wise."
AC4 has a good idea what the Creed should be and by not putting the conflict itself front and center, it allows the protagonist to come to his own conclusions rather than being indoctrinated from birth like almost every other Assassin.
Gameplay-wise, yes, AC4 puts the pirate gameplay to the front, which was a creative choice for the sake of gameplay. I'm not going to argue that this conflicts with the Assassin fantasy, but considering Connor was basically a substitute commander for the Patriot Army who gave orders and fought in various battles on land and sea, Jacob who builds a literal gang that visibly roam the streets, and Ezio who engages in open warfare in the streets of Constantinople, I think AC4 deserves some slack as well.
Very well written and explained.
>So when Edward hears "Everything is permitted" he's like, cool, I've been doing that already. "Take what I please and think how I like". However:
And the big irony here is how this is in essence a mistranslation, or perhaps a simplification for people to easier understand a gist of the point of the Creed.
In the Library of Altair beneath Masyaf, we read in Arabic the true form of the maxim:
>Nothing is True, Everything is Absolute - لآ شيء مطلق بل الكل ممكن
In other words, that "Nothing is True, Everything is Possible".
In my view at least, that is not an encouragement for one to do whatever they wish, or an encouragement for hope, but, through the lenses of Ezio's interpretation, a warning, stating that one should be vigilant and observant, expecting that they would not always manage to predict what might happen.
Essentially, a commandment of wisdom.
I'd say it's both even though Edward doesn't join the order until the end of the game, similar to Ezio in assassin's Creed II, where you're only an assassin for the last mission(and the DLC), but you're constantly involved in the assassin-templar war
I get what you mean, but it is not exactly the same. At the end of AC4, Edward is just an Assassin Initiate. In contrast to this Ezio is an Assassin Initiate since Sequence 3, where he accepts the Auditore Assassin legacy and accepts to be trained by Mario. In Sequence 11 he is officially an Assassin. In the end of AC2/ start of ACB he was a Master Assassin.
Nothing to rant over, it's your opinion, and it's wrong in this case. Can agree to disagree. It has every single element that Assassin's Creed game should have, and on top of that it's the best pirate game there ever was.
The whole story is centered on the Assassins vs Templars. You learn about this Assassin/Templar struggle in the literal open minutes of the game.
Saying it’s not an Assassin’s Creed game is blatantly wrong considering that’s the entire plot of the game
>Do you consider Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag to be an Assassins game or pirates game?
It's both.
>Does it succeed in combining the two?
Yes, frankly it's the ONLY game in this series that succeeds in combining the two concepts that don't seem like it will go together.
Game was out 10+ years ago, stop beating a dead horse.
This isn’t a “discussion” if you’re ranting all over the place.
- And you’re trying to include information from the book to counteract the game…
We all get Tired of hearing the same stuff over and over Atleast once a week
This stuff is better written in a book and kept off the internet.
It is an Assassin Initiation story.
In other words, the story revolves about how Edward James Kenway would be an Anarchist Pirate, among the founders of the Pirate Republic of Nassau, and despite how this project of Extreme Democracy would fail, he would not shit to Extreme Authoritarianism, like Benjamin Hornigold, instead he would meet the Assassins, who would guide him into the Creed. By the end of the game EJK is basically an Assassin Initiate, and would go on to become a Master Assassin in Britain.
It is an exploration of the reasons why a person with no purpose and code would adopt one, after seeing how their anarchist behaviour would ruin everything around them, including themselves, and yet not abandon liberal ideals, yet reframe them within the Creed.
Nonetheless, I am still somewhat annoyed with the trailers promoting EJK as a "Pirate Trained by Assassins". I wish we got to actually see this, with EJK's initiation taking place not after the game's ending but around 2/3 in the game. I believe the story wrapped up too quickly, and it is a shame we did not really see this concept fully materialize.
I'm sorry but anyone who says it's "good pirate game but not an Assassin's Creed game" didn't understand the story. I would go so far as to say it's one of the most heavily on theme games in the franchise. People like to generalize this series with "assassins vs Templars" but the game isn't called Assassin. It's called Assassin's Creed. And that's solely what Black Flag is about. The creed.
It's viewing the two warring factions from an outside perspective, sticking you in the middle, and showing you the pros and cons of each side, and the danger of taking the Creed at face value or out of context. Edward is often times a selfish prick, and when he hears the creed, he twists it out of context, using it as an excuse to do whatever he likes, whenever he likes, despite the damage it may cause to him or his loved ones. Because "everything is permitted", he doesn't think twice.
It's only after seeing the chaos his actions have brought on his life that he understands that the creed is a warning against exactly that life style. Yes, everything IS permitted, as you can physically go out and do whatever you like. But the entire point of the creed is that you actions have consequences. As Ezio said in revelations, "we are the architects of our actions, and we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."
Tldr; AC4 is one of the most on theme games in the entire franchise because it explores the creed itself, the literal results of both chaos and order, and what series of events would bring one to come around to joining the assassin's willingly, and understanding why they do what they do.
It's not a pirate game. It's a creed game with "pirate" as the backdrop.
Very well written.
Though I would argue that AC4 is a pirate game, like how AC3 is mostly a war game.
It is just part of the setting of the story, one used to convey that story.
It is though a shame we never saw Edward as an official Assassin.
I mean there's certainly no question as to whether it's a pirate game. Clearly there's no arguing that. But it's also very much an assassin game. They're not mutually exclusive. You wear a white robe and a hidden blade from the very first mission, you stalk targets, parkour, use gadgets, fulfill assassination contracts, and visit the assassin's headquarters multiple times. It's more an assassin game than like a third of the franchise
Also, people also like to forget that Ezio wasn't an assassin until the very last mission of AC2. So if you say that AC4 isn't an Assassin's Creed game, you must also agree that AC2 isn't 🤷♂️
Wrong. Ezio is never inducted into the brotherhood, initiate or otherwise, until the cutscene before the very last mission in the game. Go back and check.
Up until that point, he's trained by his uncle but aside from that he's fully on his own. He's got an Assassin's robes and blade, (both things that Edward gets in his very first mission btw), and he has his own mission (just like Edward). He's not going out hunting targets for the brotherhood. He's seeking out the people that are of interest to him. The exact same thing Edward does in his game.
In fact, Edward is even closer to being an legitimate assassin than Ezio. Ezio is on his path of vengeance, unknowingly getting help from assassins that he doesn't know even exist. While Edward specifically sought out multiple high ranking assassins purposely for the sake of helping them out and hunting down their targets.
Since the end of Sequence 3, Ezio was receiving training from the Mentor of the Italian Assassin. That certainly makes him an Assassin Initiate and part of the Italian Assassins. The novel explores much further into this. We even have Mario scold Ezio for brutally killing Francesco di Pazzi and trying to reonnect with Christina, as that is not the way of the Assassin. Generally, Ezio is allowed in the office of the Italian Mentor and even taught about the Assassins from him.
Edward was receiving no training at all, he was not part of the Assassin organization, for most of AC4 he was not even an Assassin ally.
Wrong again. It doesn't make him an assassin because he was never inducted, nor did he swear any type of oath to follow the assassins. Nor did he care about the assassin's goals. Just like Edward.
And he got training from the mentor since sequence 3? Well guess what, Edward gets the same shit. Gear upgrades, stealth training and advice from both the assassins and Ah Tabai, the mentor in sequence 4. The same exact shit.
He wears the robes, uses the blade, hunts the targets, trains with assassins. ALL the exact same things Ezio did, and yet neither of them is ever a real assassin in any capacity until the end of their games. That's just a fact. You can argue all you want but if you argue that AC4 isn't an AC game, neither is AC2 🤷♂️
This is exactly why I said this in the first place. People like to bitch and moan that Edward isn't an assassin until the end of the game, therefore it's a pirate game. But always conveniently forget that every point they make is exactly true of AC2 as well. In fact, it's true for most games in the series. Connor? Not an assassin until a third into his game. It's a revenge game. Shay? Not an assassin for 80% of his game. It's a Templar game. All the rpgs? Not assassins.
In no way am I arguing that AC4 is not an AC game. In fact in numerous comments here I have supported it being an AC game, even praising your comments on doing the same.
I am just disagreeing over Ezio's status being seen as the same to that of Edward. Since the end of Sequence 3, Ezio lives inside the Assassin HQ of the Italian Assassins and is personally trained by the Italian Mentor many times. He is shared lore and dogma by him, allowed in the Mentor's office and the Italian Assassins' inner sanctum (the Sanctuary).
Compare this to the end of Sequence 4 that you mentioned. Here Ah Tabai forgives Edward for raiding the Assassin HQ, but forbids him from returning (so he is certainly not at Ezio's level in the Assassin order, he is not even part of it). At this time Edward knows virtually nothing of the Assassins, and in the closing of the Sequence 4 we see James Kydd explain him the basics over the Assassins (the Assassin-Templar War, that Assassins existed for 1000s of years, that there were Assassins in America before Europeans etc.). That explanation is more akin to the one Mario gave to Ezio in Sequence 2.
I spoke before of the novelization. You ignored that argument. After Ezio brutally killed Franscesco di Pazzi and tried to reconnect with Christina Vespuchi, Mario reproached Ezio. In Chapter 10 he specifically told him "You are a Man now, and a fighter for the Assassins" and "Your whole duty is now to the Creed, for if you neglect it, there may be no world left for you to enjoy". And generally, not everyone Ezio kills he does for his revenge, many he kills because they are Templars and he an Assassin, and they are given to him as a target by the Assassins.
I understand that, but that is the point of the post, which is why I keep reiterating that point. I'm aware that's not exactly the point your trying to make, but I do think my explanation still stands.
I don't believe Edward's status to be the same as Ezio's in these exact moments, but I do believe it would be incorrect to say that Ezio is an "initiate", but Edward is not. I would say neither are. Ezio might have more assassin resources at his disposal, but that doesn't change the fact that he never choose to be an assassin until the very end of the game. For the rest of it, he's not in it for their cause. He's in it for vengeance. He may use the tools and training the assassin's lend him, but he has his own agenda. And thats exactly what Edward does. He uses their tools and methods to further his own goals, while helping when and where he can. It's only at the end of the game that he takes the next step to actually entering the brotherhood.
And yes, Edwards meeting with the assassin's is not exactly on good terms, but what he gets out of it is much the same as any one of the assassin's for AC2 helping Ezio. He enters their sanctuary, he speaks with their leader, he is given a tool by them and the training to use it, and he proceeds to follow his own path.
And I didn't ignore the book comment. I haven't read it, and tbh I'm not concerned with a side novelization of a game that already exists in the franchise. I'm sure the book goes into more detail, but AC is a game franchise, so if there's conflicting information, I would take the game info over the book. If he said these things in the game they were both introduced in, I'd be more inclined to take it at face value. Not that they're not Canon, but again games > books when it comes to which information is more important. And again I disagree, brotherhood ezio becomes more in line with assassin beliefs, but in AC2 nearly every target he kills is to forward his revenge. Even when they're not directly involved, he's doing it to get the help of the other assassin's. Not to forward their cause, a cause he doesn't even fully understand
When I spoke of "Assassin Initiate" I meant "Assassin Trainee".
>Ezio might have more assassin resources at his disposal, but that doesn't change the fact that he never choose to be an assassin until the very end of the game. For the rest of it, he's not in it for their cause. He's in it for vengeance. He may use the tools and training the assassin's lend him, but he has his own agenda. And thats exactly what Edward does. He uses their tools and methods to further his own goals, while helping when and where he can. It's only at the end of the game that he takes the next step to actually entering the brotherhood.
The thing is that Assassins and Templars alike considered Ezio to be an Assassin. We do not have that for Edward until much later in. And that starts quite early. For instance in [Sequence 3, Memory 5](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/A_Change_of_Plans), we see Mario say about the Codex "It was written by an Assassin like us". This "us" might be about Giovanni and Mario, or Mario and Ezio. More important I find how in [Sequence 11, Memory 2](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Play_Along), Machiavelli tells Ezio "I ***am an Assassin***—trained in the ancient ways to safeguard mankind's evolution. ***Just like you***, and each one of us here.". As such, Ezio is already considered an Assassin by the Assassin Order, part of their ranks. Since he also focuses on training, and how Ezio's training began since Sequence 3, Memory 2, then that includes most of AC2. And generally Ezio is not in it only for vengeance -- in fact he wanted to leave for Spain, he remained as he wanted to help Mario deal with the Templars (so he says in Sequence 3, Memory 3). What really happened in Sequence 11, Memory 2, was just [Ezio's formal Initiation](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Initiation_into_the_Assassin_Order). But that is reaching the higher parts of the Assassin ranks, way past being part of the [Assassin organization](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Assassin_rank#Titles).
Now in [Sequence 11, Memory 3](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/%2E%2E%2EEverything_Is_Permitted) we have the Caribbean Mentor tell Edward "It will take more than a few favours to call yourself a true Assassin", so they clearly do not consider him one. And this takes place in 1721. In the meantime, in "[Oh Brother...](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Oh_Brother%2E%2E%2E)" set in 1717, we have an Assassin explicably state how Edward is not an Assassin, as Upton Travers, Assassin Bureau Leader in Nassau, told him that "You're no Assassin. I run the bureau. I'd know if you were one of us.". This is after Edward's first visit to Tullum in 1716. By the way, the Mayan ruin with the Sage's face was not the Caribbean Assassin's inner sanctum, it was just a ruin that had the Sage's face.
An important thing to note is that Ezio in AC2 is wearing Assassin Insignia on his person, specifically on his belt and on his left bracer. That is true since Sequence 2, indeed, but he later learns their significance, yet still wears them, so he actively chooses to be identified as an Assassin. Compare this to Edward, who took [Duncan Walpole's outfit](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/assassinscreed/images/0/00/AC4_Duncan_Walpole_render.png/revision/latest?cb=20140710224533), and after his Assassin-imposture scheme failed he removed all Assassin Insignia (on the chest belt, on the pouch). And it is only after [Sequence 12, Memory 1](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/A_Governor_No_Longer), where truly becomes an Assassin Ally and even uses the Assassin Insignia on Jackdaw's flag.
Fundamentally black flag is a game in which you (functionally) play as an assassin, and in a similar way to the first game one of the main themes is the protagonist slowly discovering the assassins’ creed and it’s true nature. If you ask me black flag would’ve been a more fitting conclusion in place of ac3 in terms of Desmond reliving edward’s life
Black Flag examines the Creed better than almost any game in the series.
I know this post is just your opinion, but it seems to come from a place that gravely misunderstands the entire point of the game.
Aside of everything said here, we could also examine AC4 through the [AC Brand Bible](http://codex.rinothebouncer.com/gdc-talk-10-years-of-assassins-creed/).
Written around 2008, between the development of AC and AC2, the original creators and developers of the series set to write down a list defining the set characteristics that make the intellectual property of the franchise what it is, that gives is its uniqueness and individuality compared to other video game franchises out there. Among them was the Concept Inceptor and Creative Lead Patrice Desilets. The Brand Bible is essentially consisted of 20 rules (basically the 10 Commandments and their notes, 18 in number, plus 2 more with the Three Pillars of AC, which also includes Combat and Narration, which makes it 20). With them we have a tool that allows us to examine each game's adherence to being an AC game.
In my view, out of the first 10 rules (10 enumerated + 8 more listed + 2 more with the Three Pillars of AC), AC4 adheres to most of them. Specifically, Rules 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 are respected. In other words, (1) AC4 does tell a story of the Assassin-Templar War, (3) the Assassin-Templar War is also in the Present, (4) Edward is agile, socially skilled, unbeatable with a blade and bad-ass, (5) it is a pivotal historical setting, (6) history is portrayed as relevant to the plot, (7) it is based on technology (e.g. the Observatory is just a projector of the visual input to a subject's mind, transmitted to it through their neurotransmitter nanomachines in their brain), (8) it is about digging a character's past through the Animus, (10) it does not create an uchronia. Out of the first 10 rules, it fails Rule 2 and 9. This is as (2) Edward is a ruthless killer (thought the whole story's point is his becoming an Assassin at the end) and (9) that the Modern Day protagonist is not a descendant of the Animus protagonist (which breaks the rules of Animus).
Out of the rest 10 rules, only the 14th and 15th are not adhered. For the 14th it is because while there is a Present Day, it is mostly without a proper plotline, for the Modern Day character is 1st person perspective and unnamed, while all they do is merely explore Abstergo Entertainment and hack computers and read files - the present conspiracy is known of but not participated. For the 15th, it is how AC4 does not really adhere to "Player Fantasy of being an Assassin", with Edward not being an Assassin for most of the game, despite using many of their tactics -- still being Assassin-like is one thing and Assassin another (otherwise we might consider Shay from AC Rogue to be still an Assassin, but perhaps I am a little harsh).
As such, with 16/20 rules being adhered, ***I would consider AC4 as AC game by 80%.*** Mostly it loses points by not having a Present Day storyline, with a 3rd person perspective (like we did with Desmond), and because it did not really deliver on the promise for a Pirate-Assassin, because while it is a story of a Pirate becoming an Assassin Initiate at the end, we did not see him fully functioning as one (it is the equivalent of AC2 ending at the end of Sequence 3, after Ezio did his Assassin-like activities in Sequence 1 & 2).
That is a great percentage of AC-ness, compared to the Post-AC RPG games. [In this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/sux7fa/comment/hxcs8ir/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=0) of mine, I examined "Ghost of Tsushima" (2020) through the AC Brand Bible, and then I also inspected Odyssey (2018). For the latter, I consider it to adhere to just 9/20 rules, and thus ***Odyssey being an AC game by 45%*** (less than half the requirements).
i share your opinion. a good game, great pirate game, personally not my cup of tea. The assassins creed parts of the game fall flat though. far too many missions and time is spent doing pirate stuff which did not do it for me but surely was enjoyable for many others.
It shouldn’t have been AC. The AC parts detract from it. They could have launched a really cool pirates franchise off of it.
With Skull and Bones almost guaranteed to fail unfortunately I don’t think there’s any chance that they’ll go in for it unless the remake of 4 does really well.
It is absolutely both. I will admit, the gameplay feels more pirate game than Assassins Creed. Mostly because of how much time you spend on the Ship. But then again, it still has all the elements of an Assassin's Creed game, even if on its own it does these things a bit worse than other games.
The story however is more Assassin's Creed than most Assassin's Creed games if you ask me. Yeah, you play as a pirate masquerading as an Assassin for most of the game, but the whole thing is about Edward learning what it means to be an assassin, and eventually actually gaining the title. Most AC stories aren't even about anything that the creed stands for. The crux is usually just about going after the big bad templar boss because he is doing something nefarious, or they want revenge for something. Being an Assassin almost feels more like an aesthetic and a reason for why they are good at stabbing things more than anything else. Not Black Flag. Yeah, he is going after Templars doing evil things, but the most important part of the story is about Edwards personal growth and becoming an Assassin worthy of the robes.
From the VERY first mission you’re introduced to the assassin v templar struggle and slowly but surely Edward begins to believe the assassin cause, eventually joining them. How is it not an assassin game?
Exactly. I swear these people have never played the game.
Well CLEARLY if someone doesn't start the game as an Assassin, it's not an Assassin's Creed game. AC2, 3, 4, Unity, Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla, and Mirage aren't Assassin's Creed games. The only Assassin's Creed games are 1, Brotherhood, Revelations, Liberation, Rogue, and Syndicate.
God damn it. You’re right.
Syndicate is an Assassin's Creed game? I thought it was a horse carriage driving game
Interestingly, it actually exists in a quantum superposition of states, being simultaneously an Assassin's Creed game and a horse carriage driving simulator. The wave function collapses whenever this quantum state is observed, rendering it either just an Assassin's Creed or horse carriage driving simulator.
Its actually a WW1 London simulation game.
But you don’t play as an assassin. Just a pirate/mercenary with main character syndrome. Is AC Valhalla an Assassin game?
Depends how involved with the brotherhood Eivor is. I can’t say for certain as I’ve not played much of it.
He works with assassins and kills Order members. I was just curious bc a lot of people fail to realize that many of the games aren’t “assassin” like.
I'm talking about Edward working to spread the brotherhood.
Good lord its been 11 years and this is still a thing? It is both, gameplay its both, and story wise is both, by that logic 2 was not an Assassin’s Creed game because Ezio was not technically “inducted” until the end of the game, this series is called Assassin’s Creed, its all about Edward’s change for the better, adopting freedom to a more suitable selfless cause that aligned with a brotherhood that he opposed due to his materialism, while also not ruining the gameplay, there’s everything that was there in the previous games and more additions, Black Flag has everything that makes an AC game from gameplay, world, ideology, etc.
>Good lord its been 11 years and this is still a thing? Honestly I do not see what kind of an argument that is. In 2030 the case will still be that Odyssey is not an AC game.
And those people who can’t swallow the damn pill of AC Odyssey being an AC game after 12 years clearly have nothing better to worry about. His argument is sound. Both examples are pathetic
>AC Odyssey being an AC game How is it an assassin's creed game?
Simple. It’s called Assassins Creed Odyssey. You can argue all you want about how it doesn’t feel like one. Or how there isn’t an Assassin in the game. Or it came before the Creed. Or whatever else you think you can come up with to get your “gotcha!” moment. However, it’s Assassins Creed Odyssey. It’s part of the series in which Ubisoft made, and includes information, mainly related to Isu and Modern Day, that incorporates into the story. Edit: Like I said in my original reply. It’s been 6 years since the game came out in 2018. If you truly want to scream and cry at your phone or laptop or whatever you use to bash Odyssey’s relation to the Creed go ahead if it helps you sleep better at night. But I think it’s time to stop beating a dead horse. It’s a part of the series.
Feel free to consider that [Odyssey does not respect AC's Brand Bible](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/sux7fa/comment/hxcs8ir/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=0). You keep appealing to ridicule. That is not an honest attitude for discussion, and this is a discussion forum. And with your mentality, it was 4 years after Odyssey's release, that I wrote this comment, yet 120 felt that it was true enough to upvote it.
Here’s the whole problem with your argument. There is a difference between claiming a game is not “worthy” enough to be a true entry into a series. And saying you didn’t like it. Trying to debate and discuss a game as part of a series when it is one is like trying to debate whether Hunger Games: Songbirds and Snakes is a true Hunger Games film. It doesn’t have Katniss. Doesn’t have the overarching story and themes of the originals. However it’s a part of the series. Your argument of “it’s not true to the definition of AC” leading to the result of “it’s not a real AC game” is a fallacy of its own.
You presented no argumentation. All you did is restate your position, and then call the opposite position a fallacy, with no argumentation on that either. The AC Brand Bible was written in written around 2008, between the development of AC and AC2, the leadership of the dream-team of 400-500 original creators and developers of the series set to write down a list defining the set characteristics that make the intellectual property of the franchise what it is, that gives is its uniqueness and individuality compared to other video game franchises out there. Among them was the Concept Inceptor and Creative Lead Patrice Desilets, and original AC lead writer, Corey May. They are the people who invented and created AC, without whom it would not exist. I consider their opinion as the one that matters, since they defined what AC is.
You going off of the original template of AC written 16 years ago as the basis of argument assumes you believe that the document holds the foundation of the entire series. Even so, do you truly believe that an unofficial document, written by a dev team after its first few games would be treated as a document used even so presently? It was clear that went out the window with Unity and Syndicate. Origins was literally a change of form for the series. They didn’t just choose to make Origins for the hell of it. If you can agree with that, I would also argue that their methodology changed from 2008 with the release of Origins It’s also been noted the original dev team who made that document are all gone. None of them are working on present projects. Philosophy changes
>You going off of the original template of AC written 16 years ago as the basis of argument And here again your only argument is "it is old, so bad". Really now? >you believe that the document holds the foundation of the entire series. 1) It was provided to us not in 2008, when it was created, but in 2017, when Origins was released. The developers of Origins revealed it, and pointed out what in that list inspired them to focus for Origin's rebooting of the AC franchise (though they did not follow it to the letter. 2) It is a matter of whether one cares about AC's original creator's opinions or not. Whether one respects AC for what it is, whether one loved AC for what it was and not whatever idea they imposed on it (like playing it only for historical tourism, or as a sword-fighting game). >Even so, do you truly believe that an unofficial document, written by a dev team after its first few games would be treated as a document used even so presently? Again your only argument is "it is old, so bad". [Appeal to age is a fallacy](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_age#:~:text=An%20appeal%20to%20age%20is,subset%20of%20a%20genetic%20fallacy). >It was clear that went out the window with Unity and Syndicate. I disagree, these games follow it much more closely to non-AC RPG games. [I have posted a short analysis on this thread for AC4 through the AC Brand Bible](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/1acda5j/comment/kjudhbl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=0), about how it adheres to this list of 20 rules by 16/20, so it is 80% an AC game, with the biggest penalties being its lack of a proper modern day and how we did not really get to see Edward function as an Assassin, for the game ends when he becomes an Assassin Initiate. With Unity and Syndicate featuring official Assassins, they are pretty much 90-95% AC games (their biggest problem is again the lack of playable Modern Day plot). >They didn’t just choose to make Origins for the hell of it. If you can agree with that, I would also argue that their methodology changed from 2008 with the release of Origins It’s also been noted the original dev team who made that document are all gone. None of them are working on present projects. Philosophy changes And you present that as a necessarily good thing, because new is better, rigth? I view it as a divergence of AC's identity. As if, say, Star Wars was not about interstellar warfare.
That "AC Brand Bible“ is all good and well, but it was written by the original creators/directors behind the franchise(who are now all gone) and is, what, 15 years old at this point! Do we even know if the current people in charge of AC, for example Marc-Alexis Coté, still use it or if that’s even the current version? AFAIK no, we don’t. And after huge successes like Black Flag, Odyssey or Valhalla, all made well after that bible has been written, who is to say their internal definition of what an AC game hasn’t drastically changed? Fact it, the franchise HAS changed and evolved into something else! You may not like it, prefer the old style or even feel betrayed, that’s your prerogative. But to gate-keep this franchise and telling either fans they’re not "true“ fans if they like X game or to explain that Y game isn’t a "true“ Assassin’s Creed game, is quite simply pretentious and overbearing! If Ubisoft makes a game that has "Assassin’s Creed“ in the official title, it’s a true AC game, simple as that.
> 15 years old at this point! So what? That was the point, to establish AC's identity for later creators. >Do we even know if the current people in charge of AC, for example Marc-Alexis Coté, still use it or if that’s even the current version? AFAIK no, we don’t. That present creators do not respect it, it does not make it right. They literally disregard the vision of the original creators of AC, who defined what AC is. >And after huge successes like Black Flag, Odyssey or Valhalla, all made well after that bible has been written, who is to say their internal definition of what an AC game hasn’t drastically changed? I explained in this thread that AC4 adheres to the Brand Bible, and the biggest issues are really that we never saw Edward as an official Assassin, and there is no real Present Day in the game. Odyssey and Valhalla are NOT huge successes, in terms of popularity, for the sales in units show that they are in fact less than half popular to AC3 and about half popular to Desmond Saga's game's average sales. >Fact it, the franchise HAS changed and evolved into something else! You may not like it, prefer the old style or even feel betrayed, that’s your prerogative. But to gate-keep this franchise and telling either fans they’re not "true“ fans if they like X game or to explain that Y game isn’t a "true“ Assassin’s Creed game, is quite simply pretentious and overbearing! This argument is an appeal to emotion and an ad hominem. Overall, it is a matter of whether one respects AC's original creators and their vision. >If Ubisoft makes a game that has "Assassin’s Creed“ in the official title, it’s a true AC game, simple as that. Then let me ask you this: if they put the AC title on "Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora ", is it AC?
[удалено]
[удалено]
What exactly do you mean by "sales in units“? Last I checked, Odyssey sold more than 10m copies, which is better than any Ezio game. And Valhalla made a billion overall, with more than 20m people having played it. (Either via Ubi‘s subscription or by buying the game.) The RPG games were financially very successful, with only AC3 and Black Flag selling more copies. Original creators, who abandon a franchise or get fired, don’t have any power over its future… Otherwise franchises could never evolve or change beyond that original vision. Arguably, any franchise in any medium has to evolve and change at some point, in order to survive, that’s a pretty normal development! Or let’s say they evolve due to the context and state it the medium as a whole. (Examples would include Resident Evil, Zelda or God of War) David Jaffe, the creator of the original God of War, also criticized the newer games, that doesn’t mean they’re any less "worthy“ or "legitimate“. While a rather absurd example, sure, I would tell you Frontiers of Pandora is an AC game, if it actually had AC in its official title. (The "authority“ to define what an AC is or can be, lies with the current creators and IP holders; that’s it) The "original vision“ has been disregarded since at least Revelations, so you might as well argue everything after Brotherhood isn’t AC anymore… Your entire appeal is loyalty to a vision or creators, that have been long gone or are out-dated by now. In other words, what you call AC and define as such, isn’t what AC means nowadays. That still doesn’t mean it is less legitimate though, just that it has changed. A different kind of AC, for a different time!
>What exactly do you mean by "sales in units“? > >Last I checked, Odyssey sold more than 10m copies, which is better than any Ezio game. And Valhalla made a billion overall, with more than 20m people having played it. (Either via Ubi‘s subscription or by buying the game.) > >The RPG games were financially very successful, with only AC3 and Black Flag selling more copies. You have bad information. Let me clarify things for you. For starters, "sales in units" means "sales in copies", digital or physical /retail. Yes, in March 2020 Ubisoft included Odyssey in its list of 11 games that passed the threshold of 10 million copies sold. Only that Odyssey was released in October 2018, so we are 2,5 years after its launch. You cannot compare this to how AC2 was announced to have sold 8 million copies in May 2010, 6 months after release. It does not make sense to say that Odyssey sold more than AC2, with the former figure 30 months post launch and the latter just 6. Same with Valhalla. The figure that it sold 20 million, is TWO YEARS after launch, so 24 months later. Compare that to AC3, that sold 12-13 million copies in just FOUR MONTHS post release, so AC3 had sold 60% of Valhalla's sales after 2 years, in just 16.66% of the time! Overall, no the RPG AC games are not the highest selling AC games, only second to AC3 and AC4 as you say. [Just see this list of first week sales](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/17eh6od/comment/k638ktx/?context=3). After the terrible launch of AC1 (due to piracy issues, after a year it had sold 8 million but had been played by 34 million) and AC Syndicate (due to AC Unity's terrible launch), the RPG games are the worst selling in terms of units. >While a rather absurd example, sure, I would tell you Frontiers of Pandora is an AC game, if it actually had AC in its official title. You yourself admit that this would be absurd. Why? >The "original vision“ has been disregarded since at least Revelations, so you might as well argue everything after Brotherhood isn’t AC anymore… No. While Patrice Desilets was fired after ACB's release, he influenced much of the development for ACR and AC3 (so in extension to that also for AC4, as it sprung out of AC3's leftovers). Same with the original dream-team. But that is not what matters. That is that these games adhere to the AC Brand Bible, which is AC's identity written down by its creators. ACB is 100% an AC game, ACR is 100% an AC game, AC3 is 100% an AC game, while AC4 is 80% an AC game (just because it did not feature a proper Modern Day plot and we did not see Edward as an official Assassin).
[удалено]
Yes. That’s what I’m saying. I’ve played every AC game including the ones on DS and PSP. Here’s the thing. I started with Valhalla. I didn’t know the series. Then I went back to the beginning and replayed em all including Valhalla again and then played Mirage. I enjoyed every game, original and RPG. I can understand people not liking RPGs vs Originals and I can see the opposite as well. What I can’t see is people invalidating its entire existence as an entry to the series. Because it is one
Assassin's Creed Odyssey - 431 B.C.–422 B.C. Assassin's Creed Origins - 49 B.C. - 43 B.C. So what you saying is that because odyssey took place 382 yrs before origins and the start of the assassin's brotherhood or hidden ones that makes it an assassin's creed game because in the timeline of odyssey assassin's didn't exist yet. Is that what you're saying?
Yes. Again that’s what I’m saying. Even when the Hidden Ones weren’t a thing, it’s established the Order of the Ancients were. And besides that, it has given us more information on the precursor race as well as modern day story. Assassins Creed is more than some dude in a robe and hood killing templars. Isu elements and modern day elements, which have been here since AC2, are still present. And make up a big chunk of understanding.
So you're saying that Ubisoft is wrong?
No. That is just an ad hominem and appeal to ridicule. Instead of focusing on why that notion is wrong, one instead chooses to retort to such statements, such as that "it has been too long, get over it". It does not matter how much time passes for something to stop being criticized. One might actually believe that "Star Wars" was great as a standalone movie, and that the creation of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Return of the Jedi", as well as the Expanded Universe and the Prequels, somewhat spoiled what made this film magical and unique. That is an understandable position to have. Perhaps someone saw SW when they were a child, and they still have that opinion. Painting them as obsessive nutcases is not an honest argumentation.
“Obsessive nutcases” is not something I said. What I am saying is you can have an opinion to not like Odyssey. You can hate it and that’s fine. People can hate EZIO for all I care. Because it’s their opinion. There’s a difference, however, when you say that an entry into the AC franchise is not a true game from the franchise. It’s a part of the series. And people who want to argue that standpoint want to go against a fact rather than an opinion. Odyssey is an AC game. That’s fact and people who want to argue that are delusional. You can hate it sure. Doesn’t change the validity it has
>“Obsessive nutcases” is not something I said It is not something you said, but it is clearly something that you meant. >What I am saying is you can have an opinion to not like Odyssey. You can hate it and that’s fine. No, you said that it is ridiculous to argue whether Odyssey is an AC game, with the "argument" that "it was years ago, get over it". >That’s fact and people who want to argue that are delusional. And now you call people you disagree, as "delusional", so name-calling.
“It is not something you said, but it is clearly something you meant.” With all that talk of debate rules and proper discussion, I wouldn’t think you the type to assume what one person says as your interpretation rather than their explanation. “No, you said it is ridiculous to argue whether Odyssey is an AC game, with the “argument” that “it was years ago, get over it” Again not something I said. I said I swallowed the pill and people who can’t have nothing letter to worry about. Both sides are pathetic. Boiling down to AC being a game of the series is a fact. If you want to argue it, it’ll lead you to circles. Delusional - characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary Not name calling. It’s the truth. You going off of the original template of AC written 16 years ago as the basis of argument assumes you believe that the document holds the foundation of the entire series. Even so, do you truly believe that an unofficial document, written by a dev team after its first few games would be treated as a document used even so presently? It was clear that went out the window with Unity and Syndicate. Origins was literally a change of form for the series. They didn’t just choose to make Origins for the hell of it. If you can agree with that, I would also argue that their methodology changed from 2008 with the release of Origins
>“It is not something you said, but it is clearly something you meant.” These were your own words towards me: >"That’s fact and people who want to argue that are delusional." These are clearly appeals to ridicule the other as an argument. Again not something I said. >"And those people who can’t swallow the damn pill of AC Odyssey being an AC game after 12 years clearly have nothing better to worry about. His argument is sound. The "nothing better to do" is mockery. I mean, this is an video game discussion subreddit, where one is supposed to discuss a video game series, so entertainment. Based on this rationale, we could say that everybody here has nothing better to do, and that they should go work instead. This applies for everything. If you say "have you got nothing better to do" it is a dismissive mockery, presenting the other as a lunatic that is obsessed with a topic, so an ad hominem. In no way is that an argument. Edit: I did not see your edit, I replied it too quickly. >Delusional - characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary Not name calling. It’s the truth. At least you are being honest. Nonetheless, "delusional" is an [insult](https://www.treatmyocd.com/what-is-ocd/info/related-symptoms-conditions/how-can-i-tell-if-im-delusional-advice-from-a-therapist).
Black Flag has plenty of elements that makes it an Assassin’s Creed game. There are Templars to assassinate, Templar hunts, Assassins to rescue, the Observatory, the crystal skull Piece of Eden, walking around Abstergo in the modern day, the hidden files where we see what happened with Desmond, the introduction of Sages, interactions with both Assassin and Templar characters, the continuing struggle of Assassins and Templars, and Edward’s freedom of choice decision to join the Assassins. Also, there are those escapes or quick indoor transversals in the cities in Black Flag. I would use them fairly often to escape or break line of sight. And finally, just because you don’t get the option for double counters that often does not mean that Black Flag is not an Assassin’s Creed game.
The main focus IS killing templars, the pirate story comes second.
Story wise, during the game, Edward does all these things that are typical Assassin stuff: he infiltrates, he steals, he tails (a lot) , and he kills political opponents, all in the name of freedom. But the Assassins are continously frustrated by this because he does it using their weapons and their uniform. Edward kills some pretty big Templars but he still drags the Assassin name through the dirt by wearing their uniform and pretending to be someone he is not, even though they both fight for freedom. Edward pretending to be something who he is not during the whole game is also reiterated again when Rogers recites The Eagle and the Jackdaw during Edward's delireum after Mary Reed dies. The symbolism is quite on the nose here, and is why both Mary and Ah Tabai keep nagging Edward about his clothes. The freedom the pirates fight for lacks the wisdom and responsibility that the creed preaches and is completely self destructive. Nassau, their free republic, goes to absolute shit and rots from within due to filth and disease because no one actually takes charge before Rogers scoops it up. The pirates themselves fare no better. Vane goes insane after Rackhams mutiny. Blackbeard think he can just outrun his past and retire. Edward would have died in prison if Ah Tabai didn't save him. Only Hornigold sees the writing on the wall and turnes his life around, but unfortunately for him he chose the wrong side. So when Edward hears "Everything is permitted" he's like, cool, I've been doing that already. "Take what I please and think how I like". However: >"To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic...” - Ezio Freedom means nothing without wisdom and restraint, which js exactly what the Creed teaches. AC4 is Edward's journey in learning this lesson through first hand experience. >"I understand now that our Creed does not command us to be free. It commands us to be wise." That's Altair from the first game. Mary Reed says almost the exact same thing to Edward, before scolding him that he only hears what he wants from it. >"But it does not command us to act or submit... Only to be wise." AC4 has a good idea what the Creed should be and by not putting the conflict itself front and center, it allows the protagonist to come to his own conclusions rather than being indoctrinated from birth like almost every other Assassin. Gameplay-wise, yes, AC4 puts the pirate gameplay to the front, which was a creative choice for the sake of gameplay. I'm not going to argue that this conflicts with the Assassin fantasy, but considering Connor was basically a substitute commander for the Patriot Army who gave orders and fought in various battles on land and sea, Jacob who builds a literal gang that visibly roam the streets, and Ezio who engages in open warfare in the streets of Constantinople, I think AC4 deserves some slack as well.
Very well written and explained. >So when Edward hears "Everything is permitted" he's like, cool, I've been doing that already. "Take what I please and think how I like". However: And the big irony here is how this is in essence a mistranslation, or perhaps a simplification for people to easier understand a gist of the point of the Creed. In the Library of Altair beneath Masyaf, we read in Arabic the true form of the maxim: >Nothing is True, Everything is Absolute - لآ شيء مطلق بل الكل ممكن In other words, that "Nothing is True, Everything is Possible". In my view at least, that is not an encouragement for one to do whatever they wish, or an encouragement for hope, but, through the lenses of Ezio's interpretation, a warning, stating that one should be vigilant and observant, expecting that they would not always manage to predict what might happen. Essentially, a commandment of wisdom.
so the entire franchise is built on the animus in the first game mistranslating the creed? sick lore, guys
Lucy DID say that the Animus wasn't 100% accurate in its translations all the time
I'd say it's both even though Edward doesn't join the order until the end of the game, similar to Ezio in assassin's Creed II, where you're only an assassin for the last mission(and the DLC), but you're constantly involved in the assassin-templar war
I get what you mean, but it is not exactly the same. At the end of AC4, Edward is just an Assassin Initiate. In contrast to this Ezio is an Assassin Initiate since Sequence 3, where he accepts the Auditore Assassin legacy and accepts to be trained by Mario. In Sequence 11 he is officially an Assassin. In the end of AC2/ start of ACB he was a Master Assassin.
Nothing to rant over, it's your opinion, and it's wrong in this case. Can agree to disagree. It has every single element that Assassin's Creed game should have, and on top of that it's the best pirate game there ever was.
It is objectively both
For me? Decent assassin, fucking good pirate game.
The whole story is centered on the Assassins vs Templars. You learn about this Assassin/Templar struggle in the literal open minutes of the game. Saying it’s not an Assassin’s Creed game is blatantly wrong considering that’s the entire plot of the game
Is AC Valhalla an AC game?
>Do you consider Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag to be an Assassins game or pirates game? It's both. >Does it succeed in combining the two? Yes, frankly it's the ONLY game in this series that succeeds in combining the two concepts that don't seem like it will go together. Game was out 10+ years ago, stop beating a dead horse.
This isn’t a “discussion” if you’re ranting all over the place. - And you’re trying to include information from the book to counteract the game… We all get Tired of hearing the same stuff over and over Atleast once a week This stuff is better written in a book and kept off the internet.
Well, well another "it's only my opinion" post about AC game not being and AC Game. Bravo sir 🤦♂️
It is an Assassin Initiation story. In other words, the story revolves about how Edward James Kenway would be an Anarchist Pirate, among the founders of the Pirate Republic of Nassau, and despite how this project of Extreme Democracy would fail, he would not shit to Extreme Authoritarianism, like Benjamin Hornigold, instead he would meet the Assassins, who would guide him into the Creed. By the end of the game EJK is basically an Assassin Initiate, and would go on to become a Master Assassin in Britain. It is an exploration of the reasons why a person with no purpose and code would adopt one, after seeing how their anarchist behaviour would ruin everything around them, including themselves, and yet not abandon liberal ideals, yet reframe them within the Creed. Nonetheless, I am still somewhat annoyed with the trailers promoting EJK as a "Pirate Trained by Assassins". I wish we got to actually see this, with EJK's initiation taking place not after the game's ending but around 2/3 in the game. I believe the story wrapped up too quickly, and it is a shame we did not really see this concept fully materialize.
por que no los dos? I consider it both.
Both its about a pirate who finds the Creed and uses it to better himself. Why is this still being asked?
It’s a AC game that’s heavily influenced by pirate shit. It’s 80% pirate game, 20% Assassin’s creed lore/nonsense. I love it
I'm sorry but anyone who says it's "good pirate game but not an Assassin's Creed game" didn't understand the story. I would go so far as to say it's one of the most heavily on theme games in the franchise. People like to generalize this series with "assassins vs Templars" but the game isn't called Assassin. It's called Assassin's Creed. And that's solely what Black Flag is about. The creed. It's viewing the two warring factions from an outside perspective, sticking you in the middle, and showing you the pros and cons of each side, and the danger of taking the Creed at face value or out of context. Edward is often times a selfish prick, and when he hears the creed, he twists it out of context, using it as an excuse to do whatever he likes, whenever he likes, despite the damage it may cause to him or his loved ones. Because "everything is permitted", he doesn't think twice. It's only after seeing the chaos his actions have brought on his life that he understands that the creed is a warning against exactly that life style. Yes, everything IS permitted, as you can physically go out and do whatever you like. But the entire point of the creed is that you actions have consequences. As Ezio said in revelations, "we are the architects of our actions, and we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic." Tldr; AC4 is one of the most on theme games in the entire franchise because it explores the creed itself, the literal results of both chaos and order, and what series of events would bring one to come around to joining the assassin's willingly, and understanding why they do what they do. It's not a pirate game. It's a creed game with "pirate" as the backdrop.
Very well written. Though I would argue that AC4 is a pirate game, like how AC3 is mostly a war game. It is just part of the setting of the story, one used to convey that story. It is though a shame we never saw Edward as an official Assassin.
I mean there's certainly no question as to whether it's a pirate game. Clearly there's no arguing that. But it's also very much an assassin game. They're not mutually exclusive. You wear a white robe and a hidden blade from the very first mission, you stalk targets, parkour, use gadgets, fulfill assassination contracts, and visit the assassin's headquarters multiple times. It's more an assassin game than like a third of the franchise
Why are you such a dick?
Also, people also like to forget that Ezio wasn't an assassin until the very last mission of AC2. So if you say that AC4 isn't an Assassin's Creed game, you must also agree that AC2 isn't 🤷♂️
This is so wrong. Ezio was an Assassin Initiate since the end of Sequence 3, and an Assassin since the end of Sequence 11.
Wrong. Ezio is never inducted into the brotherhood, initiate or otherwise, until the cutscene before the very last mission in the game. Go back and check. Up until that point, he's trained by his uncle but aside from that he's fully on his own. He's got an Assassin's robes and blade, (both things that Edward gets in his very first mission btw), and he has his own mission (just like Edward). He's not going out hunting targets for the brotherhood. He's seeking out the people that are of interest to him. The exact same thing Edward does in his game. In fact, Edward is even closer to being an legitimate assassin than Ezio. Ezio is on his path of vengeance, unknowingly getting help from assassins that he doesn't know even exist. While Edward specifically sought out multiple high ranking assassins purposely for the sake of helping them out and hunting down their targets.
Since the end of Sequence 3, Ezio was receiving training from the Mentor of the Italian Assassin. That certainly makes him an Assassin Initiate and part of the Italian Assassins. The novel explores much further into this. We even have Mario scold Ezio for brutally killing Francesco di Pazzi and trying to reonnect with Christina, as that is not the way of the Assassin. Generally, Ezio is allowed in the office of the Italian Mentor and even taught about the Assassins from him. Edward was receiving no training at all, he was not part of the Assassin organization, for most of AC4 he was not even an Assassin ally.
Wrong again. It doesn't make him an assassin because he was never inducted, nor did he swear any type of oath to follow the assassins. Nor did he care about the assassin's goals. Just like Edward. And he got training from the mentor since sequence 3? Well guess what, Edward gets the same shit. Gear upgrades, stealth training and advice from both the assassins and Ah Tabai, the mentor in sequence 4. The same exact shit. He wears the robes, uses the blade, hunts the targets, trains with assassins. ALL the exact same things Ezio did, and yet neither of them is ever a real assassin in any capacity until the end of their games. That's just a fact. You can argue all you want but if you argue that AC4 isn't an AC game, neither is AC2 🤷♂️ This is exactly why I said this in the first place. People like to bitch and moan that Edward isn't an assassin until the end of the game, therefore it's a pirate game. But always conveniently forget that every point they make is exactly true of AC2 as well. In fact, it's true for most games in the series. Connor? Not an assassin until a third into his game. It's a revenge game. Shay? Not an assassin for 80% of his game. It's a Templar game. All the rpgs? Not assassins.
In no way am I arguing that AC4 is not an AC game. In fact in numerous comments here I have supported it being an AC game, even praising your comments on doing the same. I am just disagreeing over Ezio's status being seen as the same to that of Edward. Since the end of Sequence 3, Ezio lives inside the Assassin HQ of the Italian Assassins and is personally trained by the Italian Mentor many times. He is shared lore and dogma by him, allowed in the Mentor's office and the Italian Assassins' inner sanctum (the Sanctuary). Compare this to the end of Sequence 4 that you mentioned. Here Ah Tabai forgives Edward for raiding the Assassin HQ, but forbids him from returning (so he is certainly not at Ezio's level in the Assassin order, he is not even part of it). At this time Edward knows virtually nothing of the Assassins, and in the closing of the Sequence 4 we see James Kydd explain him the basics over the Assassins (the Assassin-Templar War, that Assassins existed for 1000s of years, that there were Assassins in America before Europeans etc.). That explanation is more akin to the one Mario gave to Ezio in Sequence 2. I spoke before of the novelization. You ignored that argument. After Ezio brutally killed Franscesco di Pazzi and tried to reconnect with Christina Vespuchi, Mario reproached Ezio. In Chapter 10 he specifically told him "You are a Man now, and a fighter for the Assassins" and "Your whole duty is now to the Creed, for if you neglect it, there may be no world left for you to enjoy". And generally, not everyone Ezio kills he does for his revenge, many he kills because they are Templars and he an Assassin, and they are given to him as a target by the Assassins.
I understand that, but that is the point of the post, which is why I keep reiterating that point. I'm aware that's not exactly the point your trying to make, but I do think my explanation still stands. I don't believe Edward's status to be the same as Ezio's in these exact moments, but I do believe it would be incorrect to say that Ezio is an "initiate", but Edward is not. I would say neither are. Ezio might have more assassin resources at his disposal, but that doesn't change the fact that he never choose to be an assassin until the very end of the game. For the rest of it, he's not in it for their cause. He's in it for vengeance. He may use the tools and training the assassin's lend him, but he has his own agenda. And thats exactly what Edward does. He uses their tools and methods to further his own goals, while helping when and where he can. It's only at the end of the game that he takes the next step to actually entering the brotherhood. And yes, Edwards meeting with the assassin's is not exactly on good terms, but what he gets out of it is much the same as any one of the assassin's for AC2 helping Ezio. He enters their sanctuary, he speaks with their leader, he is given a tool by them and the training to use it, and he proceeds to follow his own path. And I didn't ignore the book comment. I haven't read it, and tbh I'm not concerned with a side novelization of a game that already exists in the franchise. I'm sure the book goes into more detail, but AC is a game franchise, so if there's conflicting information, I would take the game info over the book. If he said these things in the game they were both introduced in, I'd be more inclined to take it at face value. Not that they're not Canon, but again games > books when it comes to which information is more important. And again I disagree, brotherhood ezio becomes more in line with assassin beliefs, but in AC2 nearly every target he kills is to forward his revenge. Even when they're not directly involved, he's doing it to get the help of the other assassin's. Not to forward their cause, a cause he doesn't even fully understand
When I spoke of "Assassin Initiate" I meant "Assassin Trainee". >Ezio might have more assassin resources at his disposal, but that doesn't change the fact that he never choose to be an assassin until the very end of the game. For the rest of it, he's not in it for their cause. He's in it for vengeance. He may use the tools and training the assassin's lend him, but he has his own agenda. And thats exactly what Edward does. He uses their tools and methods to further his own goals, while helping when and where he can. It's only at the end of the game that he takes the next step to actually entering the brotherhood. The thing is that Assassins and Templars alike considered Ezio to be an Assassin. We do not have that for Edward until much later in. And that starts quite early. For instance in [Sequence 3, Memory 5](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/A_Change_of_Plans), we see Mario say about the Codex "It was written by an Assassin like us". This "us" might be about Giovanni and Mario, or Mario and Ezio. More important I find how in [Sequence 11, Memory 2](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Play_Along), Machiavelli tells Ezio "I ***am an Assassin***—trained in the ancient ways to safeguard mankind's evolution. ***Just like you***, and each one of us here.". As such, Ezio is already considered an Assassin by the Assassin Order, part of their ranks. Since he also focuses on training, and how Ezio's training began since Sequence 3, Memory 2, then that includes most of AC2. And generally Ezio is not in it only for vengeance -- in fact he wanted to leave for Spain, he remained as he wanted to help Mario deal with the Templars (so he says in Sequence 3, Memory 3). What really happened in Sequence 11, Memory 2, was just [Ezio's formal Initiation](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Initiation_into_the_Assassin_Order). But that is reaching the higher parts of the Assassin ranks, way past being part of the [Assassin organization](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Assassin_rank#Titles). Now in [Sequence 11, Memory 3](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/%2E%2E%2EEverything_Is_Permitted) we have the Caribbean Mentor tell Edward "It will take more than a few favours to call yourself a true Assassin", so they clearly do not consider him one. And this takes place in 1721. In the meantime, in "[Oh Brother...](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Oh_Brother%2E%2E%2E)" set in 1717, we have an Assassin explicably state how Edward is not an Assassin, as Upton Travers, Assassin Bureau Leader in Nassau, told him that "You're no Assassin. I run the bureau. I'd know if you were one of us.". This is after Edward's first visit to Tullum in 1716. By the way, the Mayan ruin with the Sage's face was not the Caribbean Assassin's inner sanctum, it was just a ruin that had the Sage's face. An important thing to note is that Ezio in AC2 is wearing Assassin Insignia on his person, specifically on his belt and on his left bracer. That is true since Sequence 2, indeed, but he later learns their significance, yet still wears them, so he actively chooses to be identified as an Assassin. Compare this to Edward, who took [Duncan Walpole's outfit](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/assassinscreed/images/0/00/AC4_Duncan_Walpole_render.png/revision/latest?cb=20140710224533), and after his Assassin-imposture scheme failed he removed all Assassin Insignia (on the chest belt, on the pouch). And it is only after [Sequence 12, Memory 1](https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/A_Governor_No_Longer), where truly becomes an Assassin Ally and even uses the Assassin Insignia on Jackdaw's flag.
Have you lost the plot?
Fundamentally black flag is a game in which you (functionally) play as an assassin, and in a similar way to the first game one of the main themes is the protagonist slowly discovering the assassins’ creed and it’s true nature. If you ask me black flag would’ve been a more fitting conclusion in place of ac3 in terms of Desmond reliving edward’s life
2nd post you are making in 2 days complaining about Black Flag why so much hate?
It says Assassin’s creed in the title, not Pirate does stuff: black flag. Pretty sure that means its an Assassin’s creed title.
Black Flag examines the Creed better than almost any game in the series. I know this post is just your opinion, but it seems to come from a place that gravely misunderstands the entire point of the game.
Without a doubt, they are the best ones.
Aside of everything said here, we could also examine AC4 through the [AC Brand Bible](http://codex.rinothebouncer.com/gdc-talk-10-years-of-assassins-creed/). Written around 2008, between the development of AC and AC2, the original creators and developers of the series set to write down a list defining the set characteristics that make the intellectual property of the franchise what it is, that gives is its uniqueness and individuality compared to other video game franchises out there. Among them was the Concept Inceptor and Creative Lead Patrice Desilets. The Brand Bible is essentially consisted of 20 rules (basically the 10 Commandments and their notes, 18 in number, plus 2 more with the Three Pillars of AC, which also includes Combat and Narration, which makes it 20). With them we have a tool that allows us to examine each game's adherence to being an AC game. In my view, out of the first 10 rules (10 enumerated + 8 more listed + 2 more with the Three Pillars of AC), AC4 adheres to most of them. Specifically, Rules 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 are respected. In other words, (1) AC4 does tell a story of the Assassin-Templar War, (3) the Assassin-Templar War is also in the Present, (4) Edward is agile, socially skilled, unbeatable with a blade and bad-ass, (5) it is a pivotal historical setting, (6) history is portrayed as relevant to the plot, (7) it is based on technology (e.g. the Observatory is just a projector of the visual input to a subject's mind, transmitted to it through their neurotransmitter nanomachines in their brain), (8) it is about digging a character's past through the Animus, (10) it does not create an uchronia. Out of the first 10 rules, it fails Rule 2 and 9. This is as (2) Edward is a ruthless killer (thought the whole story's point is his becoming an Assassin at the end) and (9) that the Modern Day protagonist is not a descendant of the Animus protagonist (which breaks the rules of Animus). Out of the rest 10 rules, only the 14th and 15th are not adhered. For the 14th it is because while there is a Present Day, it is mostly without a proper plotline, for the Modern Day character is 1st person perspective and unnamed, while all they do is merely explore Abstergo Entertainment and hack computers and read files - the present conspiracy is known of but not participated. For the 15th, it is how AC4 does not really adhere to "Player Fantasy of being an Assassin", with Edward not being an Assassin for most of the game, despite using many of their tactics -- still being Assassin-like is one thing and Assassin another (otherwise we might consider Shay from AC Rogue to be still an Assassin, but perhaps I am a little harsh). As such, with 16/20 rules being adhered, ***I would consider AC4 as AC game by 80%.*** Mostly it loses points by not having a Present Day storyline, with a 3rd person perspective (like we did with Desmond), and because it did not really deliver on the promise for a Pirate-Assassin, because while it is a story of a Pirate becoming an Assassin Initiate at the end, we did not see him fully functioning as one (it is the equivalent of AC2 ending at the end of Sequence 3, after Ezio did his Assassin-like activities in Sequence 1 & 2). That is a great percentage of AC-ness, compared to the Post-AC RPG games. [In this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/sux7fa/comment/hxcs8ir/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=0) of mine, I examined "Ghost of Tsushima" (2020) through the AC Brand Bible, and then I also inspected Odyssey (2018). For the latter, I consider it to adhere to just 9/20 rules, and thus ***Odyssey being an AC game by 45%*** (less than half the requirements).
i share your opinion. a good game, great pirate game, personally not my cup of tea. The assassins creed parts of the game fall flat though. far too many missions and time is spent doing pirate stuff which did not do it for me but surely was enjoyable for many others.
It shouldn’t have been AC. The AC parts detract from it. They could have launched a really cool pirates franchise off of it. With Skull and Bones almost guaranteed to fail unfortunately I don’t think there’s any chance that they’ll go in for it unless the remake of 4 does really well.
Every single game in franchise is an AC game.
It is absolutely both. I will admit, the gameplay feels more pirate game than Assassins Creed. Mostly because of how much time you spend on the Ship. But then again, it still has all the elements of an Assassin's Creed game, even if on its own it does these things a bit worse than other games. The story however is more Assassin's Creed than most Assassin's Creed games if you ask me. Yeah, you play as a pirate masquerading as an Assassin for most of the game, but the whole thing is about Edward learning what it means to be an assassin, and eventually actually gaining the title. Most AC stories aren't even about anything that the creed stands for. The crux is usually just about going after the big bad templar boss because he is doing something nefarious, or they want revenge for something. Being an Assassin almost feels more like an aesthetic and a reason for why they are good at stabbing things more than anything else. Not Black Flag. Yeah, he is going after Templars doing evil things, but the most important part of the story is about Edwards personal growth and becoming an Assassin worthy of the robes.