Why Assassin's Creed Villains Are So Lackluster...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Assassin's Creed has had a villain problem for quite a while now. Ever since Assassin's Creed 3 really I feel the series has struggled to establish strong, well-written villains/antagonists compared to the likes of Al Mualim, Rodrigo, Cesare, and Haytham/Charles Lee. There are many contributing factors to why that is as I go over in this video...
Join this channel to get access to perks!
/ @masterassassin791
SUBSCRIBE!
/ @masterassassin791
Vierri De Pazzi is a great villain. Not because of plot development or story. But because the game made us hate him so well.
It's just that the performances in that game were absolutely immaculate
Fake
True he was a very good beginner villain for Ezio!
Also the guy that voiced him also voiced Sasuke Uchiha.
@@masterassassin791 I've never played an ezio game 😔
i believe they should stop this Order of the Ancients structure and just give us a MAIN antagonist that comes from the beginning and gives us a reason to hunt them down to the end, like they did before
this Order of the Ancients way of showing us who the leader eventually is just doesnt sit right with it all, especially that they expect you to remember every single member available and just simply guess with little to no clues on who is behind everything, its never even on a personal level. so in the end it ends up with the reaction mostly being "wait... they're the villain? Who're they again?"
I honestly don’t mind cause it always felt like a detective story, as in you don’t know who these people are, you only see the effects of their evil, so you gotta uncover their identities and then take them out, that’s why in Mirage i didn’t have a problem, since the story was more focused on Basim as a character, his identity, his journey. The order of the ancients were just targets he had to take out as part of his job, he didn’t need to have a personal tie to them cause it also tied into the context of the whole ‘do whatever your master tells you to do/serve without question’ thing that Basim eventually goes against when he meets Qabiha and starts having second thoughts. So the villains were just a plot device and Basim was the real hero/villain the whole time.
I mean that’s one of the most “assassin” like things we’ve had since ac1 where you go around and uncover things to discover your targets like an assassin
I think that's why far cry has great villains. You are kind of faced with ppl like Pagan Min from the very start and he is constantly in your face in some way. Everything comes back to him and you as the player get to decide how u feel because u don't get much input from Ajay
@@Zikuto_Well said th current villan structure becomes just a boring hit list in no time
I liked it in origins and odyssey, but after I feel like Valhalla just copy and pasted odysseys story where it didn’t belong and should have tied the OotA leader into the last battle.
I honestly don’t mind cause it always felt like a detective story, as in you don’t know who these people are, you only see the effects of their evil, so you gotta uncover their identities and then take them out, that’s why in Mirage i didn’t have a problem, since the story was more focused on Basim as a character, his identity, his journey. The order of the ancients were just targets he had to take out as part of his job, he didn’t need to have a personal tie to them cause it also tied into the context of the whole ‘do whatever your master tells you to do/serve without question’ thing that Basim eventually goes against when he meets Qabiha and starts having second thoughts. So the villains were just a plot device and Basim was the real hero/villain the whole time.
Hmm that's actually a pretty interesting perspective
Out of the main villains (antagonists), I feel the only ones Ubisoft nailed were Al Mualim, Rodrigo, and Haytham.
The incest bit with Ceserae made his character soo much more hateable though, I'd say he's valid as one they nailed
@@beefynfnCeserae is wayy to whiny imo
@@Zikuto_ kinda makes you hate him more, and that's the whole point of an antagonist, you're supposed to hate them
not necessarily people don't hate haytham@@beefynfn
@@Zikuto_ Haytham isn't really the main antagonist per say, at least, the way I experienced AC3 was as though Charles Lee was the main antagonist, at least, he was whom I wanted to eradicate the most, Haytham didn't feel like much of a threat because after all, you are his son, I feel like if Connor never got in his way Haytham wouldn't of been killed, rather Connor would've just went after Lee, then end of the game
back when the villains were actually in the game for more than the last sequence
what i enjoy about Crawford Starrick as a villain, even though he is not a historical figure, is that it shows that the order is growing and still around in the 19th century. So much so that in Victorian London, anybody could have risen up through the ranks of The Order because there was much more opportunity to do so. Previous games' "heads of the order" are known figures in history, but Starrick is during the Industrial Revolution which boomed the opportunity for everyday people. I think that element should be factored in to Starricks Personality.
I also think what is missing from his criticism, is that the point of it was that the Templars had grown somewhat comfortable and complacent, due to having absolute dominance and rule over England with Assassins being a non-threat for over a century
*I'll be fr, I seen they basically always did a Cult or a main villain in a Cult if you really look back at it and I kinda just always expected it to just be in every AC game*
Well the “Templars” are the main group that are looked at in a villainous roll rather than just another side of the story trying to accomplish what they believe. In a way they could be seen as a cult in today’s age. But I wouldn’t define them as so
@@donavoncummings3593 *when I say "Cult" I was mostly going off Origins and games after that was just like (here's some cult members you have to hunt) depending on the game you can hunt them in any order or the game will make you go in order so yeah when I say "Cult" I mostly mean just like a group of people we have to go after like in AC3*
@@Tedforsure oh yeah that makes sense, I understand what you mean now. When I completed origins I thought to myself how the order of the ancients never really compelled me like the Templars do. Even tho it’s what led to the templars later on. I’m now playing ac Valhalla after putting it off for some time and I can’t help but feel the same way I did in origins. Although maybe it’s a bit better, with the zealots and their connections to their leaders in the order. I’m not to far deep into that aspect yet tho, I just finished up east anglia
I guess it's just the lens we see this world through is the problem but also the unique quality. In a more traditional narrative structure you'll have scenes for protagonists and antagonists to show who they are, their goals, ambitions and skills. In visual terms like a wavelength from crest (protagonist) to trough (antagonist) and repeat till the end of the story. While in assassin's creed, we're supposed to be reliving one persons memories so we should only see events from their POV, which puts more restrictions on the writer and the story. AC1 to Black flag for the most part did at least a few of their antagonists well while unity onward they're barely present or even well written in the time they have. I guess they simply doubled down on trying to make their protagonists the best they possibly can but of course failing at that also on occasion.
I found L’Isle in Liberation to be a compelling antagonist too. Similar to Origins, you don’t know who the primary antagonist (“The Company Man”) is until the end. And then you find out it’s your step-mom. And not just that, your step-mom has been secretly building you up with the intention of you joining her in the Templars (and is the reason your mom disappeared, and your dad died).
Liberation is not the most loved game, but I found that to be a compelling twist and story.
I second that honestly liberation is a great game in general but the plot twist and them cutting to credits was the coolest thing I've seen an ac game do
Madeleine de L'Isle was such an underrated villain. Even some of what we found out in the lore with how she systematically broke down Mackendal's violent rebellion, leading to his brutal hanging and death, really adds an unsettling vibe to her initially unassuming portrayal.
@@tairenk.3996Agreed. Most of the game the story seems to imply she is an inattentive stepmom, seemingly unaware her stepdaughter is going on these missions here, there, and everywhere. Then at the end it's revealed it was all part of her master plan (and then the fake out ending implies her plan worked, as apollo mentioned above).
I played liberation and completed it yesterday and its crazy how unique it is. It has the “chain kill” feature which looks like the mirage’s chain assassination and a feature that looks like Kenways / Shays fleet. Its honeslty crazy how underappreciated the hame is
@@konstantinos7024Yeah, when I saw the Mirage chain kill feature I definitively had some deja vu :)
You have a good point but even if Flavious was terrible, the whole Order of Ancients was more memorable to me.
Its like fighting a entire Hivemind.
I honestly think it's because there were more memorable antagonists, such as Khaliset (The Hyena) and Taharqa (The Scrab), that really related and delved into Bayek's character and physique, and you have Flavius, who was just... a guy.
I feel like the reason behind this is writing and story depth
AC1's Rober De Sable and Al mualim and AC3's Haytham Kenway are such good villains because the story of those games is extremely deep and the writing is absolutely incredible.
AC2- AC Revelations lacked this level of writing
The fact that Assassins and Templars are two equally shiny sides of the same coin rests at the heart of Assassin's creed and most games in the series just forget that.
No? In AC1 the templars are all a bunch of criminals, slave owners, dictators, mass murderers, etc.
Since the beginning, Templars have just been a criminal order and before AC Revelations with Prince Ahmet, it has always been like That. Revelations and The Kenway Saga gave us a new view of the templars, with them being a criminal order but committing crimes for a greater good, making them an equally shiny side of the coin.
Rodrigo's problem was being a templar. It shouldn't ALWAYS be Assassins vs Templars, and Rodrigo would've worked perfectly if he just wasn't a templar
@@S.O.A_Zero did I say ALL the Templars from AC1 are good? I just said al mualim and rober de sable aren't pure evil.
@@thegamerwithin3232 "Because the story of those games is extremely deep and the writing is incredible" You kind of did
Also you probably got some heavy mandela effect bcz i just recently played AC1 and the story is a giant pile of shi'
I’m glad u mentioned Charles Lee & specifically the different perspectives we get from Haytham & Connor .. Lee is my favorite villain with Cesare a close second
In case of Far Cry I'd say they are kind of known for their Villains since far cry 3 so ubisoft just put more focus on making a compelling villain for the far cry games!
I agree fully that those four are the best. Haytham in particular is my favorite villain of the series ( of the modern villains I also love Daniel Cross) Juhani Otso Berg was also interesting, but just has so few scenes unless you read the tie in comic books.
But I also really like Barthalomew Roberts, who is extremely charismatic, cunning and manipulative. Admittedly a poor fighter, but his quick thinking and commanding presence made him stick with me.
Napoleon is amazingly written and acted, if only they had made him the antagonist T-T seriously it would have been perfect, especially if he started as friends with Arno only for them to drift apart.
Caesar isn’t the main villain and only really became an antagonist in the last few levels of Origins, but he is a lot of fun.
But yes for the most part aside from Bartholomew Roberts and Caesar the villains haven’t been as good since Black Flag.
Instead of the emperor being controlled by the templars make him a templar and make him betray the brotherhood and In my opinion cleopatra should have been the main villain in ac origins since we already connected with her and it would of been such a betrayal
I'd argue Achilles is an underrated villian/antagonist in Rogue. Him being your old mentor and ally does wonders for adding drama and internal conflict for Shay's character. It's not so much that Achilles was a bad person necessarily, only a misguided and somewhat egotistical one. If he had simply listened to Shay's warning, the Colonial Assassins probably wouldn't be struggling as much as they do once the American Revolution takes shape.
Last Memorable Antagonist AC series had was Charless Lee imo
Every antagonist since then are forgettable including those in black flag and Origins, two Games I love
You didn’t like Torres in black flag? Sure he was older and seemed pretty chill as a grandmaster. But the motivations in AC3 are all over the place. Connor finds out that George Washington ordered the attack on his village instead of Lee so really the only reasons he killed him was being a templar and for knocking him out as a kid
@@winklenatorso we ignore the other horrible things the American Templars did including Charles? Sure he didn’t burn the village but he still did a lot of bad stuff
@@Zikuto_ It's annoying how much the cognitive bias of "Lee only burned Connor's village" is so rampant in the fandom when proper analysis of the story clearly demonstrates otherwise. And a lot of this, too, comes from people who fall for the rhetoric that the Templars usually spew out in their final moments, where their actions before death are more than evidence to the contrary.
Right off the top of my head, Lee (who is the interim leader in Haytham's place) and The Templars in AC3:
- Caused the Boston Massacre that injured and killed several people
- Tried to manipulate the Kanien'kehá:ka and the Iroquois into senseless violence and giving up their land (which, if successful, would've killed many people)
- Ran a counterfeit racket
- Ran gangs and mercenaries to oppress and harass people out of food and their homes
- Tried to de-platform and kill the colonists and George Washington, in particular, multiple times
- Committed acts of espionage and confusion amongst the British and Continental military ranks
...Annnnnd on top of that, Lee had threatened to burn and destroy Connor's new home in the homestead even though he didn't initially destroy his previous one which everyone completely forgets.
4:00 I really hoped for "give me Lee!" right there.
My fav one... Dr.Vidic.
I didnt even realise Qahiba was the perfume lady until it was brought to my attention in this video💀
One thing that really drew me in with the first Assassin's Creed was that for 9/10 targets, I felt that I could understand why they were doing what they were doing and at the end of the day they were misguided, but well meaning. As for the one who was not so well meaning, he still served as a good mirror for who Altair could have turned into had he remained on the same path he was at the start.
Then came the Ezio saga where the Templars had little screen-time and most of them were simply just evil. The only targets that stuck out as result were the Borgias.
Then we got back to form with ACIII which had the best Templars because you could understand why they (with the exception of Hickey) were doing what they were doing and argue that it may have been for the best if Conner had let them. Even Hickey was still memorable for his honest hedonism not to mention the rather haunting line he delivered to Conner at his death.
After ACIII, the Templars all suffered from 1 of 2 problems if not both. Their screen-time was far too brief or their motivations lacked any depth beyond being selfish/evil. The last four games in particular have rather egregious in this regard.
🌟✨Absolutely nailed it! Villains are such a crucial aspect of storytelling in Assassin's Creed, and your breakdown really hits the mark. It's disappointing when we see potential for great antagonists but they fall short due to lack of screen time or depth. Here's hoping Ubisoft takes note and delivers some truly memorable villains in future installments. 🎮🔥💥 #AssassinsCreed #VillainsMatter
In defense of Crawford Starrick's goofyness, I think that's exactly the point. Syndicate is not a serious game (which is obvious by its take on Victorian London) and Starrick is not supposed to be a serious villain. He's a Bond villain if anything, fighting our heroes equipped with silly gadgets, who pull impossible physical feats and throw one-liners. You can like Syndicate's tone or not, but I think it's hard to deny that it's very consistent throughout the game. I honestly regret that we didn't get the fistfight-in-the-middle-of-falling-from-the-cliff thing in Syndicate instead of Revelations, because it would fit the tone of the game perfectly.
i think the main villian for Red is probably the Shogun, (or atleast a big military leader)
I always felt that the antagonists in the later Assassin's Creed entries were a poor attempt at trying to replicate the villain reveal of Al Mualim in the first game. Not only did he have substantial screen time throughout the game's story, but each moment we spent with him had an interesting conversation that added to the intrigue of the game and furthered the plot along.
The only other AC antagonist I can think of who is the closest to Al Mualim in motivation was Aspasia from AC Odyssey, since they both shared the act of manipulating both sides of a conflict for their own goals. However, as we all can see, she wasn't much to write home about.
Not every story needs to follow a man vs. man type of structure. Sure it may be easier to make a compelling story that way, but it’s not the only way. There’s also man vs. nature, man vs. self, or in the case of Assassin’s Creed, man vs. organization. Some of the recent games are more about taking down an organization, and less about defeating one particular person.
As others have stated, I see Basim as the main villain of Mirage instead of Qabiha. The game is literally called, “Mirage,” meaning that it has constant themes of illusions and misdirections in the story. We’re led to believe the head of the order is the main villain, but then Roshan, our mentor, stands in our way (and eventually engages in a fight against us). The story plays you by misdirecting with Qabiha, then Roshan, then finally pulling back the curtain to make the player question if it’s actually Basim himself.
I do agree that it’s been a while since we’ve had a good man vs. man story with a compelling hero and villain (and we need more of that in the future), but I’m also glad that they mixed up the formula for a few games. Otherwise, every game would be the exact same hero and villain story.
I think the writers for AC games try for these big shadowy villains who works behind scenes but never step out into the spot light, as a way to create mystery and tension but they completely fail at it.
I agree with the four good antagonists you highlight, but I think Laureano Torres is also great. He stands out among the other Templars in the series because he's very gentlemanly and suave and because he eventually gains a grudging respect for Edward after he demonstrates he's changed from the self-interested thug he was at the beginning and has developed personal convictions that make him care about something greater than himself.
4:51 Literally when i played Origins and they went "it was Flavius all along he's the villain." I straight up went "....Who?"
Maxwell Roth was 100% more fun than Starrick.
Starrick got complacent, he was used to the Assassins being a none-threat for his control over London so when the Frye twins take down his operation in a short period of time he doesn’t have a lot of time to react.
my guess about them being lackluster is they're sort of like real life villains, while completely evil they don't really look it (most of the time)
Love your video and keep up the great work you are awesome
Can you please make video on making a perfect Assassin(like strength of Connor and speed of Arno)and name him in your next video❤
Strength
Durability
Speed
Agility
IQ
Battle IQ
Weapons
Endurance
Stamina
Experience
Offence
Defence
Combat
Parkour
Stamina
Eagle vision
Looks(Charm)
Outfit
Skills and abilities
I would really love to see your opinion and you can use this same idea on templar too
In my opinion
Strength - Connor
Durability - Connor
Speed-arno
Agility-arno
IQ-evie
Battle IQ-idk
Weapons-ezio
Endurance-connor
Stamina-edwaard
Experience-kasandra
Offence-connor
Defence-idk
Still its my opinion I would really like you see your opinion too
One of my favorite villains is Garnier de napplouse because he was truly an evil man experimenting on people against their will. I also liked Rodrigo as he was an intelligent villain and strategist
We love ac
Assassin's creed fans i summon you all😊
Honestly the scarab from origins would have been a better final villain, since theres a few small quests where he acts freindly with bayek and manipulates him, way better then flavius. He basically could have been like a friend to bayek through the game, then you find out hes the leader, he could have been conflicted about what happened with bayeks son, considering he had his own child as well.
That's the ubisoft way. They are capable of amazing and awful things in their games, often at the same time
Tbh I didn't know who Flavius was, or what he looked like, before the final boss. The entire time I was hunting him after the reveal I was trying to figure out who he was and if I missed something important
I think in Mirage, the order is just the mean to an end. The game is all about Basim and Basim alone. But true enough, only we encounter that gal sooner in the game. Maybe basim helping her and in some way, then maybe she will be more memorable
I think AC Red has a solid chance at having the next great main antagonist of the series. Idk if it’s true but it’s rumored that the female protagonist of the game will be out for revenge against the main villain for killing her father early on in the story.
If that’s true, what I would do is show us a whole sequence of the main villain killing the protagonist’s father and setting the stage for the classic revenge storyline, which is what’s rumored.
You can still have the whole Order of Ancients “tree” that you have to unlock and solve for the story. Or the game can do away with it.
However, if you introduce the villain early, have the first inciting incident of the story occur, lay the groundwork for the revenge storyline, and go from there, well then the villain could end up being really good. We know who the villain is from the start, and we know the stakes and relationship between the protagonist/antagonist.
We could get a compelling antagonist for Assassin's Creed Hexe, since its going to have a more grimdark/ dark fantasy spin on the series
You could argue that Alexios was kind of okay villian since he was present in most of the game
Maybe the company man from Liberation but nobody played Liberation and the game was entirely short
Maybe Armand Bouchart from Assassin's Creed Bloodline but that's a PSP game.
I surprisingly liked Crowford Sterk as a villian that I kinda wish that I get to play as Templar as a side mission to see the world from his view but most of the games doesn't have a good villians and the same kinda goes for Watch Dogs games aside from : Lucky Quinn , Default , Iraq , and Damien Brenks
There's not an interesting villians in Watch dogs series.
The Spaniard said it best *The Best AC Antagonists Have a connection to The Protagonist*
I think this problem is present also in Far Cry series. Since Vaas you see the main antagonist maybe 3 or 4 times and it's not enough screen time for them to be more memorable and to make us genuinely hate them. For example in Far Cry 6 Giancarlo Esposito was great as Anton but he barely even interacts with Dani to the point where we don't see him personally as being that evil that we as a player and Dani would want to kill him. Also Far Cry 6 tries to much to make him look as a bad guy by doing simple tricks like him burning down the church, teaching his son how to shoot or torture etc. It's like if Ubisoft said to us "Now look at him, see how evil he is! You want to kill him!" and it just doesn't work. We need more complex villains, not some cartoonish ones that are bad only because they game shoves it down our throats.
Cesare borgia killing his father is such a great cutscene. His voice actor should be given an award for that performance.
Starrick had a great trailer showing his paranoia and that he sees assassins everywhere. Unfortunately it was completely dropped in the game itself which is a shame because this would make him much more interesting
Depends
Al Mualim and Robert weren’t
Rodrigo and cesare weren’t
Haytham wasn’t
Black Bart wasn’t
Basim and king alfred wasn’t
Cleopatra and Cesar wasn’t
So those are not bad
they were good when the villians effected history and showed us what evils they commited not telling us about it none of the targets in mirage felt like a real menace you see fazil with his machine vs garnieer in acre who was breaking legs and le touche who was cutting off limbs the old games used to show the brutality but now its just good vs evil like tis marvel
It is probably because Ubisoft doesn’t have balls like they used to, so they are just going with stuff that are safe.
And they even became the thing they spoke out against in the games.
You and the exile or altair stealth should make videos playing unity together showcasing coop
I think taharqa from origins was my favorite villian/order member because of how he betrayed us
Caesar Borgia was a great action set piece villain
Also, the type of story structure Assassins Creed has made for itself since the very beginning is that you aren't allowed to have a B-story in the historical segments. The A-Story being that it follows the protagonists, and then the B-story could be with a separate character who could either be another protagonist or an antagonist.
But we're experiencing history through the eyes of the protagonist, meaning everything we witness in the game (which is historical) only exists through what he/she has witnessed.
Therefore, how can we possibly get any screen time with any other character let alone the villain, if we're restricted to the memories of the protagonist? It's not impossible, but it does make it difficult.
black flag was a Edward character study more so than other games for me so the lack of villain there is no problem
I think you missed something with Origins and mirage. Just because they are the leaders of the order doesn’t mean they are the “main villain” I think the main villains in those games are cleopatra, Cesar, and rayhan. They are the ones pulling the strings and drive the story and protagonists further
Weird you never mentioned deimos, dispite them being a good villian on all the points you brought up.
All villains in AC are at winning position. All of them already has a power and organization. All of them are rich. All of them are respected citizens. All of them except Haytham. That is why none of them need to be bright and inspiring. Except Haytham. So Haytham is the only "hot" villain in AC series. Not Borgia. Both Borgia are as grey as others.
I think it's not necessarily screen time but more depth is for me a defining factor, give a villain a main objective but let him philosophize about it let there be character creation. (to me) AC has always been a very philosophical game that's why Haytham is my favourite antagonist.
Have you ever realised that the medallion Basim's wears in his Valhalla outfit depicts the 3 heads of Loki's children (Hel, Jormungandr and Fenrir)?
I think basim is a good villain, but they ruined it with filler contents
cleopatras betrayal also affected me while playing the game but later forgot who the actual villain was
in odessy, the character you don't pick is the villain, bruh
and in AC mirage, roshan wasn't a villain actually, its just their interests didn't align
and unity, syndicates villain, I forgot who they were, they didn't even meet our characters until the last fight as far as I can remember
It's funny, because when the market sequence of Mirage kept giving an odd amount of focus to Qabiha, I was wondering if she was supposed to be important, and then when we finally revealed her as the main villain, I had honestly forgot that she was the one from the market. 😂
"It's not the governor, and it's not the famous poet! It's the caliphate's concubine!" Okay. Who was that again?
To be fair to Laureano de Torres and the Templars in AC4, the game's true villain was Edward himself.
So you are not gonna count Charles Lee and Achilles?
Charles Lee was a menace, strangling a child, burning a village...
We could get a compelling antagonist for Assassin's Creed Hexe, since its going to have a more grimdark/dark fantasy spin on the series
There is a historical character from that time period to comes to my mind as a main villain: Philipp Adolf von Ehrenberg
@@hubertbaranski9934 Hexe should be set in 1600s Germany
I just hope the game adopts a somewhat gothic aesthetic, which would be very fitting
The main protagonist, who is rumored to be called Elsa, would be a young woman who falls into witchcraft and black magic
Miss the days when AC villains are as layered as Haytham... wait, no villain has come close to Haytham other than Al-Mualim since the first game.
i mean some games have great antagonists who are not templars/ancients. cleopatra in origins, king alfred and basim in valhalla, roshan in mirage
revealing the final boss before the game ends is how ubisoft executes the games excitement, like who's the final in this game and how challenging or strong he/she is when you get to the final showdown, (it's likely in the Avatar like Ozai vs Aang) but sadly, Charles Lee and other boss fights have terrible fighting styles or mechanics, and the others are you're unable to fight because you will kill the character in the cutscenes 😢
Haytham has been my favourite antagonist.
you know now that I think about it, it is kinda wild that Abbas had a stronger presence as a villian in AC Revelations than Ahmet lol. But yeah, while I get the "it's a secret cult and you have to figure out who the leader is so he isn't gonna have much presence until the end" mentality - there's gotta be a better balance there for the sake of good storytelling I feel.
Well there’s also the fact that Revelations as a whole was more based around Ezio, his character development and philosophies between him and Altair, and finding the answers that the Assassins held. So although it was a threat to him, yes, he didn’t care that there were Templars. He cared that they got in the way.
The best Villians are the guards, because when they spotted you, it's straight up Dysynchronised.
I like amorges, and pactyas and actually except for one or two persons literally the entire oddysey order of ancients a lot
If Unity's story had involved a crossover between Arno and Shay then would Shay have been the main villain or someone else who they both must fight?
It is just that Bayek was felt for a lot which is why that final scene and made players mildly infuriated and emotional and for me that is a good villain
Only good ones are earlier. Now they really aren’t all that. But even earlier I don’t think the villain were all great except for Haytham, Rodrigo, and Al Muslim.
The only thing that i feel like you forget to mention is a great antagonist as a direct relation with the protagonist
Torres from AC4 is by far the most charismatic antagonist of the game (exc Haytham), the problem is that we barely never see him after the beginning of the game.
Cesare Borgia sucked imo, Prince Ahmet from Revelations had so much potential and very good lines about what the creeds of Assassins and Templars truly meant. The problem being that whenever he started a good dialogue, Ezio either didn't respond or his answer was something like "no because no". The problem with Ahmet is Revelations having dogshi' writing. And also 0 screentime
It's weird Black Flag has one of the best casts of side characters and one of the most loved protagonists in the series but its villains aren't memorable. I get the story is focused on Edward's journey from pirate life to assassin but it made the villains feel small and not much of a threat. If the game had made Bartholomew Roberts or Woodes Rogers the main antagonist instead of Governor Torres then the villain presence would feel more threatening.
Main villain in the Red will be probably Oda Nobunaga
I believe Leandros, the Templar Captain from the beginning of Revelations would've been a much better main antagonist for the game. A kind of spiritual successor to Robert De Sable.
Prince Ahmet feels like a secondary antagonist anyway.
But either way, I don't really mind that Revelations doesn't have a strong antagonist like Rodrigo or Cesare.
The game doesn't really need it. It's a beautiful closure for both Altair and Ezio.
People say Ezio Trilogy villains are one dimensional and fall flat, but when you really think about it they are quite decent. From a late feudal period standpoint it makes sense it would be a bunch of rich dudes believing they are better than everyone. It was the mainstream ideology at that time that people were not born equal and they should know their place. AC fans act like Haytham was some kind of a selfless altruist, when in fact he was just as ruthless and self righteous as AC2 villains.
I’d say Deimos is a good villain since he/she is your sibling and is actually around for parts of the game
I’d say Roshan was mirage’s villain and I thought she was kinda interesting similar to Al Mualim but not at the same level
could be that starick was the least favorite villain to me too. but, the way the pictured him as the big evil man isnt that weird. there are and there were people and dictators like him. you get the chance to stand against various types of villains. and I hope red wont have that shitty "reveal your main villain"...
I really think Torres was the last decent protagonist. He was present throughout the game. He acts like what I think a typical Templar grandmaster would act: they want to defeat the assassins but they’re focused on their ultimate goal. At the end, he sees the change in Edward and actually compliments him for it. Which may seem weird but he was dying and had nothing else to lose.
If I had a suggestions for the newer games, they should stop having so many templars/order of the ancients and fill in the characters more.
Is Haytham good or bad? IDK but what I do know is, he makes you ❤ him!
Don't get me wrong, I do find it fun that I get to dismantle an entire group but I definitely am getting bored of not know who the main villian is until I go and assassinate them. Where is the story of then through out the game. I need details and more missions based around them before I go and kill them
I think Maxwell Roth and Lucy Thrones are better villains than Starick 6:13
You're forgetting about Warren Vidic. He carried the modern day segments in AC1 and Brotherhood, with his sinister voice and having this arrogant attitude due to his pride.
I liked Qibitha, but she wasn’t it it enough for her to be built up as a more compelling villain.
The later game villains are nothing but generic and predictable characters… the best antagonists were in the very first game… when you kill a templar those guy makes you question your decision and creates a doubt in your goal… the very first game told us that assassins and templars are two sides of same coins… they changed it for the second game as ezio’s story was of an action adventure but still kept the remembrance of the first game…. Brotherhood made ceasar a full opposite of ezio but a perfect rivial and that worked very well…. Revelations had it one or two good ones but prince ahmet was ok…. Then came haytham who summed up everything that the antagonists of the first three games and made one the best and favourite antagonist of all time for me
This is why Rockstar games needs the rights to the ac franchise
it might just be me but does Haytham Kenway give anybody else Darth Vader vibes?
Best villains: the borgia family
Best antagonist: Ezio Auditore
End of the story…
You should make a vide about Reda :)
Torres is goated
assassin's creed has good villains who could forget cult of kosmos member number 14 or order of ancient number 34
Every villain other than Haytham is terrible in my opinion and that's mainly because Ubisoft doesn't want to make them anything else other than "the bad guys" Haytham made you actually think and question the assassins and he spoke truth and did things with purpose. Love AC and love almost every AC game but they were never good with the villains
Can you do a live stream on AC black flag pppppppllllllllleeeeeaaaaasss
The series needs to stop making historical characters the villains especially if they are literal icons like Caesar and Cleopatra. Im not saying they were saints but because of all the school books and museum pieces about them there is a positive connotation attached to them that you cant simply shake with 10 minutes of cutscenes. Their villain reveal in Origins felt so forced and stupid.
If these games introduce (popular) historical characters, the player is almost always just naturally drawn to them or interested in them, theres no point if the devs try to make us dislike them, it will always just feel like lazy writing.
Don't get me wrong I enjoyed almost every entry in the series, but I think only 1,2,3 and brotherhood had decent villains.. Even black flag which is my favorite the villain was meh
Assassin's Creed will never have a better villain than the Pope. Nothing will be able to compete with a fist fight with the Pope.