My biggest issue with the Ezio trilogy is the lack of these Memory Corridors. They are reduced to a couple of lines where the Templar targets show no idealism, no faith in their cause. Glad AC3 returned to the longer, more philosophical death scenes
And Mariquit in Rogue’s case shay was forced to murder his friends, and Edward knew quite a few of his targets as well so I guess that kinda explains why there a bit deeper then most
Not in such a way. In AC1, Altair questionned all he knew. Every chapters, he refined the conception he had of what it was to be an Assassin. He tried to understand his enemies, instead of just slaying them. AC3 tried to do the same but the difference is that Conor was a tool in the end, fighting for lost causes. Conor was brave, Altair became wise.
But she doesn't evolve. In Syndicate, the story is supposed to move around the rivalry between Evie and Jacob but the writers didn't insist enough on this I think. They could've done something darker, or at least a litle more than a catfight. There was so much more to do with two playable characters.
Yeah. Syndicate's biggest problem is that Ubisoft played safe with it's story. They wanted an ok story. Not something groundbreaking or outstanding, but just something acceptable. Though i guess it's understandable after they fucked up with Unity.
That was the point.And only in the first game, really. In case you haven't noticed, Altair is mislead by Al Mualim THE ENTIRE TIME. Starting with AC2 the templars are like Disney villains, evil for the sake of being evil, and the assassins are like super heroes. :P
DEGDreams Disagree on them being sympathetic. In the prologue before you find out who they are, yes, they are very likeable (and honestly the prologue was a brilliant idea, best aspect of the entire game). But the moment you start playing as Ronkatonk they become as simple as the villains in AC2 and its spin-offs. Even Ronkalatonken's father has hardly any redeeming values at that point, remains an asshole till the very end. Not to mention Charles Lee.
14:12 "Ironic, isn't it? That I, your greatest enemy, kept you safe from harm. But now, you've taken my life. And in the process, ended your own." - Robert De Sable.
You do not free the holy lands as you believe but rather DAMN THEM! And in the end, you’ll only have yourself to blame, you who speaks of good intentions- William of Monterret
1:49 "Do you appease a crying child simply because he wails? 'But I want to play with fire, father!' What would you say, 'As you wish!'? But then, you'd answer for his burns."
Altair: Rest now, you won't suffer from your worldly burden now that I have end them You: And here you are at last, like a moth drawn to a light, not knowing what it's purpose embracing such thing aside from impulse Altair: Like the others that have fallen, you believe you did everything for the good of your people then? You: No, not that, I did is not to save nor to condemn souls of the lost but to call the ones that have haunted my dreams whose name lingers in my mind day and night, to bring an end to all of my worries and uneasiness, to turn my life the other way Altair: You had enough of living the life of a common men and seek amusement from it? Such selfish deed, you could have live in other ways that brings much joy that you might have never see, the men that I struck down before did similar things and this is what became of them You: But it brought me to you child, you are the man I seek Altair: What do you desire of me You: To have 5 minutes of conversation while you struck me down like the templars in your game, I'M YOUR BIGGEST FAN MAN 0w0) Altair:...... You: 0w0) Altair: *stabs~...... Templars are such odd beings
Every other member of the Levantine Templar Brotherhood: "Actually, you thought I was mindlessly evil but in fact I have some pretty good philosophical points and a very morally gray motivation for my actions." Majd Addin: "Lmao killing people is fun!" No wonder he's the only one who got stabbed twice.
@@revolverocelot1380 he had the best motto of all, I still remember his above all the others. I mean I can't blame him, I'd probably do it too, having my one hand on a tittie and another on beer
@@revolverocelot1380 I really appreciate that trait of him. He was less a man driven by the orders ideal or lust for power and more the average Joe of the Templars. It was more of a job for him than a life
@@riseagain845 altough part of his motive was revenge, he also killed them because they helped fund the war, only then he also accused them for their words. So he was in part doing what he believed right.
It's great writing. Altair even admits that he was that way once, arrogant and God like. He's still God, game play wise. But he just has a little bit more humility.
This is a reason why AC1 is one of my personal favorites in the series. Yea, it's repetitive in it's story structure, but the story itself is phenomenal in my opinion. These type of cutscenes need to reappear. I know Unity has them to an extent, but not quite like this.
Also as the series have developed the characters have changed into people with emotional problems. Altair was a col hard killer and you played as him. An actual assassin, you had to investigate your target and eventually kill them. That is what the assassin does and that's what you did in this game.
+Max in terms of investigating targets, Unity came close to it, to a smaller extent, due to the opportunities system during assassination missions in the main storyline. Otherwise though, yeah. While i like Unity, it had a ton of wasted potential. Also, Ubisoft brought back this style of memory corridors in Syndicate (great choice imo, better than the memory inheriting thing that Arno had (not counting his discussion with Germain when Arno kills him)
The Templar and Assassins represent a clash between benevolent authoritarianism and chaotic liberty. The dialogue in AC1 captures that extremely well with good points made on both sides. Can the people be trusted with freedom as the Assassins want? Can those in power be trusted to wield it rationally as the Templar envision? In modern AC the Templar are just tyrants and the Assassins are plucky freedom fighters. The flaws of the Templar and good traits of the Assassins are magnified with no grey area and no challenging questions.
They are not complete polar opposites, they both want peace. The Assassins wish this will be achieved by human enlightenment, the Templars believe it will be achieved by the people living in an illusionary state in which they follow under control of an elite who will usher in that peace.
Nice take on the nuances and dialogue between the two worldviews. I've always thought the later games were generally just 'rah rah freedom, take out the naughty naughty oppressor class!'
I never understood that ending, because throughout the monologue he talked like he wasn't sure if it was possible to improve his patients' lives with all those hallucinogenic drugs and that he was just believing it was "good" for them using his guards as an example, even though they came across as more aggressive as seen in the intro scene, so that ending is like "damn, the scriptwriter wanted it that way, lol".
@@Apenas_um_desconhecido849 Aggression is a necessary trait for a medieval mental asylum guard. He said lack of the apple slowed down the process, not stopped it. With the tools on his belt and his speech, we understand that he used lobotomy and drugs to "cure" the mentally unstable, turned them into guards and soldiers for the New World. He believed he was curing their diseases, and did in a way. A morally gray character and a well-written target, like the others.
@@Apenas_um_desconhecido849i think he said that because the assassins stole the apple of eden, he had to use drugs amd herbs as a constitute. He knee that If the assassins didnt steal the apple he would be able to help them without the herbs due to the knowlegde the apple contains
The memory corridors in this game really makes question yourself when you killed the templars. Even though the templars are the enemies, the game make it seem that their actions are the best method of peace and control.
The Templars actions have always been the best action for peace. The assassin order is very arrogant and blind to how the world works and more importantly how people act. Assassins creed 3 really made you think about how foolish the assassins plans were. The Templars were right about everything, and Connor just created pure chaos
+The 007 Agreed. In AC2, AC:B, and AC:R almlst all of the Templars are made to look evil, but in AC3, all of the Templars had valid points and it really looked like Connor only made things worse...
@@bestknifefighters5841 the reason why AC2, AC:B and AC:R made the templars look like evil people is because a large number of the templars were evil or deplorable in real life. I think one of the few Templars in the Ezio Trilogy that isn't seen as an Evil Sod historically is Uberto Alberto (and in game it's explained that he only turned to the templars to get back at the Medici who evicted his family, which is a very human thing to do and isn't inherently evil). The Templar Order in the first 2 games of the Ezio Trilogy were headed by Rodrigo Borgia and later his son Cesare. Rodrigo is known to be one of the most deplorable men in the age of the renaissance with Cesare being one of the few who actually surpass him in that regard. In Revelations this is different but some of the Templars in that game were still seen by history to be evil men. I love it when the game makes you question whether or not the assassin's or the templars are right but in Renaissance Italy.. there were so many evil men and women that you could do a Good vs. Evil story. Though I wish they made Machiavelli more of a morally ambiguous character given how he's viewed by history
Majd Addin represents the dark side of both Altair and the player, being the personification of the power trip and high of feeling unstoppable while laying waste to those around you.
True. And not surprising that Templars from Ezio Trilogy were probably inspired by Majd Addin (since majority of them in this trilogy are also power-hungry, arrogant, delusional godwannabes).
@@slasher19necroslayer42 They are in positions to be controlling the world, or are looking to control the world. No wonder the last boss Pope was so butthurt. Even if he won, he wouldn't have been allowed in.
Dear Ubisoft, I'd you want to make a really good assassin's Creed game, focus on the fundamental differences of beliefs between Templars and assassins, security versus freedom as societal values. We are all sick and tired of everyone just running about looking for pieces of eden.
Isn't the entire point of the series devolves around that argument through the pieces of Eden, it would make no sense to scrap it out, just for them to dumb down, or fully explain the first civilisation crap better. Like they did before AC3 (it all started to go down hill present/first civ story line after desmond died).
AC3 did that. The arguments that the Templars gave in AC3 were the best since AC1. Syndicate has some of that too, as does Unity but only really the Grand Master
András Agócs “Of course not! I killed them because I could, because it was fun! Do you know what it feels like to determine another man’s fate? And did you see the way the people cheered me, the way they feared me? I was like a god! You’d have done the same if you could... such power.”
I've said it plenty of times and I'll say it again; these death speeches are such a work of art. They show the slow realization of Altiar, that while the Templar cause may still be an evil that must be stopped, that maybe what he's doing isn't exactly so great either. For me, they're a huge reason to why I think the first Assassin's Creed is the best in the series. The overall story of Altiar's redemption and eventual realization of the truth is absolutely amazing.
The nuance of the characters and the moral ambiguity has never been bettered. The first Assassins Creed is great because the assassins aren't depicted as superheroes, or morally upright warriors. They're one of two ancient cults fighting ruthlessly so that their ideologies prevail. These are people who devote their life to assassination, I think they should be warped. There are no absolutes in war, as shown here.
Looking back, I never gave the goals of each templar any real thought except " I was told you were committing crimes, you must be killed." Watching these scenes again, I noticed that not all of the templars motives were to kill innocent people and enslave them. Some were legitimately trying to help out their people and we cut them down without a second thought.
It was because we were told one thing, and in their last moments they reveal another to counter it. And that's what makes this game so great, fuck unity and syndicate.
Despite the gameplay being repetitive, the game had something that really drew you in. I really it, the last AC game I liked was AC 3. The games after that haven't been interesting at all.
***** I said this about 3-4 months ago and was probably in a mood at the time. But I still stand by my opinion, I hate Unity and Syndicate and no I don't think it touched on these subjects as much. When we killed our targets it was either looking through their visions, or watching their deaths through boring dialogue which was over exaggerated. The only target I kind of did have some sort of link with these earlier games, is Lady Thorpe's death. Talking about hoarding power and not using it, which is what we presume the Templars to be.
Makes sense. Garnier is the first target that made players question the intention of templars. He treated the mentally ill with torture. As the man that was sound in the cutscene before getting his legs broken, Garnier carried tools for lobotomy which he might have performed on his "children". If you follow him inside the hospital long enough one of the mentally ill thanks him in a docile manner. With his death, the city was not freed, but damned.
@H. G V The game was supposed to be played without a hud. And trust me, playing the game without a hud makes the game SO much better, immersive and less repetitive.
@@prosaic.7944It’s just the principles. The idea was a game to played without a HUD with hits engine in mind. As you can guess shit you mentioned was added a little bit later in development.
@@dragonforks93AC Rogue and 3 had great dialogue as well. There were also some Templars, besides the colonial and Levantine ones, that actually wanted to achieve peace/stability. For example, Ahmet from Revelations wanted to end all division among men.Torres from Black Flag wanted to end corruption and sought transparency and truth. Both men, who used questionable methods, wanted to create a better world.
I love how there's this hidden mechanic where throughout cutscenes, when you see a bunch of organic formulas flash on the screen, you can press any button and the camera will change positions to show a more dramatic view. In these corridors it cuts from them dying to them standing and talking normally.
I couldn't agree more with "the later titles dropped the idea of the Templars as well-intentioned extremists and generally a gray morality story in favor of a zebra-esque black and white main plot conflict". Even though the first game I played and loved was AC2 I now realize it was only good because of the new gameplay and the drama, the story was far better in AC and AC3. I hope they stay on this track now, and don't make more cartoony Rodrigo Borgia characters.
I'm sad they didn't make the Templars as 3-Dimensional in motives as they did in AC1. They did good with AC3's but all the other ones felt like their concept was just "I'm evil and I enjoy it!".
@@Anonymos185 Every single Origin's villain is awful though. Syndicate villains are also terrible. Unity's are completely forgettable. Odyssey isn't even ac. Yeah, the messed up
@@Pedro_Le_Chef OK, but how is this relevant? The other guy commented after the launch of Valhalla about Aelfred. His comment had nothing to do with any of the earlier ACs
The best AC’s corridor, cause the templars would actually question the player why he wanted to kill them and for what reason, and they would stand up while talking, on Syndicate, they brought the Stand Up corridor. Which is great in my opinion
What I love about these scenes is that they bring the historical figures to life: they're no longer one-dimensional characters in a history book. Even if this is made up somewhat, it reminds us that these people had much more in common with us than we might otherwise believe.
In my personal opinion, there is a large amount of grey-and-gray morality. Aside from the Borgias and their allies, who weren't true Templars in my opinion, the Templars are portrayed as the antagonists solely because our protagonists are all Assassins. They make some very good points about the world they live in, and how it could benefit from order and purpose, people united in a common goal, but the problem is that they want to achieve this through total control. The Assassins want to preserve human freedom and individuality, another worthy cause, but they KILL people to achieve this. Also, look at how the Assassins have degenerated over time: in AC1, they were a fairly public order which was known about at the very least, and they sought to protect freedom. By AC2, however, they've been reduced to aligning themselves with the dregs of Italian society (prostitutes, thieves and mercenaries) as well as corrupt or brutal leaders such as the Medici and Caterina Sforza. They manage to build themselves up again, but they're still clearly in with the wrong sorts of people. In Constantinople, the Assassins have openly taken a side in the Ottoman-Byzantine conflict rather than leaving them to sort out their own business. By AC3, in Colonial America and in modern times, they've been reduced to a shadow of their former self. And when thing that becomes clear in AC3 is that the Assassins have clearly lost their purpose. They used to aspire to protect freedom and preserve peace, but in AC3 they're just blindly killing Templars because that's all that they know how to do, even though the situation would've been better if they'd just left them alone. Look at the Assassins' history: they flourish in times of conflict, when their services are needed and there are Templars out in the open, ripe for the killing. But the moment the Templars are defeated or go underground and the Assassins are left with the task of managing their Brotherhood, they sooner or later collapse into obscurity
Agreed. Which side you are on truly depends on your moral values and the way you look at the world. Both organizations offer a way to make the world better. Templars believe order and discipline is the way while Assassins believe freedom is. But I feel the Assassins are a bit naive in this. Humans are too corrupt to trusted with true freedom. Connor perhaps believed in freedom so strongly because he grew up in a place of true freedom and it worked but this is not the same with other cultures.
Haytham said it best. Even when it seems that the Assassins are victorious, the Templars rise again. The templar order is born of a realization, they simply want an open world with order and purpose. They require no creed.
Still my favorite game in the series No game like it before or since has the same atmosphere or writing style There's such a creepy ambiance the animus has in the first game that is brought out especially in these thick "digital foggy" memory corridors. It's like Altair is talking with them in purgatory before passing on, the interactive camera angles are such a nice touch too and the VA work is top notch.
This is THE assassin’s creed game for me… every target you assassinate makes you question your motives and makes you doubt yourself on why are you doing what you do…
I really missed these long scenes in which they explain their deeds and actually think their on the good side, I was disappointed when I didn't see them in AC2, but probably because they thought it was stupid to have such long dialogue when they supposed to be dead. I also was disappoinned with the voice change in Revelations, that really sucked, AC1 voice was so good.
AC3 Went back to that. For all the criticisms heaped upon it, the villains in Assassin's Creed III were truly nuanced. The framing of the eternal Assassin-Templar debate within the birth of what would become the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth was a brilliant setting, utilized--if not perfectly--to a satisfying extent.
The templars are right there will be no peace as long as mankind has freedom... Assassins claim to fight for peace but they are actually fighting for freedom. Templars are fighting for peace instead.
@@thestrong2401 Templars fight for control, since they think freedom is a bad thing. Assassins fight for people's rights, otherwise we'd still be practicing slavery legally.
Philip Shahbaz did a great work as Altair. At first he is righteously guiding them to light, giving them a chance for salvation. When his targets start to make sense, he begins questioning them, then he becomes sympathetic.
Same. I went through his existential crisis for a while, and I know how crushing it is. I felt pretty deeply sorry for him, and understand why he doubted a soul, free will, and an afterlife.
@@MoonfallMidnight It's ironic how Abstergo and Ubisoft have many parallels. In the first AC game Templars and Assassins were morally ambiguous as memories were not edited, but then Abstergo warped the memories to make Templars right just like how Ubisoft turned assassins into good freedom warriors and templars the greedy merchants. Or how Animus had bugs at first and it was harder to control the memories, but as Abstergo developed and released Animus to the public they dumbed it down? Similar to how first AC games had rougher mechanics that needed effort to master, and Ubisoft dumbed it down to reach a wider audience.
Damn dude listening to this knowing that the master only sent you here to get the apple and kill anyone who knew anything about it because of his greed for power, it makes you see that most templars were actually trying to do good in some areas with just not really understood methods, but Altair was the blind one causing havoc.
Notice how to make Ezio seem oh so heroic, they had to remove all the philosophy and counterpoints brought up by the Templars? Luckily they brought White Rooms back in AC3.
It just occurred to me that Syndicate's memory corridors are so much like the ones from the first game, even down to the Assassin wiping their target's throat
Majd Addin is so fascinating, He kill because it was fun just because, and the euphoria it brings from Public Execution made him feel like a God, however, interestingly enough, his character kinda asks the question of what kind of person you'd be given the same power and position as him? Can you maintain your character and principles when given massive power, or like him, you'll drown in the euphoria and abuse it?
Simply think what you did after guards try to run away. You hunted them down. You didn't need to kill them. You did because you could, because it was fun! You know what it feels like, to determine another man's fate! The way they feared you, the man in the white hood! You were like a God! Such power!
@@prosaic.7944 yeah in an IRL situation, senseless killing is of course vile; however if we tie in Spec Ops's Philosophy into this, since this is a Video Game, killing the guards are technically harmless.
I always wondered why time seemed to freeze during memory corridors, but I have a theory: What the memory corridors are is an aspect of Eagle Sense where you enter a sort of spiritual realm that you can enter as you are taking a life. Assassins have learned to use it as a tool for allowing their targets to speak their final words, and getting confessions out of them.
Thanks for this. I couldn’t work it out and it has played on my mind for years. I never came to this conclusion- but it sounds right! There’s a variation of the memory corridor (AC 4) wherein I believe the fluctuating aether in the background represents Schopenhauer’s ‘Will’ (at least I’m quite sure of it). Incidentally, there was something so compelling about these games that I became convinced that ancestral memory is a real thing, and I tried very hard to evoke the “whispers of my ancestors”. Sadly, I never induced dream-sequence-like experiences quite as poetic or romantic as this, but in a way, you could say that I _heard their whispers_ . A small victory, if anti-climactic. Took a lot of pain and suffering however, and an endeavour I’d suggest is not for the faint-hearted. Probably not worth the effort for most, especially given the perhaps underwhelming nature of the outcome. Nevertheless, I still hold out an irrational belief that such experiences can be obtained, somewhere, somehow, by God knows what means. I enjoyed reading your comment.
@@117Industries I should add that my theory doesn't always work. For example, in Assassins Creed: Forsaken, they make it clear that the Templars heard the conversations Conner had with his targets. Also, who the hell is Schopenhauer?
@@philosotree5876 Schopenhauer was an early 19th c. German Philosopher (ref. Google). He wrote a famous treatise: _The world as Will and Representation_ (a treatise being an academic term for an intellectual book/paper covering some subject matter extensively). In it, Schopenhauer discusses his take on metaphysics (a philosophical term meaning that which extends “beyond” or “above” the physical plane), and he discussed the ‘Will’ as a fundamental source, aether-like perhaps (though I’m not sure he described it this way), that drove all things, and connected all things despite their difference in external appearance (that externality being the ‘phenomenal’ world). It is perhaps just this firmament, Schopenhauer’s ‘Will’, which is visually alluded to in the background of AC 4’s memory corridors. But, that’s a wild & intuitive speculation.
The thing that draws me into this game, the cryptic conversation between Altair and his targets, how he learn to cast his pride for a greater purpose, and how at some point the templars convinced that what they're doing is for the good of humanity, which is not entirely wrong when you think of it, their method is far too cruel nevertheless, Altair's willingness to hear what they have to say and learned from them is one of the proof of his wisdom and depicted more in The Secret Crusade and later in Ezio's trilogy
This game really knew how to show the morales of both sides of the story. This game is one of the best at showing the Templars’ point of view as well as the assassins. It provides some of the best back-and-forth dialogue in the whole series.
William's son Conrad... I feel like the only reason they bring him up so much in the game is because historically speaking, he was really was killed by the Assassins...apparently Raymond wanted to use Conrad instead of William But William dissapeared in 1191, so it was more accurate with the timeline.
I enjoy the Templars here. They showed in fluid words how people who say they are right and just and those who they condemn for being "wrong" are really not different. Just people making different choices and condemning each other or for it based on consequences because of those choices. Anyone who throws around garbage like "the right thing", "treating someone like a human being", or making proclamations of human nature as if they have some transcendent knowledge, I look upon with disgust. The people who you would describe as being bad are just "selfish hedonists"and those who you describe as being good are either fascist or self-righteous moral guardians imposing their way on the world. Being one of either side is just a choice.
The Assassins do not give peace. They kill and fight figures for the sake of mankind, when they hypocritically don't care how much damage they do to people.
@@АЛЕКСАНДРФИЛИПС-м6р You are just spouting platitudes, the person you just insulted proved none of the OP's points. A person killing innocent people so that they could mind control a entire race is pretty vile, because that would be slavery and lead to more inequality than what we have here, besides murder is considered a crime because killing against the law or basic ethics is bad. You try to make things unnecessary relative in order to not appear extrem(which is a low-tier sin at worst to begin with), we can decide if someone is bad or good,based on the long-term and short term consequences of this person actions, for instance is someone not evil, who forgot to give you your food supply for your restaurant and will just cause you to miss for 1 day your restaurant to not make any food, which is bad, but from a long term perspective,not so bad. Maybe you should replay the game or study philosophy, because they disagree with you very harshly and very strongly.
@@basilofgoodwishes4138 your entire position Is from an a subjective point of view. Your accusations are flawed. Because they're subjective and assumptions. You're not going to get anywhere asserting your own perceptions. Slavery has many definitions that are considered humane in the right conditions compared to the society they're applied to. You see freedom is defined as contrast to restrictions. Freedom therefore is an illusion because true freedom is chaos. And that is a fact. The thing is humanity isnt defined by equality. Humanity is defined by prosperity.
Abu'l Nuqoud has so much depth. "How could I finance a war in service to the same god that calls me an abomination?" Because he's homosexuall and "gluttenous"(fat), which are both regarded as sin in his religion.
"A blockade by sea to keep the fool kings and queens from sending reinforcements, once we... once we..." "Conquered the Holy Land?" Tired of the wicked justifications of evil men, the fida'i interrupts him. "Freed it, you fool! ...From the tyranny of faith..." The downed man's breathing grows weaker. His voice gargled with blood. "Freedom?!" Altaïr cannot stand this demon staining such a beautiful word. The stoic composure, so well-cultivated by him, breaks for only a moment. "You worked to overthrow cities! Control men's minds! Murdered any who spoke against you!" A slight smirk shows up in the Templar's face. These are his last seconds in this forsaken world, but he cannot not find the irony amusing. "I followed my orders... believing in my cause... Same as you." Meister Sibrand's last uttering was whispered in the ears of the dark figure towering above him, as he walked into that eternal dream. At that last moment, his terror of non-existing, of being pure matter like the many stones and dust around the two men, vanished. He accepted. He let go. Yet, full of regret for not being able to save more lives in this barbaric war, because of an extremist. One among many in the Levant.
the philosophical talk in memory corridors also happens in AC3, besides that's just an good element that isn't necessary in every AC, Black Flag and Ezio's Trilogy are good examples of it
Altair: "Speak, so that I may learn from you." Ezio: "Rest in peace." Connor: "I respect your view, but I must disagree." Edward: "Tell me what I must know." Shay: "You didn't give me a choice." Evie: "It is done, do not struggle." Jacob: "Your an arse." Bayek: "Begone to the land beyond."
This is why I enjoyed the original game a tad more than the Ezio trilogy. As great as those games were, they derailed the Templars by changing them from men using questionable or vile means to achieve truly noble ends, into just your average stock dollar store cartoon villains. What makes this series great is that our protagonists and antagonists are morally grey. Both do commit evil but for noble goals. What they want is good, but what makes the Assassins and Templars enemies is how they seek to achieve that end goal. Ezio made it easy to kill the targets because they were obviously evil with no redeemable qualities. With Altair, you knew they had to die but with each you begin to question if there was another way or not.
I remember way back on Tumblr there was an account for bad subtitles, and somebody posted a screencap of Altair and Maria's encounter showing the following "You are not Mike Tyson."
Man, the confessions of the Templars here I find to be a great inspiration for Ubisoft's Memory Corridors in Assassin's Creed: Origins. So similar and yet different
Looking back, the formative impact of this game's narrative on my early years is incredible. I always loved the narrative and philosophical pieces of the games.
I like how mostly Templar target got their own personality even they appeared shortly and didn't had huge impact on story. And the optional different camera angle made it look like they're talking with you. And i liked how all of them made a rematch with you on the final chapter.
I feel the lines of good and evil in this series are blurred to some degree. The templars and assassins both want a world with peace but assassins want to have peace and freedom while templars are willing to sacrifice freedom.
Most of these dialogues are great, but for some reason, the one with Jubair made me question my motivation the most. The way he flips the "learn to disagree" argument on its head within seconds, to which Altair has no rational answer, was almost poetic. This is what makes this franchise so great. Not just the open world, but also the philosophical implications involved in it, making you question more than you'd think.
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl These games aren't meant to be historically accurate. This game directly addresses that when Desmond asks VIdic why some of the stuff he experienced in the animus seems to be historically inaccurate.
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hlMany holy books are burned in history. There were many versions of Quran, and it was compiled(and other versions burned) under caliphate Umar 16 years after Mohammad(PBUH) died.
At first it all makes sense. Talal sends the slaves, Garnier brainwashes, Nuqoud buys the weapons that Tamir supplies, and William trains them. But slaves of Talal are not fit to be soldiers, Garnier knows he helps his patients. William teaches his men order and discipline for their own good, keeping his domain at peace. And Altair is blind enough to say to a man after he stabbed him in the neck, "Men must be free to do what they believe. It is not our right to punish one for thinking what they do, no matter how much we disagree." As Vidic said, assassins don't tend to the "tumor" they cut off, problems they claim to solve become even worse.
@@bigman2890considering he recently received/sent for a massive order right after a templar defeat, while both sides were arming themselves, more than likely he was preparing to arm whatever forces of the other conspirators in answer to Al-Mualim's betrayal actually, the templar recently having lost the invasion of the Assassin's stronghold too. Ironically he couldve been one outside the loop rather than one knowing the secret and still need to die for the simple reason that logistics are essential. Garnier being second to fall also makes sense, as he is the one most likely to understand Al-Mualim's brainwashing and if he knows how to remove the free will of people that suffers from it, he would also learn how to keep his own mind clear from the Apple's manipulation Etc...
@@Freedmoon44 yeah true, I think the order each Templar died in works very well, you get more sympathetic with each one. (not Majd). And by Sibrand and Jubair you feel sorry and understand why they do what they did. I think it’s the best writing in all AC games
Main reason why modern Ubisoft needs to die in a fire and be reborn as a studio that cares about gaming experiences more than money. Far Cry 2 and Assassin's Creed were quite experimental for their times and the results got milked so hard that they became formulas...
I played this a very long time ago but I remember this: every one of those scenes made me question what I did and why, and for that I consider the first AC the best one in the series.
When I first played this game, I didn't really think about what the Templars were saying - like Altair and the rest of us who played him, I didn't think much about what the targets said. They were just offering excuses for their crimes. Now, years later and having seen the complex motives smoothed out in later games, the morally grey characters and their justifications which ring true in some sense is like a breath of fresh air. Funnily enough, Sibrand was the one who made me question what was really going on at the time. The fear in his voice (huge props to the VA for his performance throughout) when he explains that nothing waits for him and his brothers, that faith blinds the people of the Holy Land, that the truth robbed him of his previous certainty - it resonated with me so much, probably because I know what it's like to fear abandoning a faith or creed. After all, if the promise of a reward is false, then what else is false? If death brings nothing but darkness, was it all for naught? For Sibrand, growing up in a world where religious faith is deeply entwined with ordinary life, where it controls almost every aspect of your life, that has to be one of the hardest things to contend with. It puts everything else in a new light. Maybe the Assassins were wrong. Maybe Altair is wrong to do this. Maybe the Templars had a point. The twist at the end was still a surprise in itself, but Altair and his targets had taught me to doubt.
@@prosaic.7944 no it isn't that. The guy above only knew that he was saying that phrase. Because that phrase is famous. The words are correct. But how they got pronounced....... It was horror
I can’t be the only person who loves the alternate view you can do on these confessions. What I especially like is how some of the final sentences of the templars ends with them walking off to the distance, kinda like a passing on to the after life/far shore type of deal. Really hits hard to see their commitment to their resolve/creed be consistent even in death.
Does anyone have any idea how Altair could have gotten their last words as soon as they were killed, but the alarms were only rung after he got the messages?
Really old comment but I think the canon explanation is that Altair always managed to kill them undetected. That's why the Animus puts them in the memory corridor, it reconstructs the conversation as how it really happened. And the moments where the targets are standing are supposed to be glitches (I think Ubisoft actually put them in to make the conversations more engaged, it's a bit boring to watch two people lying on the floor for 3 minutes)
AC1 and AC3 has the best memory corridors in the series, mostly because most of the templars in the ezio's trilogy we're corrupted by the Borgias and their obsession to power, they didn't really follow their creed
I'll take a Syrian accent over this. The one American accent in a mix of middle-eastern and European accents bothered me even when this game first came out.
"Such pride...it will destroy you child"
Amazing quote that we should consider in our lives
Yeah.
1:03 Requiescat In Pace.
Proverbs 16-18
"Love's gonna get you killed... but pride's gonna be the death of you, and you, and me, and you, and you, and you, and me, and you..."
Kendrick Lamar
My biggest issue with the Ezio trilogy is the lack of these Memory Corridors. They are reduced to a couple of lines where the Templar targets show no idealism, no faith in their cause. Glad AC3 returned to the longer, more philosophical death scenes
the templars in those games were kinda like a cartoon villain. In AC1 they are layered characters
Exactly. While the Ezio trilogy games ruled supreme in many ways they really fell short of the rest of the franchise with their death scenes
I kinda liked Rogue and Black Flag's more personal talks
And Mariquit in Rogue’s case shay was forced to murder his friends, and Edward knew quite a few of his targets as well so I guess that kinda explains why there a bit deeper then most
@@user-bj5ki6sr6c they were kinda short in black flag especially Lauren prins
The first Assassins Creed is so underrated.
Adam Clark still the best till this day.
I love that game
Altaïr is an underrated Assassin. Much like the others, Ezio’s popularity overshadows them.
@Crohns Disease back when the developers werent pussies.
It’s because he cannot swim.
Altair is the best because he learned from both his friends and enemies.
A lot of them have
Not in such a way. In AC1, Altair questionned all he knew. Every chapters, he refined the conception he had of what it was to be an Assassin.
He tried to understand his enemies, instead of just slaying them.
AC3 tried to do the same but the difference is that Conor was a tool in the end, fighting for lost causes. Conor was brave, Altair became wise.
Evie from Syndicate tries to learn from her targets but they die before they can say enough and Jacob and Edward just ignore everything.
But she doesn't evolve. In Syndicate, the story is supposed to move around the rivalry between Evie and Jacob but the writers didn't insist enough on this I think.
They could've done something darker, or at least a litle more than a catfight. There was so much more to do with two playable characters.
Yeah. Syndicate's biggest problem is that Ubisoft played safe with it's story. They wanted an ok story. Not something groundbreaking or outstanding, but just something acceptable. Though i guess it's understandable after they fucked up with Unity.
Anyone else watch these memory corridors throughout the series and think, "Fuck. He has a point."
yea
That was the point.And only in the first game, really. In case you haven't noticed, Altair is mislead by Al Mualim THE ENTIRE TIME. Starting with AC2 the templars are like Disney villains, evil for the sake of being evil, and the assassins are like super heroes. :P
+fotakatos Not in 3. They are hella sympathetic. Not as deep as AS1 but you feel more for them then the AS2 templars.
Not gonna lie. A lot of them made me doubt. lol
DEGDreams Disagree on them being sympathetic. In the prologue before you find out who they are, yes, they are very likeable (and honestly the prologue was a brilliant idea, best aspect of the entire game). But the moment you start playing as Ronkatonk they become as simple as the villains in AC2 and its spin-offs. Even Ronkalatonken's father has hardly any redeeming values at that point, remains an asshole till the very end. Not to mention Charles Lee.
14:12 "Ironic, isn't it? That I, your greatest enemy, kept you safe from harm. But now, you've taken my life. And in the process, ended your own." - Robert De Sable.
@3:56 "Do you see the irony in all this? No, not yet it seems. But you will."- Talal
@@randomaccount5089 0:55 ‘such pride, it will destroy you child’- Tamir
The “oh shit” moment
You do not free the holy lands as you believe but rather DAMN THEM! And in the end, you’ll only have yourself to blame, you who speaks of good intentions- William of Monterret
1:49 "Do you appease a crying child simply because he wails? 'But I want to play with fire, father!' What would you say, 'As you wish!'? But then, you'd answer for his burns."
I never realized how much these hinted at Al Mulim being a traitor
That was the creators of this game's idea. I realized that Al Mualim was the traitor right after the last templar got assassinated
@@TheSoulDrainer yeah it took me way too long to notice that he was and now I look back and see the hints
@@phxmaster9684I thought Robert was full of shit but once u go back to masaf or however u spell it I knew wat it was
I wouldn't mind being assassinated by Altair just to have a 5 minute conversation with him before I pass away.
I imagine:
Altair: Rest in peace now (as he laying you on the ground)
You: Hello, Altair sir? I'm your biggest fan man.
Altair: What?
@@markmitin7397 asdfghjkl;lkjhgf
Hahahaha....
@@markmitin7397 lol
Altair: Rest now, you won't suffer from your worldly burden now that I have end them
You: And here you are at last, like a moth drawn to a light, not knowing what it's purpose embracing such thing aside from impulse
Altair: Like the others that have fallen, you believe you did everything for the good of your people then?
You: No, not that, I did is not to save nor to condemn souls of the lost but to call the ones that have haunted my dreams whose name lingers in my mind day and night, to bring an end to all of my worries and uneasiness, to turn my life the other way
Altair: You had enough of living the life of a common men and seek amusement from it? Such selfish deed, you could have live in other ways that brings much joy that you might have never see, the men that I struck down before did similar things and this is what became of them
You: But it brought me to you child, you are the man I seek
Altair: What do you desire of me
You: To have 5 minutes of conversation while you struck me down like the templars in your game, I'M YOUR BIGGEST FAN MAN 0w0)
Altair:......
You: 0w0)
Altair: *stabs~...... Templars are such odd beings
Every other member of the Levantine Templar Brotherhood: "Actually, you thought I was mindlessly evil but in fact I have some pretty good philosophical points and a very morally gray motivation for my actions."
Majd Addin: "Lmao killing people is fun!"
No wonder he's the only one who got stabbed twice.
So true
Theres always that one guy in the templar order who's just in it because they're assholes. Thomas hickey just wanted tits and beer.
@@revolverocelot1380 he had the best motto of all, I still remember his above all the others. I mean I can't blame him, I'd probably do it too, having my one hand on a tittie and another on beer
@@revolverocelot1380 I really appreciate that trait of him. He was less a man driven by the orders ideal or lust for power and more the average Joe of the Templars. It was more of a job for him than a life
@@riseagain845 altough part of his motive was revenge, he also killed them because they helped fund the war, only then he also accused them for their words. So he was in part doing what he believed right.
08:03
"Do you know what it feels like to determine another man's fate?"
He asks the man who just shanked him
Mike Young And killed thousands of other people******** (Altair)
It's great writing. Altair even admits that he was that way once, arrogant and God like. He's still God, game play wise. But he just has a little bit more humility.
Oof
He represents the dark side of Altair, and also the dark side of the player, in a way.
Think of how many players ran after the guards that feared and tried to escape from Altair, and how many players felt joy in killing these guards.
This is a reason why AC1 is one of my personal favorites in the series. Yea, it's repetitive in it's story structure, but the story itself is phenomenal in my opinion. These type of cutscenes need to reappear. I know Unity has them to an extent, but not quite like this.
Also as the series have developed the characters have changed into people with emotional problems. Altair was a col hard killer and you played as him. An actual assassin, you had to investigate your target and eventually kill them. That is what the assassin does and that's what you did in this game.
Try syndicate
I have, it's pretty good so far.
Almost no game after I had these investigations
+Max in terms of investigating targets, Unity came close to it, to a smaller extent, due to the opportunities system during assassination missions in the main storyline. Otherwise though, yeah. While i like Unity, it had a ton of wasted potential. Also, Ubisoft brought back this style of memory corridors in Syndicate (great choice imo, better than the memory inheriting thing that Arno had (not counting his discussion with Germain when Arno kills him)
The Templar and Assassins represent a clash between benevolent authoritarianism and chaotic liberty. The dialogue in AC1 captures that extremely well with good points made on both sides. Can the people be trusted with freedom as the Assassins want? Can those in power be trusted to wield it rationally as the Templar envision?
In modern AC the Templar are just tyrants and the Assassins are plucky freedom fighters. The flaws of the Templar and good traits of the Assassins are magnified with no grey area and no challenging questions.
What a nice view of both sides... Wonderful thinkings.
I kinda feel like it was brought back a little bit in AC3 but then it became a seesaw
They are not complete polar opposites, they both want peace. The Assassins wish this will be achieved by human enlightenment, the Templars believe it will be achieved by the people living in an illusionary state in which they follow under control of an elite who will usher in that peace.
Nice take on the nuances and dialogue between the two worldviews. I've always thought the later games were generally just 'rah rah freedom, take out the naughty naughty oppressor class!'
@@FourthExile pretty sure 3 wasnt like that
"You truly believed you were helping them"
"It's not what i believe, it's what I know"
Hits u deep, the VA did an amazing job
I never understood that ending, because throughout the monologue he talked like he wasn't sure if it was possible to improve his patients' lives with all those hallucinogenic drugs and that he was just believing it was "good" for them using his guards as an example, even though they came across as more aggressive as seen in the intro scene, so that ending is like "damn, the scriptwriter wanted it that way, lol".
@@Apenas_um_desconhecido849
Aggression is a necessary trait for a medieval mental asylum guard. He said lack of the apple slowed down the process, not stopped it. With the tools on his belt and his speech, we understand that he used lobotomy and drugs to "cure" the mentally unstable, turned them into guards and soldiers for the New World.
He believed he was curing their diseases, and did in a way. A morally gray character and a well-written target, like the others.
@@Apenas_um_desconhecido849i think he said that because the assassins stole the apple of eden, he had to use drugs amd herbs as a constitute. He knee that If the assassins didnt steal the apple he would be able to help them without the herbs due to the knowlegde the apple contains
"He is the Master of Assassins!"
"Oui. Master of lies."
I love that bit of dialogue so much.
The memory corridors in this game really makes question yourself when you killed the templars. Even though the templars are the enemies, the game make it seem that their actions are the best method of peace and control.
The Templars actions have always been the best action for peace. The assassin order is very arrogant and blind to how the world works and more importantly how people act. Assassins creed 3 really made you think about how foolish the assassins plans were. The Templars were right about everything, and Connor just created pure chaos
+The 007 Agreed. In AC2, AC:B, and AC:R almlst all of the Templars are made to look evil, but in AC3, all of the Templars had valid points and it really looked like Connor only made things worse...
In AC4 some of the templars actually make you think if they're better or worse.
Agreed, I'm glad they brought back this style in Syndicate.
@@bestknifefighters5841 the reason why AC2, AC:B and AC:R made the templars look like evil people is because a large number of the templars were evil or deplorable in real life. I think one of the few Templars in the Ezio Trilogy that isn't seen as an Evil Sod historically is Uberto Alberto (and in game it's explained that he only turned to the templars to get back at the Medici who evicted his family, which is a very human thing to do and isn't inherently evil).
The Templar Order in the first 2 games of the Ezio Trilogy were headed by Rodrigo Borgia and later his son Cesare. Rodrigo is known to be one of the most deplorable men in the age of the renaissance with Cesare being one of the few who actually surpass him in that regard.
In Revelations this is different but some of the Templars in that game were still seen by history to be evil men.
I love it when the game makes you question whether or not the assassin's or the templars are right but in Renaissance Italy.. there were so many evil men and women that you could do a Good vs. Evil story. Though I wish they made Machiavelli more of a morally ambiguous character given how he's viewed by history
Majd Addin represents the dark side of both Altair and the player, being the personification of the power trip and high of feeling unstoppable while laying waste to those around you.
Majd Addin is like a GTA player
True. And not surprising that Templars from Ezio Trilogy were probably inspired by Majd Addin (since majority of them in this trilogy are also power-hungry, arrogant, delusional godwannabes).
@@slasher19necroslayer42 They are in positions to be controlling the world, or are looking to control the world. No wonder the last boss Pope was so butthurt. Even if he won, he wouldn't have been allowed in.
Dear Ubisoft,
I'd you want to make a really good assassin's Creed game, focus on the fundamental differences of beliefs between Templars and assassins, security versus freedom as societal values. We are all sick and tired of everyone just running about looking for pieces of eden.
Exactly, also, don't make the controls shit like in AC1
Pika Chu What do u mean?
Isn't the entire point of the series devolves around that argument through the pieces of Eden, it would make no sense to scrap it out, just for them to dumb down, or fully explain the first civilisation crap better. Like they did before AC3 (it all started to go down hill present/first civ story line after desmond died).
You mean AC3?
AC3 did that. The arguments that the Templars gave in AC3 were the best since AC1. Syndicate has some of that too, as does Unity but only really the Grand Master
Majd Addin seemed to be the only one who was truly evil.
András Agócs
“Of course not! I killed them because I could, because it was fun! Do you know what it feels like to determine another man’s fate? And did you see the way the people cheered me, the way they feared me? I was like a god! You’d have done the same if you could... such power.”
@isluT drabbaG OK Boomer
And yet he was the only one that got a funeral. wtf?
He probably served as a representation of what Altair was in the past, which the latter kind of admitted himself.
@@RobertEdwinHouse9 but it's true. I like killing guards in the AC series
I've said it plenty of times and I'll say it again; these death speeches are such a work of art.
They show the slow realization of Altiar, that while the Templar cause may still be an evil that must be stopped, that maybe what he's doing isn't exactly so great either. For me, they're a huge reason to why I think the first Assassin's Creed is the best in the series. The overall story of Altiar's redemption and eventual realization of the truth is absolutely amazing.
The nuance of the characters and the moral ambiguity has never been bettered. The first Assassins Creed is great because the assassins aren't depicted as superheroes, or morally upright warriors.
They're one of two ancient cults fighting ruthlessly so that their ideologies prevail. These are people who devote their life to assassination, I think they should be warped. There are no absolutes in war, as shown here.
A quote that I created is "Before taking sides, make sure you stand by yours"
The first AC had that unique atmosphere the other games lacked.
Looking back, I never gave the goals of each templar any real thought except " I was told you were committing crimes, you must be killed." Watching these scenes again, I noticed that not all of the templars motives were to kill innocent people and enslave them. Some were legitimately trying to help out their people and we cut them down without a second thought.
It was because we were told one thing, and in their last moments they reveal another to counter it. And that's what makes this game so great, fuck unity and syndicate.
Despite the gameplay being repetitive, the game had something that really drew you in. I really it, the last AC game I liked was AC 3. The games after that haven't been interesting at all.
***** I said this about 3-4 months ago and was probably in a mood at the time. But I still stand by my opinion, I hate Unity and Syndicate and no I don't think it touched on these subjects as much. When we killed our targets it was either looking through their visions, or watching their deaths through boring dialogue which was over exaggerated. The only target I kind of did have some sort of link with these earlier games, is Lady Thorpe's death. Talking about hoarding power and not using it, which is what we presume the Templars to be.
What they say does not reflect their actions tho. Except for Majd Adin
When I killed Sibrand I instantly felt bad
Oddly enough, after Garnier died, the amount of insane individuals increased two fold in the game.
"You truly believe you are helping them?"
"It's not what i believe,it's what i know."
Makes sense. Garnier is the first target that made players question the intention of templars. He treated the mentally ill with torture. As the man that was sound in the cutscene before getting his legs broken, Garnier carried tools for lobotomy which he might have performed on his "children". If you follow him inside the hospital long enough one of the mentally ill thanks him in a docile manner.
With his death, the city was not freed, but damned.
I didn't notice that. I'll have to replay the game to see for myself.
@@SergioMach7 do it without hud.
Some of these guys DID have a point, AC 1 really was great when it came to both sides, Assassins and Templars
Damn this writing was so fucking good
jose oddi It’s extremely good
@H. G V The game was supposed to be played without a hud. And trust me, playing the game without a hud makes the game SO much better, immersive and less repetitive.
@@fredster594It's a bit hard to find the city's Bureau, and the optional challenges are impossible without GPS, but it is much more immersive.
@@prosaic.7944It’s just the principles. The idea was a game to played without a HUD with hits engine in mind. As you can guess shit you mentioned was added a little bit later in development.
'Templars make logic and reasonable talk'
Altair: "Speak sense templar or not at all".
lol
1:50 - 2:03 man, that was such excellent dialogue.
That’s why I think garnier is my favorite memory corridor in the game. He has great points and seems to be doing actual good.
@@GuiltySpark-pl8mv it also helps that after his death, number of mentally ill in every city went twofold.
This game absolutely had the best dialogue in the series
Yep, literally after this game Ubisoft got lazy on the dialogues
@@TheSoulDrainer I think AC2 had great dialogue too, albeit much less philosophical and more character oriented.
@@dragonforks93AC Rogue and 3 had great dialogue as well. There were also some Templars, besides the colonial and Levantine ones, that actually wanted to achieve peace/stability. For example, Ahmet from Revelations wanted to end all division among men.Torres from Black Flag wanted to end corruption and sought transparency and truth. Both men, who used questionable methods, wanted to create a better world.
AC and AC3 had the best memory corridors
true that
AC 2...
+dieauferstehung your being sarcastic right?
I liked Valhalla and Origins
some of them haves their points
Yes , they do.
All of them*
Not all of them but zubaier was evil.
@@pfam128 That is your opinion, Jubair made a very good point aswell.
@@wallachia4797 he is just a power greedy person.
The conversations in this game are best in all frenchise
I think this game might have the best overall dialogue
I love how there's this hidden mechanic where throughout cutscenes, when you see a bunch of organic formulas flash on the screen, you can press any button and the camera will change positions to show a more dramatic view. In these corridors it cuts from them dying to them standing and talking normally.
And people say games aren't fine art or are "just a hobby".
Proof they are wrong right here.
"Nothing... Nothing waits... And that is what I fear"
Some of the most haunting words I’ve heard in a game
You don’t believe?
It truly is haunting to think about
I couldn't agree more with "the later titles dropped the idea of the Templars as well-intentioned extremists and generally a gray morality story in favor of a zebra-esque black and white main plot conflict". Even though the first game I played and loved was AC2 I now realize it was only good because of the new gameplay and the drama, the story was far better in AC and AC3. I hope they stay on this track now, and don't make more cartoony Rodrigo Borgia characters.
@@itsover6668 they fucked it up
I'm sad they didn't make the Templars as 3-Dimensional in motives as they did in AC1. They did good with AC3's but all the other ones felt like their concept was just "I'm evil and I enjoy it!".
@@reaver5247 If you are referring to Valhalla... The leader of the order is many things, but "Rodrigo Borgia-esque" is not one of them
@@Anonymos185 Every single Origin's villain is awful though. Syndicate villains are also terrible. Unity's are completely forgettable. Odyssey isn't even ac.
Yeah, the messed up
@@Pedro_Le_Chef OK, but how is this relevant? The other guy commented after the launch of Valhalla about Aelfred. His comment had nothing to do with any of the earlier ACs
The best AC’s corridor, cause the templars would actually question the player why he wanted to kill them and for what reason, and they would stand up while talking, on Syndicate, they brought the Stand Up corridor. Which is great in my opinion
garnier de naplouse's dialogue was my favorite of all. sent shivers down my spine
+jamawel it's nice isn't it ? it really made me think...
Agreed, along with Robert De Sable's.
Especially when he says “ah, but then you’d answer for his burns”
But I want to play with fire father..
What would you say... "As you wish"?
What I love about these scenes is that they bring the historical figures to life: they're no longer one-dimensional characters in a history book. Even if this is made up somewhat, it reminds us that these people had much more in common with us than we might otherwise believe.
True.
In my personal opinion, there is a large amount of grey-and-gray morality. Aside from the Borgias and their allies, who weren't true Templars in my opinion, the Templars are portrayed as the antagonists solely because our protagonists are all Assassins. They make some very good points about the world they live in, and how it could benefit from order and purpose, people united in a common goal, but the problem is that they want to achieve this through total control. The Assassins want to preserve human freedom and individuality, another worthy cause, but they KILL people to achieve this. Also, look at how the Assassins have degenerated over time: in AC1, they were a fairly public order which was known about at the very least, and they sought to protect freedom. By AC2, however, they've been reduced to aligning themselves with the dregs of Italian society (prostitutes, thieves and mercenaries) as well as corrupt or brutal leaders such as the Medici and Caterina Sforza. They manage to build themselves up again, but they're still clearly in with the wrong sorts of people. In Constantinople, the Assassins have openly taken a side in the Ottoman-Byzantine conflict rather than leaving them to sort out their own business. By AC3, in Colonial America and in modern times, they've been reduced to a shadow of their former self. And when thing that becomes clear in AC3 is that the Assassins have clearly lost their purpose. They used to aspire to protect freedom and preserve peace, but in AC3 they're just blindly killing Templars because that's all that they know how to do, even though the situation would've been better if they'd just left them alone.
Look at the Assassins' history: they flourish in times of conflict, when their services are needed and there are Templars out in the open, ripe for the killing. But the moment the Templars are defeated or go underground and the Assassins are left with the task of managing their Brotherhood, they sooner or later collapse into obscurity
Agreed. Which side you are on truly depends on your moral values and the way you look at the world. Both organizations offer a way to make the world better. Templars believe order and discipline is the way while Assassins believe freedom is. But I feel the Assassins are a bit naive in this. Humans are too corrupt to trusted with true freedom. Connor perhaps believed in freedom so strongly because he grew up in a place of true freedom and it worked but this is not the same with other cultures.
You speak truth
Haytham said it best. Even when it seems that the Assassins are victorious, the Templars rise again. The templar order is born of a realization, they simply want an open world with order and purpose. They require no creed.
+LectricSigma(Σ)
"they flourish in times of conflict, when their services are needed and there are Templars out in the open, ripe for the killing. "
Lmao
Still my favorite game in the series
No game like it before or since has the same atmosphere or writing style
There's such a creepy ambiance the animus has in the first game that is brought out especially in these thick "digital foggy" memory corridors.
It's like Altair is talking with them in purgatory before passing on, the interactive camera angles are such a nice touch too and the VA work is top notch.
Check the ps1 blood omen legacy of kain , It surpasses ac1 ( ac1 IS my favorite ac game )
This is THE assassin’s creed game for me… every target you assassinate makes you question your motives and makes you doubt yourself on why are you doing what you do…
I really missed these long scenes in which they explain their deeds and actually think their on the good side, I was disappointed when I didn't see them in AC2, but probably because they thought it was stupid to have such long dialogue when they supposed to be dead. I also was disappoinned with the voice change in Revelations, that really sucked, AC1 voice was so good.
Ac3 had pretty good death scenes
AC2 was mostly revenge, and the Templars there were cartoon villains of vice
I really enjoy the Templar confessions too.
AC3 Went back to that. For all the criticisms heaped upon it, the villains in Assassin's Creed III were truly nuanced. The framing of the eternal Assassin-Templar debate within the birth of what would become the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth was a brilliant setting, utilized--if not perfectly--to a satisfying extent.
AC2 was simply lazy in its death scenes. AC1s here were so philosophical and powerful, and the performances were amazing.
The Templars from AC1 and AC3 were the best due to the fact that they would make you think twice about what you are doing.
The templars are right there will be no peace as long as mankind has freedom... Assassins claim to fight for peace but they are actually fighting for freedom. Templars are fighting for peace instead.
@@thestrong2401 Templars fight for control, since they think freedom is a bad thing. Assassins fight for people's rights, otherwise we'd still be practicing slavery legally.
Philip Shahbaz did a great work as Altair. At first he is righteously guiding them to light, giving them a chance for salvation. When his targets start to make sense, he begins questioning them, then he becomes sympathetic.
Damn the bald dude was my favourite villain throughout the whole game.
Master Robert de Sable you mean
Most of them are bald you feck
@@АЛЕКСАНДРФИЛИПС-м6р mostly
When Templars were called a Brotherhood, and the Assassins were called an Order.
And what now?
Sibrand was the only one I truly felt for.
Same. I went through his existential crisis for a while, and I know how crushing it is. I felt pretty deeply sorry for him, and understand why he doubted a soul, free will, and an afterlife.
I felt bad for Garnier as well. What he did was awful, but you can’t help but admit he has a point.
Finally, someone gets it
@@117Industriessame here, it's a really scary feeling.
Forever nothingness, it's equally comforting and terryfing,
I really enjoyed this video. 'Speak sense, Templar! Or none at all!'
***** Not at all*
Marcusyaho Heh ok.
Al Mualim is Rashid ad din Sinan
"Destroy the only thing capable of making Ubisoft money? Never."
Sir I do not understand that
@@assumjongkey1383 the joke is that Ubisoft just won't let Assassin's Creed die because it's the only thing making them money.
Apple of Eden may be forgotten. But Assasin's Creed? Never!
@@MoonfallMidnight
It's ironic how Abstergo and Ubisoft have many parallels.
In the first AC game Templars and Assassins were morally ambiguous as memories were not edited, but then Abstergo warped the memories to make Templars right just like how Ubisoft turned assassins into good freedom warriors and templars the greedy merchants.
Or how Animus had bugs at first and it was harder to control the memories, but as Abstergo developed and released Animus to the public they dumbed it down? Similar to how first AC games had rougher mechanics that needed effort to master, and Ubisoft dumbed it down to reach a wider audience.
Damn dude listening to this knowing that the master only sent you here to get the apple and kill anyone who knew anything about it because of his greed for power, it makes you see that most templars were actually trying to do good in some areas with just not really understood methods, but Altair was the blind one causing havoc.
The moment when they start walking and explain them self is so amazing! Thats what make assassins creed unique
The confessions in this game and origins are the best of the series
Man, I loved when the Templars were nuanced villains rather than cartoons like in the Ezio trilogy and beyond.
To be honest
Rodrigo was only good one in ezio story.
@@Kira22558 Besides, he was the only one who had a decent motivation, the others just wanted power, money and women.
@@Apenas_um_desconhecido849 yeah.
William's biggest war crime was his haircut
NO YOU DIDN'T 💀💀💀
lol damn bro
I believe it was actually a somewhat common one at the time. At least among monks or warriors.
Notice how to make Ezio seem oh so heroic, they had to remove all the philosophy and counterpoints brought up by the Templars? Luckily they brought White Rooms back in AC3.
It just occurred to me that Syndicate's memory corridors are so much like the ones from the first game, even down to the Assassin wiping their target's throat
Robert Dr Sable proves that quote/saying
"Keep your friends close but your enemy closer"
Dr Sable breast implantations expert.
Majd Addin is so fascinating,
He kill because it was fun just because, and the euphoria it brings from Public Execution made him feel like a God,
however, interestingly enough, his character kinda asks the question of what kind of person you'd be given the same power and position as him?
Can you maintain your character and principles when given massive power, or like him, you'll drown in the euphoria and abuse it?
That is a question many have had in history. Some chose one path, some another.
Simply think what you did after guards try to run away. You hunted them down. You didn't need to kill them. You did because you could, because it was fun! You know what it feels like, to determine another man's fate! The way they feared you, the man in the white hood! You were like a God! Such power!
@@prosaic.7944 yeah in an IRL situation, senseless killing is of course vile; however if we tie in Spec Ops's Philosophy into this, since this is a Video Game, killing the guards are technically harmless.
Whoever wrote script for this game must be Solomon the Wise of this age. Bro deserves an award
I always wondered why time seemed to freeze during memory corridors, but I have a theory: What the memory corridors are is an aspect of Eagle Sense where you enter a sort of spiritual realm that you can enter as you are taking a life. Assassins have learned to use it as a tool for allowing their targets to speak their final words, and getting confessions out of them.
Thanks for this. I couldn’t work it out and it has played on my mind for years. I never came to this conclusion- but it sounds right!
There’s a variation of the memory corridor (AC 4) wherein I believe the fluctuating aether in the background represents Schopenhauer’s ‘Will’ (at least I’m quite sure of it).
Incidentally, there was something so compelling about these games that I became convinced that ancestral memory is a real thing, and I tried very hard to evoke the “whispers of my ancestors”. Sadly, I never induced dream-sequence-like experiences quite as poetic or romantic as this, but in a way, you could say that I _heard their whispers_ . A small victory, if anti-climactic. Took a lot of pain and suffering however, and an endeavour I’d suggest is not for the faint-hearted. Probably not worth the effort for most, especially given the perhaps underwhelming nature of the outcome. Nevertheless, I still hold out an irrational belief that such experiences can be obtained, somewhere, somehow, by God knows what means.
I enjoyed reading your comment.
@@117Industries I should add that my theory doesn't always work. For example, in Assassins Creed: Forsaken, they make it clear that the Templars heard the conversations Conner had with his targets.
Also, who the hell is Schopenhauer?
@@philosotree5876
Schopenhauer was an early 19th c. German Philosopher (ref. Google). He wrote a famous treatise: _The world as Will and Representation_ (a treatise being an academic term for an intellectual book/paper covering some subject matter extensively). In it, Schopenhauer discusses his take on metaphysics (a philosophical term meaning that which extends “beyond” or “above” the physical plane), and he discussed the ‘Will’ as a fundamental source, aether-like perhaps (though I’m not sure he described it this way), that drove all things, and connected all things despite their difference in external appearance (that externality being the ‘phenomenal’ world). It is perhaps just this firmament, Schopenhauer’s ‘Will’, which is visually alluded to in the background of AC 4’s memory corridors. But, that’s a wild & intuitive speculation.
@@117Industries Well, I think the reason it's wavy is just because to make it look like waves bc it's a pirate game.
@@philosotree5876 Could be as simple as that. But it’s not the only game in which you have wavy dots in the background.
The thing that draws me into this game, the cryptic conversation between Altair and his targets, how he learn to cast his pride for a greater purpose, and how at some point the templars convinced that what they're doing is for the good of humanity, which is not entirely wrong when you think of it, their method is far too cruel nevertheless, Altair's willingness to hear what they have to say and learned from them is one of the proof of his wisdom and depicted more in The Secret Crusade and later in Ezio's trilogy
As children, we value the Heroes
As adults, we understand the Villains
Unless you're Maj'd Adin
@@itsjustvin7630 killing him was satisfying lol
Corny
I will never ever understand the Pazzi conspirators and the Borgias.
@@loneaquila The templars in ac2 were seen as Saturday morning cartoon villains.
This game really knew how to show the morales of both sides of the story. This game is one of the best at showing the Templars’ point of view as well as the assassins. It provides some of the best back-and-forth dialogue in the whole series.
William's son Conrad... I feel like the only reason they bring him up so much in the game is because historically speaking, he was really was killed by the Assassins...apparently Raymond wanted to use Conrad instead of William But William dissapeared in 1191, so it was more accurate with the timeline.
I enjoy the Templars here. They showed in fluid words how people who say they are right and just and those who they condemn for being "wrong" are really not different. Just people making different choices and condemning each other or for it based on consequences because of those choices. Anyone who throws around garbage like "the right thing", "treating someone like a human being", or making proclamations of human nature as if they have some transcendent knowledge, I look upon with disgust. The people who you would describe as being bad are just "selfish hedonists"and those who you describe as being good are either fascist or self-righteous moral guardians imposing their way on the world. Being one of either side is just a choice.
+EmptyMan000 Both sides are the same. There is no difference.
No, they are both the same because they have ideals. At least the way they are portrayed here.
The Assassins do not give peace. They kill and fight figures for the sake of mankind, when they hypocritically don't care how much damage they do to people.
@@АЛЕКСАНДРФИЛИПС-м6р You are just spouting platitudes, the person you just insulted proved none of the OP's points. A person killing innocent people so that they could mind control a entire race is pretty vile, because that would be slavery and lead to more inequality than what we have here, besides murder is considered a crime because killing against the law or basic ethics is bad. You try to make things unnecessary relative in order to not appear extrem(which is a low-tier sin at worst to begin with), we can decide if someone is bad or good,based on the long-term and short term consequences of this person actions, for instance is someone not evil, who forgot to give you your food supply for your restaurant and will just cause you to miss for 1 day your restaurant to not make any food, which is bad, but from a long term perspective,not so bad. Maybe you should replay the game or study philosophy, because they disagree with you very harshly and very strongly.
@@basilofgoodwishes4138 your entire position Is from an a subjective point of view. Your accusations are flawed. Because they're subjective and assumptions. You're not going to get anywhere asserting your own perceptions. Slavery has many definitions that are considered humane in the right conditions compared to the society they're applied to. You see freedom is defined as contrast to restrictions. Freedom therefore is an illusion because true freedom is chaos. And that is a fact. The thing is humanity isnt defined by equality. Humanity is defined by prosperity.
Abu'l Nuqoud has so much depth.
"How could I finance a war in service to the same god that calls me an abomination?"
Because he's homosexuall and "gluttenous"(fat), which are both regarded as sin in his religion.
He was the original incel
He was gay ?
@@OZcomingFRoo when you meet him you can see how he caresses one of his body guard sexually
@@OZcomingFRoo it didn’t specifically say but it’s pretty obvious
@@bigman2890 ok
"A blockade by sea to keep the fool kings and queens from sending reinforcements, once we... once we..."
"Conquered the Holy Land?" Tired of the wicked justifications of evil men, the fida'i interrupts him.
"Freed it, you fool! ...From the tyranny of faith..." The downed man's breathing grows weaker. His voice gargled with blood.
"Freedom?!" Altaïr cannot stand this demon staining such a beautiful word. The stoic composure, so well-cultivated by him, breaks for only a moment.
"You worked to overthrow cities! Control men's minds! Murdered any who spoke against you!"
A slight smirk shows up in the Templar's face. These are his last seconds in this forsaken world, but he cannot not find the irony amusing.
"I followed my orders... believing in my cause... Same as you."
Meister Sibrand's last uttering was whispered in the ears of the dark figure towering above him, as he walked into that eternal dream. At that last moment, his terror of non-existing, of being pure matter like the many stones and dust around the two men, vanished. He accepted. He let go. Yet, full of regret for not being able to save more lives in this barbaric war, because of an extremist. One among many in the Levant.
I don't know how many may agree or disagree but this is the only Assassins Creed game i respect
Not even 2 or 4?
the philosophical talk in memory corridors also happens in AC3, besides that's just an good element that isn't necessary in every AC, Black Flag and Ezio's Trilogy are good examples of it
@@sonicsshadowemerald2256 2 is good yes but 1 is the best
I like Garnier, Abu'l, William, and Jubair the most with their words and intentions
Sibrands was amazing too, Robert and talals were ok too
who up mopping rn😭😭😭😭💀
Everyone: speeches about their reasoning for each action
Majd addin: hahaha power
Altair: "Speak, so that I may learn from you."
Ezio: "Rest in peace."
Connor: "I respect your view, but I must disagree."
Edward: "Tell me what I must know."
Shay: "You didn't give me a choice."
Evie: "It is done, do not struggle."
Jacob: "Your an arse."
Bayek: "Begone to the land beyond."
Philosophical conversations in this game are amazing.
This is why I enjoyed the original game a tad more than the Ezio trilogy. As great as those games were, they derailed the Templars by changing them from men using questionable or vile means to achieve truly noble ends, into just your average stock dollar store cartoon villains. What makes this series great is that our protagonists and antagonists are morally grey. Both do commit evil but for noble goals. What they want is good, but what makes the Assassins and Templars enemies is how they seek to achieve that end goal. Ezio made it easy to kill the targets because they were obviously evil with no redeemable qualities. With Altair, you knew they had to die but with each you begin to question if there was another way or not.
Agree 1000%
I enjoyed ac 1 and 3 the most out of the franchise. Connor the idealist was my second favorite assassin.
I remember way back on Tumblr there was an account for bad subtitles, and somebody posted a screencap of Altair and Maria's encounter showing the following "You are not Mike Tyson."
The dialogue was very well written in these
Altair is Way too slow on the uptake.
After finding the 2nd or 3rd guy I killed in a Row are noble, I would've investigated Al Mualim Very intensely.
Not everyone with noble goals uses noble means.
Though only a few are manipulative.
And only one out of the First game is outright malicious.
I think it's not so much him being "slow on the uptake" so much as him being in denial. Given how much he cared about redemption
You dont undo years of indoctrination that easily.
@@revolverocelot1380 exactly. hard to go against people who raised and taught you well.. the least of the people you'd expect to betray you.
His work was to obey, not to Question, just the fact that al mualim wanted those men dead was enough for the assassins to carry their mission
Man, the confessions of the Templars here I find to be a great inspiration for Ubisoft's Memory Corridors in Assassin's Creed: Origins. So similar and yet different
Looking back, the formative impact of this game's narrative on my early years is incredible. I always loved the narrative and philosophical pieces of the games.
At 8:00 Altair earns his badass card.
I like how mostly Templar target got their own personality even they appeared shortly and didn't had huge impact on story. And the optional different camera angle made it look like they're talking with you.
And i liked how all of them made a rematch with you on the final chapter.
I feel the lines of good and evil in this series are blurred to some degree. The templars and assassins both want a world with peace but assassins want to have peace and freedom while templars are willing to sacrifice freedom.
For true peace to exist, a balance between free will and control is needed.
+Brian Sanders ...and since when has mankind ever been balanced? By nature, we act in extremes.
EmptyMan000 that's the problem
Authority Vs Liberty
Most of these dialogues are great, but for some reason, the one with Jubair made me question my motivation the most. The way he flips the "learn to disagree" argument on its head within seconds, to which Altair has no rational answer, was almost poetic.
This is what makes this franchise so great. Not just the open world, but also the philosophical implications involved in it, making you question more than you'd think.
It makes no sense he was burning holy books as if someone would historically allow him to do that
I liked his dialogue the most 👍
@@malamri424 I mean I can't honestly enjoy the game as a Arab and someone familiar with the history
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl These games aren't meant to be historically accurate. This game directly addresses that when Desmond asks VIdic why some of the stuff he experienced in the animus seems to be historically inaccurate.
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hlMany holy books are burned in history. There were many versions of Quran, and it was compiled(and other versions burned) under caliphate Umar 16 years after Mohammad(PBUH) died.
The dialogue, nuance writing & conflict peaked here.
I dream to this day how good AC2 might have been if they actually followed the steps of the original
At first it all makes sense. Talal sends the slaves, Garnier brainwashes, Nuqoud buys the weapons that Tamir supplies, and William trains them.
But slaves of Talal are not fit to be soldiers, Garnier knows he helps his patients. William teaches his men order and discipline for their own good, keeping his domain at peace.
And Altair is blind enough to say to a man after he stabbed him in the neck, "Men must be free to do what they believe. It is not our right to punish one for thinking what they do, no matter how much we disagree."
As Vidic said, assassins don't tend to the "tumor" they cut off, problems they claim to solve become even worse.
I still don’t understand what Tamir really had to do with it. Like he just sells weapons they didn’t need to kill him
@@bigman2890 removing the arms dealer is a great first step I think.
@@bigman2890considering he recently received/sent for a massive order right after a templar defeat, while both sides were arming themselves, more than likely he was preparing to arm whatever forces of the other conspirators in answer to Al-Mualim's betrayal actually, the templar recently having lost the invasion of the Assassin's stronghold too. Ironically he couldve been one outside the loop rather than one knowing the secret and still need to die for the simple reason that logistics are essential.
Garnier being second to fall also makes sense, as he is the one most likely to understand Al-Mualim's brainwashing and if he knows how to remove the free will of people that suffers from it, he would also learn how to keep his own mind clear from the Apple's manipulation
Etc...
@@Freedmoon44 yeah true, I think the order each Templar died in works very well, you get more sympathetic with each one. (not Majd). And by Sibrand and Jubair you feel sorry and understand why they do what they did. I think it’s the best writing in all AC games
Main reason why modern Ubisoft needs to die in a fire and be reborn as a studio that cares about gaming experiences more than money.
Far Cry 2 and Assassin's Creed were quite experimental for their times and the results got milked so hard that they became formulas...
Sometimes I wish this was the only Assassin's Creed game.
You know I love the assassins and all, but god dammit these templars have some good points.
I played this a very long time ago but I remember this: every one of those scenes made me question what I did and why, and for that I consider the first AC the best one in the series.
The Holy Land Templars are the best Templars in the series imo.
If you play Assassins creed and actually learn stuff along the way, your IQ is already genius level
When I first played this game, I didn't really think about what the Templars were saying - like Altair and the rest of us who played him, I didn't think much about what the targets said. They were just offering excuses for their crimes. Now, years later and having seen the complex motives smoothed out in later games, the morally grey characters and their justifications which ring true in some sense is like a breath of fresh air.
Funnily enough, Sibrand was the one who made me question what was really going on at the time. The fear in his voice (huge props to the VA for his performance throughout) when he explains that nothing waits for him and his brothers, that faith blinds the people of the Holy Land, that the truth robbed him of his previous certainty - it resonated with me so much, probably because I know what it's like to fear abandoning a faith or creed. After all, if the promise of a reward is false, then what else is false? If death brings nothing but darkness, was it all for naught? For Sibrand, growing up in a world where religious faith is deeply entwined with ordinary life, where it controls almost every aspect of your life, that has to be one of the hardest things to contend with.
It puts everything else in a new light. Maybe the Assassins were wrong. Maybe Altair is wrong to do this. Maybe the Templars had a point. The twist at the end was still a surprise in itself, but Altair and his targets had taught me to doubt.
Altair trying to comfort sibrand shows how much his characters develops in the game
"La shay' haqiqah, koulo shay' moumkin."
*realization kicks in* "So it seems..."
I am a Arabic speaker. What he said was gibberish
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl
Maybe a bad translation? Haqiqah is "truth", moumkin is "possible", is it not?
@@prosaic.7944 no it isn't that. The guy above only knew that he was saying that phrase. Because that phrase is famous.
The words are correct. But how they got pronounced....... It was horror
I can’t be the only person who loves the alternate view you can do on these confessions. What I especially like is how some of the final sentences of the templars ends with them walking off to the distance, kinda like a passing on to the after life/far shore type of deal. Really hits hard to see their commitment to their resolve/creed be consistent even in death.
The different-perspective glitches were pretty cool ngl.
Does anyone have any idea how Altair could have gotten their last words as soon as they were killed, but the alarms were only rung after he got the messages?
Really old comment but I think the canon explanation is that Altair always managed to kill them undetected. That's why the Animus puts them in the memory corridor, it reconstructs the conversation as how it really happened. And the moments where the targets are standing are supposed to be glitches (I think Ubisoft actually put them in to make the conversations more engaged, it's a bit boring to watch two people lying on the floor for 3 minutes)
@@ArkenwayWhat about Robert De Sable.
AC1 and AC3 has the best memory corridors in the series, mostly because most of the templars in the ezio's trilogy we're corrupted by the Borgias and their obsession to power, they didn't really follow their creed
Agree. The stories and templars were so good.
Reason why AC1 stands out. Makes you question what you believe in.
Altair's REAL voice and not the crummy actor that they replaced him with in Revelations!
The actual, correct animus translation from Arabic to English is from the animus 2.0.
Except Altaïr was Syrian and shouldve had an accent. Instead, he sounded like someone who didnt belong in that time frame.
I'll take a Syrian accent over this. The one American accent in a mix of middle-eastern and European accents bothered me even when this game first came out.
Technically this is the wrong voice
destinyson23 don't forget bloodlines
A severly underated game, ubisoft need to remaster it
"Speak sense Templar, or not at all!"
- Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, 1191