well, it's been said Assasins in the victorian era are big on history, so it makes sense to pass down such traditions, plus like Altair, the twins were born and raised in the order, which makes the accuracy of this whole thing feels good,
@@andrewlawton562 There's no need to get so angry. I agree with them, AC2 has different memory corridors, here are some differences between AC2 and AC:Syndicate+AC1 AC2: Victims usually talk while they're lying down in Ezio's hands and are talking slow because they have a hole in their necks AC1/AC:S : The victims are standing up and talking normally while they're talking, with hand gestures, animations and all AC2: When the victim dies Ezio says Rest in Peace and closes their eyes AC1/AC:S : When the victim dies Altair wipes some blood off onto a feather, Eve and Jacob wipe some blood onto a handkerchief
*8:25** - "WHY NOT?! RAAAAAAAAAAH HAHAHAHA!"* The fact that Roth walked away vaguely gleeful just goes to show that he was the worst of the Templars, maybe even the men in the world. He went to hell with pride knowing he destroyed innocent lives.
Glad Syndicate introduced death corridors again. It was a shame Unity didn’t have them, or well, they were entirely different. The absence of death corridors was also a big miss in Odyssey.
I think Unity had recaps to explain the targets activities before their deaths, but it’s than nothing…unlike Odyssey, where you just kill a Cultist and that’s it!
I do like the inclusion of the echos. It makes it feel like Jacob (and Evie) are talking to both the dead and living with the last thing heard is the whispers of dead.
The Levantine, Caribbean, Colonial, british, and ancient templar's are my favorite since they have the grey and gray morality and have armor piercing questions including the more nutty and insane ones (except majd, Roth, and some others) even Lucy gives an interesting point of what the pieces of eden could do for humanity despite the consequeneces. even among them are more understanding like Pitcairn, the scorpion, and even garnier. most of all these templars are more diverse with and consider all of them brothers and sisters no matter what ethnicity, race, orientation or even gender.
Yeah, that was one thing lacking from the Ezio trilogy. The morally gray templars. Instead we just had straight evil templars for the most part. Looking back now, it’s kind of a disappointing aspect of those games
@@CmdrShepard95 I think its because the templars in those games were only in it for their own power rather than to build a new world. Rodrigo realised their true aim in brotherhood but cesarean was too far gone in terms of wanting power. And revelations was purely for control of the ottoman empire
@@willbaker6532 but by revelations, the Templars were more gray except Ezio himself would dismiss them, even burning down an entire village of innocents just to draw out 1 Templar. He even got called out on that but he didn't seem to care at all. Literally, the closest to a gray argument in the Ezio Trilogy was with Emilio Barbarigo, the first Venice Templar we kill.
Back then, the Assassins and Templars were both morally gray and 2 sides on the same coin. The Templars has done things far more worse, direct, and in public. The Templars did things out of the necessity to give the world a better tomorrow. But the Templars after the crusades lost their way and turned into power hungry tyrants.
Assassin's Creed Syndicate really impressed me for how good it was, especially the Frye twins. Evie and Jacob are awesome!! Roth was by far the best villain although Starrick was also really good :D
Why AC1 was better: Deaths focused on questioning the concepts and ideas of the protagonist. This: Sometimes borderline stawman arguments on nuanced issues or hints on a main antagonists vague motivations.
Where's the strawman arguments? For the most part, a lot of them have a point, the Templars had reached a point where simply controlling a majority of what makes society run (medicine, money, politics, employment) kept them from losing. It's even shown that after you kill one of the targets, the very next thing you have to do is prevent the city from crumbling over the loss of one of those industries. You kill the banker and suddenly trust in the banks plummets, you kill the head doctor of the city and suddenly there's an increase in fake medicine and supplies of the real stuff is running low and I think it's obvious what happens when a high ranking politician is found to have been assassinated. I think the only two targets who were just nutty were Roth and Lucy Thorne and in her case, it was just because she was more connected to the Piece of Eden plotline than anything else.
@VultureDroid lol says there is nothing here like ac 1... doesn’t explain how with examples. I don’t even need to repute your comment. The one above does so already
Honestly this can be said about every AC before Unity; 3 explored the fanatical thoughtlessness of killing the other side when they were actually doing good for the people, Rev/Brotherhood focused on general nuggest of wisdom and 2 dealt with the introduction to the ideals that both sides adhere to and follow as well as their motivations.
David Brewster said amazing line : we fight for things we cannot take away with us when we die. I saw the first AC game 's animus corridor confessions too. Every Templar we kill, they will say we are with wrong people and they are creating a paradise. Templars want control. Assassins want freedom. Both are evil in their own actions. The world is dancing between Order and chaos.
i remember how surprised i was when a confession happened and it was more than just the assassin standing over a dead body. now they are like mini movies they are so cinematic.
@@theimortal1974 nah. I didn’t like them. Most of them were so short and useless and were clearly written last minute following the reaction to odyssey. I also don’t feel like each of them really challenged a key aspect of Eivor’s character, unlike the Bayek ones.
@@alexmercer5414 it’s basically a last words type of deal. Doesn’t make much sense if it happens in the middle of combat, but if you save the target for last it makes more sense
"Assassin's Creed Syndicate" is last good Assassins Creed game, also the last game who actually DESERVES the name. Origins, Odyssee and Valhalla are good games but no "Assassins Creed" games.
as much as I wanna agree, I gotta say Origins still deserved the name, more than Odyssey and Valhalla, though I would have to say Odyssey was the weaker of the two imo.
@@Pliskin2894 exactly this. Odyssey lacked too many of the main Assassin’s Creed elements (absence of death memory corridors/hidden blade/walking loading screen/eagle vision (it was an upgrade)/hiding in things like haystacks) that I don’t really get why it’s called Assassin’s Creed but I do still like the game. Valhalla does have all of these, though, but I wouldn’t say it’s an AC game to its core. Origins though, definitely is an Assassin’s Creed game and also the best of the trilogy (maybe of the entire series, too) in my opinion. Edit: I hope the next Assassin’s Creed is kinda like the new trilogy but with the old Assassin’s Creed elements back, like desynchronizing when seen, eavesdropping on conversations, following persons etc. This would probably be the most profitable for Ubisoft too, so I don’t get why they haven’t done that. Although it seems to be going to be a neverending MMO game.
@@jormdeworm I mean I get why they are going in the direction they are, but as someone who has played the series since 2007, it's just a bit disheartening that it's not quite the same. Like I get it, they gotta change it up to keep things fresh, but that's what new storylines are for imo. New little side activities along the way are cool too. I didn't hate Valhalla tbh, actually I really enjoyed my time with it. Even enjoyed the DLC too. Origins is most certainly tied for first as my favorite in the series.
I have to agree because i am starting to hate ubisoft for the way there going i like the older games i think origins is when it started going down hill
+Elia Moroes The order I encountered these Templars are different than the ones shown in this video. I took out Thorne before Attaway, Twopenny, etc. Is that a glitch or can you take out the Templars in different orders?
I'm pretty sure Twopenny dies after Thorne, but I'm not so sure about Attaway. I guess you can choose between Thorne and Twopenny, because they are executed by different protagonists and
Yes you can take out the templar in different order as long as you’ve unlocked the sequence. I’ve not yet killed Dr. Elliot but already unlocked Sequence 8 where you killed Maxwell Roth.
Alright forgive me for asking but is it a tradition to take a swab of blood from the victim? I played black flag a while back and I can't remember Edward or adwele doing that
I think it's because altair was a regular actual assassin and the fryes are too. Ezio and Conner had to sort of build their own orders, and Edward was by himself
Malcolm Millner is defiantly Thomas Hickey from A.C. 3. It's almost like all the deaths are linear or connected somehow they're the same individuals in a different time line . Just an opinion. "The order is born of realisation we require no creed ,No indoctrination from desperate old men all we need is the world be as it is , And this is why the Templars will never be destroyed" *May the father of understanding guide us* ⚔
It's sad that, at the end, the struggle of the Assassins seems pointless. The same world they try to free keeps falling into the hands of the Templars because the same people they try to libearate prefer what they offer rather than their "freedom".
i was so glad to see the final one because i knew the game was finally over. it was a good game for it's time but after playing origins and odyssey the controls on this one felt horrible.
AC2 was good. Cannot remember how Brotherhood / Revelations goes but i guess you have a point. Although... not sure how you found Unity to be worth the video posting.
Agreed. AC2 may be my favorite AC game, but I don't know what Ubisoft was thinking when they removed the AC1/Syndicate style Memory Corridors, it just lessened the impact of the targets' confessions.
@@PedroVieira-jv2ef The Bonfire of the Vanities DLC was the worst of the worst then. Everytime an enemy says its their fault they did bad things, Ezio denies it and says "It wasn't your fault it was the Apple". Everytime they say it *wasn't* their fault they did bad things, Ezio also denies it and says "Take responsibility you p***y, this was no one's fault but yours." Assassin's Creed 2 was a lot of fun, but it felt like it was made for idiots.
It feels like the game just tries to profit off of nostalgia from the first game. Yet the arguments here lack sting, they don't make us think. Mabe Twopenny's argument is only somewhat interesting. Though, I am maybe not correct, since I've not played the game
