Sv. Prolivije
Finished Brotherhood… yet again. I did come out of this run with a meager 5.7k screenshots, rookie numbers honestly. To honor finishing the game for the third time in less than a year, I picked this shot for this week’s Screenshot Sunday, #64. Also, despite this being my third replay (so fourth in total), I still had fun. Plus, it helped me crystallize some of my opinions on it, mainly regarding the plot, and why I find it the weakest of the Ezio Trilogy.
5.7k screenshots…
k? ^_^;
Also, why would it be the weakest out of the 3 Ezio games…?
Is what I wanted to ask, but realised that you are kind of right, even though I only played these games once years ago. Based on my blurry memories it feels more like a tack on to AC2, a bit more polished perhaps, but not bringing enough novelty or relevance to Ezio’s personal journey, and even though Cesare Borgia is given an entire game to become a truly exposed villain character, I never really remembered him afterwards, aside from his pride/arrogance perhaps.
Tbh, story wise it feel like extra couple sequences for AC2 that tie up the story rather than a full game standing on its own 2 legs?
But ye, if you have some other observations, pls share :o
Reading up on AC has been a good past time of mine, even if I never got past prologue of AC4 due to series’ gameplay sameness exhaustion years ago…
The gameplay is more polished, for sure. I love the chain kills they added, makes combat way more fun. The recruits are also nice to have for battle.
But the story just sucks, and it affected my view of the game. Perhaps I could say this is the weakest story of the Ezio trilogy, but I still would say it’s the weakest for me, because AC 2 has much more nostalgia tied to it, and Revelations’ ending was just perfect in how it ended his story. Could have been much better IMO. We needed more of Ezio being the wise man that became the Grand Master of the Brotherhood. But we only saw snippets of this. Also, I don’t think a Grand Master would get into a piss battle with his younger sister like Ezio did. And all of the assassins… you don’t learn more about them, it’s like they are still the bare-bones characters they were in AC 2. Why would Machiavelli write a book about Ezio? I didn’t hear a single wise thing from his mouth. Like, in AC 2, you do get a sense of Ezio growing up, going from a child to a man, and that speech in the DLC in Firenze, it gave you a glimpse of a more mature Ezio that needed to be much more present in Brotherhood.
Cesare Borgia… I hate his depiction. Ezio asks Machiavelli if he detects admiration in his voice when they speak about Cesare. Why would he admire a man who is basically a man-child? The Cesare they spoke about and the one we got, it’s like they weren’t the same people. Man literally just ran away and called the guards for 99% of the game, and if something went wrong, he threw a temper tantrum. Like, what?! How is this supposedly the same cunning man who tricked the people who rebelled against him to think he has forgiven them only to then kill them when they had their guard down? Just… why make him into a man-child?
Also, I hate that Ezio spared Rodrigo. Not only does it not make sense for Ezio to go from “this is for my family” to “you’re not worth it” in a span of 10 minutes, it doesn’t even make sense to leave a templar grand master that’s the pope alive given the position of power he has. Like, again, wtf? My reaction to this was the same as Machiavelli’s. Rodrigo should have died. He also has no use in Brotherhood. Three scenes… three. And all cutscenes. You just watch a cutscene with him. Those three appearances, a grand total of probably 5 minutes, with the biggest time sink coming in the last one where Cesare kills him. And that’s not even close to how he died. Why make sure he dies on the same date, but make it as crazy as patricide? Ezio should have killed him in the vault, and then Ceasre should have invaded Monterggoni as retribution.
The Followers of Romulus were also very disappointed. They had a literal cult, and used it for useless platforming sections…. why? Could have made them much more important to the story of how the Borgia were controlling Rome.
And ye, Brotherhood is very much just AC 2.5. It has the same “the truth” puzzles, the same armor dungeons (Followers of Romulus quests), the same music even, the same story structure (one assassin leader per templar, before it was one city, now it’s just one NPC in Rome) and so on. I just needed more of mature Ezio, who is building the Assassin brotherhood, instead of Ezio doing things and then is told he is super wise and shit. Like, how did Bartolomeu not think “oh, let’s dress up as the French to infiltrate their stronghold”? That is what makes Ezio so wise, stealing armor from the enemy to get into their hideout. How is Bartolomeu an assassin if he doesn’t even know this simple act of infiltrating the enemy? Then LaVolpe wanting to kill Machiavelli just cuz he thinks he is a traitor, again, are you people insane? Oh, I saw Machiavelli talk to a guard, very sus, let’s kill’em. Ezio’s whole hissy fit with Claudia. Just so many of these moments that feel out of place and perhaps if not out of place then not properly explained and done. If you watched Game of Thrones, then you remember how “amazing” Daenerys’ descent into madness was in the show. One episode and bam, she crazy now boah, she gonna kill innocent people boah, burn!!!! That’s how these things felt. Just rushed and done so they can progress the story.
Lol, you got me rambling about the game, haha. I need to look back on this when I end up writing my review. So much content.
Nothing wrong with rambling - I was scared at the wall of text initially, but as I had warned you (and forgot myself), I reached the end with pleasure before I knew it :3
Woah, LOTS of details I didn’t remember.
Still, ye, AC2 serves a purpose in Ezio’s story as a start and full blown induction into assassin’s order, culminating in the great final Vatican Vault sequence. THAT I still remember to this day…
AC: R serves a purpose in Ezio’s story as a proper ending, even though Ezio’s life’s ending got its own short movie as well <3
Still, connecting modern, historic and ancient storylines in one sequence has been masterful to teenage me playing Revelations for the first time…
I think the only relevant things in AC:B are the ones happening in 2012 tbh?
Cesare as a man child - perfect description.
Agreed on Rodrigo as well, AC2 final has been all about killing him and completing the revenge. Instead his death was so hollow, and Ezio didn’t feel like a more mature or better/bigger person for sparing him afterwards anyway?
Hum, literally forgot about Romulus Cult… ^_^;
But from what you say - indeed, another lost opportunity. Would be cool to have a secret society thinking they’re in charge while they are being controlled by Templars. A conspiration inside of a conspiration, and Romulus cult feels like it could have some decent opponent fighters?
Character interactions totally slipped my mind, but from what you say, it seems like writing took a dive (or maybe wasn’t even that good back in these days?), especially since this was the game of the trilogy where assassins characters could have finally shined, and since now Ezio has to take up the leadership mantle after his uncle is gone and treat these people in equal parts as brothers, teachers and advisors.
The writing for me took a dive from 2 onward if we are talking about characters other than MC and the whole Assassins vs Templars plotline. Compared to AC 1’s Altair, who is a blank slate, probably meant so the player can project themselves (he is literally just “best assassin dude” and doesn’t have a past or future really, he is just an avatar for us, and Desmond to see the past through), subsequent AC games did a much better job of giving each protagonist a personal stake within the whole Templar vs Assassins plot. But, the villains were much better in AC 1. Even if they show up only during the assassination missions and have brief screen time, I remember them all. And that’s because they were compelling. Their actions were bad, but were they really? Killing each showed you a side to them and their plans that you didn’t know, or were purposefully misled about. A gay man, enacting revenge on the people who shunned him, on the religion that sees him as an abomination. Hearing him speak, you can’t help but feel compassion, and empathy, as you see this man who was ostracised by the people do what they did to him—deliver pain. Then there was the slaver who took people unfit to be sold as slaves. Whores, lepars, beggars, and so on. None would fetch a pretty penny on the slave market. And they were not even intended for that. They were intended to serve under the Templar order, they were to be given a purpose and use they lacked given again how the society ostracized and shunned them. Then you have the dude burning the books. Knowledge should be sacred, but a counterpoint he makes does also ring true—were not those same books of knowledge, those scrolls of wisdom, the reason the Third Crusade was happening? And who says that what is written there was done with good intentions? I mean, history is ripe with war for religion, and nowadays, any cause you make people believe in can start a war.
The first game had so many of these amazing moments, both modern and past plot, where you doubt yourself, your creed, and your own view of things. The other games just diluted the whole Templar vs Assassin thing to Extreme Good vs Extreme Evil. Lucy had a great quote in the first game, “There’s no good or bad, it’s all so relative.” It implied nuance, it implied depending on where you stand, your POV, that’s what will decide what is good and bad. AC 2 (and BH) had none of that. No matter if you put yourself in the shoes of the Borgia or other templars, what they do and how is just evil, plain and simple. They just sought power and “to be evil”. They had no genuine reason why they believed their cause just. Nor did their words sway you to agree with them, even if only a little. It was Ezio gud, Templarinos bad. And that’s it. Just look at how they are written. They have no nuance. They just scream bloody murder and act all evil. That’s their character. Cesare is perhaps the best embodiment of this character design. And sure, AC 1 has one person like that, who kills cuz he can, who takes life because he has the power, but he also didn’t feel like a caricature. He just felt like a deranged person drunk with power, while Cesare feels like a spoiled man-child that throws a fit if his toy is taken. I think AC 3 tried to do something different with Haythem, but still, the execution of it didn’t land for me. It was still Assassins gud, Templars evil in the end. Same with Valhalla. I can’t speak about the rest (Black Flag, Rouge, Unity, etc.) as I haven’t played or replayed them, so don’t know much about the story. But I will, ha, once I play them, that’s for sure.
Revelations is also a bit of a miss in this regard too. The main villain is anything but compelling but he is at least somewhat better than Cesare (not a man-child that is, ha). Still, you don’t see him for like 90% of the game, and when he does show up, it just falls flat. Plus, it was kinda obvious who this secret Templar master was, Ubisoft really needs to go and study AC 1 to re-learn how to subtly give hints about the plot twist.