After watching playthrough of Assassin's Creed II, I noticed a rather clear change in both protagonists and villains in this game compared to its predecessor. Not to mention a main protagonist himself.
Back when I played the Assassin's Creed II, I was too concerned with the main plot of battle between Templars and Assassins to judge second's game heroes and villains on their own merit. However, many years later, when I revisited the game, I noticed a big shift and it's not a good one.
Antagonists
Antagonists in the original Assassin's Creed were either delusional or outright malicious people who hurt others and pretended it was not just cruelty. For example, Majd ad Din publicly executed a woman for adultery and men for gambling, then admitting privately in Altair that he only did it for fun, implying that he knew they were innocent, but killed them anyhow.
They were all people with a lot of authority who used it for causing harm to those under them. Altair was doing world a favor by ridding it of such people. It was a deed that people, freed from the rule of the likes of Majd ad Din would surely welcome.
The overreaching narrative was that Templars intend to use Pieces of Eden to establish Orwellian like society where Big Brother not only watches you, but literary control your every move with these advance pieces of technology. They all claimed it will be 'good', An evil enough enemy, worthy of stopping. You fight for not having world turn into a Eurasia, you do not want to live in something like that.
In contrast in Assassin's Creed II your opponents by themselves are not that intimidating at all. Sure, overreaching narrative still ties them to the same Orwellian Templar conspiracy, so that is good enough reason to fight them in this game as well. Sometimes it is spiced up by occasional acts of terror against the local population. However, many of your targets are simply intimidated by their leader, Rodrigo Borgia and mean no harm to anyone other than by his orders.
That would make it more logical to kill Borgia and save Pazzi and Barbarigos from his oppression. However no, game makes you kill people Borgia subordinates instead. Thus, from being a protector of weak from the strong you turn to culling weak while doing nothing about the strong.
You do get to fight Borgia himself later, but not kill him. They possibly wished to save it for sequel. In sequel Cesare murders Borgia before you can.
Story does gets better in the latter part of the game; Savonarola and his lieutenants are much like the templars in the original game. You kill them to let people be free to live as they see fit.
Generally, events after the Apple gets to Venice does feel like the original game.
Because of that the game overall feels like an improvement over the original: it still has good story of the original Assassin's Creed but also new game mechanics that makes it more interesting gameplay wise.
Protagonist
Altair from the original was a mysterious and detached figure. You knew nothing of him, so it was easy to extrapolate your own qualities on him.
Al Muallim accused him of arrogance, Altair later came to question his judgement.
Over the course of the game Altair grows somewhat wiser and more experienced as he sees various people and events that makes him question things he used to believe, or things people say to him.
In contrast second game imposes a lot of qualities on Ezio. When I first played it, I just dismissed it as a tutorial section without thinking too deep about what happened before Ezio took the robes. Looking at it more carefully, I noticed more.
Unlike Altair who fights the large fight for a cause and mostly ignores petty squabbles, Ezio is more of a casual brawler who just gets in petty fights with thugs.
Ezio does not challenge or oppose any authority. Always does what family or other powerful or 'respectful' people want of him. Ezio is a lot more of a guard dog that protects those in power, rather than lone wolf who takes them down, like Altair.
Generally, devs decided to make him some sort of perfect son and family member. For someone who hates his parents, these parts of the game are annoying to watch.
Also, he is all too eager to chase after 'powerful' women. Generally, women in this game yell in annoying commanding voices. Lucy was gentle and docile in the first game, in second they turned her into a Karen instead. And they added more Karens in it to ruin things.
Generally, this women-chasing it abhorrent. Characters are so willing to do anything for a girl, it is abhorrent. Why cannot they have self-respect and make women grovel before them on their knees and beg for attention.
Outcomes
Of course, a second game is somewhat a transitional piece that combines ideas and ideologies that made the original game with those that completely oppose them. However, in many ways it is the opposite of the previous one. I think this trend continued in later games, where there was nothing left of the independent mind-ness and opposition to authority.
Instead of an insurgent who protects weak from strong and destroys unjust authority, we have brawler who beats weak and grovel before strong, old or any 'authority figure' people, who someone told him to follow.
If original Assassin's Creed taught to question authority and think for yourself, then its sequel instead taught to blindly follow authority figures and women.
Similar Patterns in Other Games
However, this is not the issue of just this game in particular. In World of Warcraft, we notice a similar trend. That is why veteran players dislike new WoW. After Cataclysm characters grovel before authority figures or 'father figure' people. This kiss up, kick down is disgusting to watch.
They always serve someone higher and more important than them. Either Old Gods or Titans. Sure, Old Gods and Titans were in WoW before, but characters looked after their own interests and desires. Templars in first Assassin's Creed were motivated mostly by self-interest, their loyalty to the organization and the cause was secondary.
No comments:
Post a Comment