Assassin's Creed 3 is so chock-a-block with new features it's more or less a new IP, according to creative director Alex Hutchinson. The game's only real point of commonality with Assassin's Creeds of yore is returning shadow lead Desmond Miles, apparently, reliving the life and times of new character Connor via the ever-convenient Animus device.
Hutchinson also reckons it may be time for Desmond to bow out. "It's more like The Twilight Zone," he told the Verge, describing the series arc. "There's always a guy introducing it and he's there every episode, but each game completes its own story.
Desmond isn't the only possible insertion vector for the franchise's trips around history, Hutchinson argued. "I think what you do is you finish it. It's not the only conceit you can use. There's other ways you can frame the experience. I always pitched it to the guys on this game to think of it almost like Star Trek. Each game is a season [...] each big number is a sub-title.
"We're not changing the universe, but we're being given the reins to the equivalent of [Star Trek:] The Next Generation. Yes, it's the Star Trek universe, and that has certain immutable laws and there's a base kind of tone to it, but within that you can do whatever you want."
Assassin's Creed 3 already bends the series rules to their fullest, he went on. "Without the Desmond, we could have called it anything else, and people would have said okay. It's just we like the wrapper of being an assassin and being in this continuing war against Templars. There's huge value in that. But [Assassin's Creed 3] is 90% a new game."
So is Desmond going to cop it in Assassin's Creed 3 or a future title? "I think Desmond needs to end at some point. You know what I mean? Things that go on too long lack resonance. We're asking people to remember seven years' worth of story. Which is like saying you were in junior high and now you're finishing college. And you need to remember what you were doing in junior high."
Loading video...
A few quick thoughts. One, I find it hard to credit the idea that the only or most significant thing Assassin's Creed 3 shares with prior games is Desmond. I mean, look at it. Two, much as I enjoy Assassin's Creed's era mixing, I'm interested to play a "hardcore" specimen that's set entirely in the past, with no fancy Animus overlay and no present-day background voice to distract me from the period trappings. What's your take? And how would you feel about an Assassin's Creed game that focuses solely on Desmond?
6 comments so far...
Bezza89 on 23 Jul '12 said:
Yeah get rid, end his storyline for gods sake! Stop raping him in half decent sequels and introduce someone new.
Plamsa wing on 23 Jul '12 said:
Hopefully Assassin's Creed 3 will be the end of his story, while he isn't too bad, they just haven't really improved his character that much.
The two "spin-off's" should have really used another character.
callumsimz on 23 Jul '12 said:
It would be good to have an Assassins Creed that focuses only on Desmond so they can finish off his story.
Plamsa wing on 23 Jul '12 said:
As long as it's not a really shit attempt at a first person platformer.
bamozzy on 23 Jul '12 said:
Assassins Creed to me has little to do with Desmond - it certainly isn't the first thing I think of when I think of the series. I don't necessarily think he needs to go either or be replaced although there does need a better explanation as to why he needed to access the Animus and complete those missions. It does help with the story - that each is a memory and we can replay each sequence but why we are doing this from Desmond and/or modern times needs better explanation - but it certainly shouldn't be a prominent feature of Assassins Creed. Desmond (or whoever he is replaced by) isn't necessary you could play the entire Assassins Creed stories without needing a Desmond!
Grummy on 23 Jul '12 said:
It's made quite clear through the games that there are other cells of modern day assassins in other cities across the world. It's perfectly believable in the context of this world that the Templars have other missions, other objectives and the Assassins are trying to prevent them in other locations, there is no reason why there has to be just one hero and one objective on the go at any one time. Desmond's story does not need to continue, it can end and it doesn't need to be the ultimate victory. Anything could happen. AC has always been good at placing the Assassins as the heroes, but if you listen to the conversations with the Assassination targets, the truth is often much murkier, and whilst yes, some of those marks were little buggers, there was a constant theme of 'greater good' running through the actions of the Templars.
Desmond's story can end, he could win in the end, leading his cell against the Templars, beating them to an object or some other victory. He could die, it doesn't matter, he is not essential. Neither is the Animus. The future of the series could show things from the Templar perspective, show how they are not necessarily evil or bad, and that from their PoV the Assassins ARE, in fact, the ones in the wrong. Any number of stories are possible, and any number of settings in place and time.
It is also possible to continue the story without the animus, how about a series of 3 games that tells the ongoing battle between Templars and Assassins over the same MacGuffin throughout history. There could be a continuing theme, a strand of history and story that links the games, but we're not seeing it through the Animus, rather we're seeing it as it happens throughout history.
The range of possibilities for this franchise is huge, and Desmond really doesn't need to be a part of them.