Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

34 comments

  • StrayGator - October 25, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    "With origins that trace back to Cain and Abel" I'm curious as for where is that mentioned.
  • Nmdogdude - October 25, 2012 2:22 p.m.

    It's mentioned in one of the glyph puzzles in ACII
  • Ronnie-_- - October 26, 2012 5:31 p.m.

    If you solved the puzzles in Assassins Creed 2, the Glyphs, you would have seen that there was whole entire set of puzzles dedicated to Cain and Abel. That's probably where they got it from.
  • Z-man427 - October 25, 2012 12:58 p.m.

    Lucy being a Templar wasn't revealed in Brotherhood's DLC, but rather The Lost Archive for Revelations. Daniel Cross and Desmond will meet in ACIII. All signs point to it (point... blade... pun again) from AC Initiates and the Multiplayer and The Chain comic. Desmond will save the world, but probably won't survive himself.
  • Redeater - October 25, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    Holy Christ, nothing like having MAJOR plot points hidden in payable DLC. I played through each of these games twice and I still happened to miss half of these.
  • pl4y4h - October 25, 2012 2 p.m.

    Wow you would think they wouldn't take a huge plot twist and make it dlc. And here i was feeling bad for her death.
  • MyCoolWhiteLies - October 25, 2012 2:01 p.m.

    Geez. I played though all of ACI, II, Brotherhood, and part of Revelations (though no DLC) and I didn't know at least 2/3 of this stuff. I assume a lot of details are filled in by even more tertiary materials? (handheld/mobile games, comics, etc)
  • KniL - October 25, 2012 8:14 p.m.

    No, almost everything they say in this article is in the games. And most important, the Revelation Game and the Ending is Crutial to understand everything :P You must have to finish it.
  • rayoisyou1 - October 25, 2012 10:12 p.m.

    That's so strange.. I figured most of this out after AC2
  • BladedFalcon - October 25, 2012 3:31 p.m.

    ...Holy shit the story really became far more complex and convoluted after the events of ACII. That's the last game i had played, I only knew pretty much like a quarter of what's mentioned here... Which is all the more reason I'm thankful this article was made. I was planning to jump into ACIII without bothering to read much more than the synopsis of AC:B and AC:R. But now I realize that if I've done just that, I would have been very confused still... Here's hoping ACIII does provide a major sense of finality, or at the very least closure from the main events in the trilogy. Either way though, I'm probably signing off from getting invested into the franchise after I play it. It's a cool series, but it's getting way too convoluted and relying to much in DLC and tertiary products for me to want to give a shit.
  • ertywerty - October 25, 2012 4:16 p.m.

    Ya same I hope they finish with Desmond's story for good and branch off into other things because it is such a big universe jumping time periods alot. However i won't be surprised if they have another cliffhanger at the end... Every assassins creed has had one so far.
  • KniL - October 25, 2012 8:25 p.m.

    You need to play the other games to understand everything :P You can't play ACIII without finishing Brotherhood and Revelations D: WTF, both ACII's secuels have the most important history of the saga
  • BladedFalcon - October 25, 2012 10:10 p.m.

    "You can't play ACIII without finishing Brotherhood and Revelations D:" Yes I can, and I will, just watch me :P Also, to be honest, from what I've seen and read, including in this article. It doesn't really seem that the most juicy or shocking details of the universe are told in the main story of those two games. Lucy's revelation of being a spy is apparently revealed only trough DLC, and the whole thing about Daniel Cross isn't in the games either. The actual story of brotherhood and Revelations feels rather straightforward and not really that hard to catch up on watching it trough vids.
  • KniL - October 26, 2012 2:40 p.m.

    Then, you're just stupid.
  • BladedFalcon - October 26, 2012 3:02 p.m.

    *laughs* Such a coherent, intelligent response! I feel so insulted! *Le Gasp!* Yeah, I'm so stupid that I'm gonna end up enjoying the same game as you, only I didn't have to waste extra 120 bucks on two pointless sequels, what an idiot I am. *rolls eyes*
  • WooddieBone - October 28, 2012 4:51 p.m.

    Not playing brotherhood and revelations is like not playing snake eater. You wasted a lot of time playing through first two games if you dont play acb and acr. Its like not playing halo because they didnt change the protagonists. Both brotherhood and revelations are full lenght independent games in the series.
  • BladedFalcon - October 28, 2012 8:23 p.m.

    Can't really compare Brotherhood and revelations with Snake eater. For one, Snake eater is an actual proper sequel and full fledged, expanded game. It offers a much different, refined gameplay to it's predecessor, not just a new story. Really, ten years ago, Both Brotherhood and Revelations would have been treated and priced for what they really are: Expansions. They are really made on the same basis and don't add that very much on the actual gameplay design save a few new weapons and modes. Sure, even watching all the cut-scenes in youtube won't be the same as playing the actual game, but it beats by far having to dish out even 20 bucks for each of them. That, and i don't have the time or patience to play them since none of them are short games.
  • WooddieBone - October 30, 2012 3:03 p.m.

    Still. CoD games are all considered seperate games when they are nothing more than CoD 2 with different skins and maps. Every GTA game is the same shit. ACB and ACR have the same importance in the series as AC and AC2. You can't call them AC2 sequels cuz they are AC sequels too and full games with lots of different new stuff to explore. You had a brotherhood that stood by your side at all times, you had a management minigame with the same brotherhood, you had a HUGE new city to explore and restore and RIDE A HORSE in it. Ezio even learned how to throw some weapons. Maybe Revelations didn't add much new stuff but it made up for that with Altair Memories and being the most important sequel of the series because of it's story and, well, all the REVELATIONS that are in there. AND it still had SOME new stuff like bombs and NOT RIDING HORSES inside a city :) But most importantly Revelations introduced a whole new setting and an underground fucking city. Tomb Raider never changed it's protagonist and you don't see anyone calling any Tomb Raider an expansion. Same goes for MGS series. You are very narrow minded.
  • Ronnie-_- - October 26, 2012 5:41 p.m.

    Agree with you 100%, man. I absolutely love Assassins Creed 2, and it's not because of the story (let's be honest, the story is a joke, I'm talking about the aliens, animus, and that crap) it's because of the music and just the sheer joy of exploring the city all calm. I hated Brotherhood, because it was a pointless "sequel", skipped Revelations, and am eager to play Assassins Creed 3 for all of the changes and additions they've made to the series. It will be good, but I will not be playing another AC after this.
  • avantguardian - October 26, 2012 9:56 p.m.

    i'm right with you guys (except i think the blending of real life "myth" and science fiction makes for a unique, interesting tale...sorry ronnie). loved ac1 and 2, brotherhood and revelations just seemed unnecessary (the extra emphasis on multiplayer didn't help). ac2 plus its dlc had really burned me out on the game's style. combat is still a joke, and the games are WAY too easy. hopefully, ac3 delivers. @KniL: well, we're all caught up now, aren't we? and also, who gives a shit?

Showing 1-20 of 34 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.