Poll: Assassins Creed: Anyone else hate Desmond?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

First off, I know it's all been discussed before, but really I just wanted to throw a poll up with the question as I couldn't find one that had been done before. As for the below, it's just my thoughts on the whole Desmond thing. There are also (mild) spoilers.

Anyway, I'm a massive Assassins Creed fan. I was working at EB Games when the first one was announced and followed it closely till launch - loved it and continued to love the sequels.

Prior to release of the first game, there was no mention about the whole 'Desmond' thing. I mean there were a few rumours and such, but basically the game was advertised as getting to play an awesome assassin in historical locations with sweet graphics and a great free running system. Things it delivered on. EB even has a 'vendors' show each year where management from all the stores go and pretty much have their own private E3. AC was on display and a guy did a demo, but again, no mention of this futuristic aspect of the game. Questions were even asked about why he had a health bar and things like that but they wouldn't be answered.

The thing I remember being the most annoying about AC1 was having an awesome time running around being a kick arse assassin only to be yanked out of the game (ALWAYS after the most fun part, assassinating a main target) and having to stuff about in a lab for 5 minutes before getting back to the game I was enjoying. Whhhhyyyy? It strikes me that that this is a fairly universal opinion as Ubisoft improved on this slightly in AC2 and finally in Brotherhood let you play the bulk of the game without ever getting out of the Animus.

Anyway with Revelations coming up in a few months I'm really hoping they take a similar approach - i.e., just let me play the game and don't drag me out every 10 minutes to stuff about with Desmond. I do actually like how it adds to the plot, but I don't like the immersion breaking way you get jarred back into the present. The way it got around this in Brotherhood was nice, i.e., a few minutes at the start then some time at the end. You can leave the Animus if you like but if you don't want to you don't need to. If they continue with this trend then I guess I'm fine with it.

I really do wish they'd taken a different approach with the storyline there - I mean, yes, we're following how Desmonds ancestors dealt with these ancient artefacts so that we can go get them in the future... OK. But what's the issue with having Altaïr and Ezio just tell their story about it?

I realise we're not done with the story yet so it's entirely possible that things will unfold in such a way that will really bring it all together and I'll look back and say 'well.. in hindsight I guess it was a pretty cool way to do it'. But even if I do then really is that worth being annoyed at it for the previous games? Guess we'll find out.

So anyway... what're your thoughts on Desmond?

I actually like Desmond's story a lot. Moreso in AC1 than AC2(until the end segment anyway), but liked him again in Brotherhood.

In AC1, his story was the only thing keeping me going. I just found the whole repetitiveness of the game to be very boring(not in the begining of course. More around the halfway mark). But when I would think of going back to being Desmond and finding more about the overall story, that would give me the strive to keep on going. Didn't particularly care for Altair's story(though honestly that has more to do with the fact the game had no subtitles and my tvs volume was being all wanky back then, so I guess that could be a personal problem), and didn't really connect with him.

In AC2, so much focus was given to Ezio. Liked it a lot, and think its one of the best things about that game. However, Desmond's overall focus(again, except for the last segment of the game) is so miniscule(especially since the other members of the group don't get much focus), it feels sort of tacked on I guess.

Brotherhood was a bit better in this regard. You still had the Ezio's story, but now you could talk to team a lot now. Plus you got to do more actual stuff as Desmond. And while its been a while, I don't think the game ever really forced you out of the Animus' sessions did it? It let you know you could talk to your team/check emails, but that was it unless I'm mistaken(Please correct me if I am). I actually kind of like this a bit.

Though I can totally see where people are coming from. Desmond just has a habit of not exactly doing anything worthwhile. Though hopefully this will all change pretty soon.

Course, this is all just my opinion.

I don't care a bit for the present day story, and it's mostly due to the uninteresting characters who inhabit it. Ezio is Assassin's Creed for me.

That said, I did enjoy the platforming at the end of Brotherhood.

I'm warming up the bloke, but he still need to be flesh out

I think the whole Desmond/Altair/Ezio thing the games have going is an excellent idea that allows for a much broader, more widespread conspiracy than if it was just in one time period. I just wish they'd kept going with more characters, it was such an interesting premise.

I'm not bothered by Desmond's apparently boring personality; I never really connected with him, but I always put that down to him barely being on-screen most of the time, rather than him being inherently unlikeable. Certainly I think of him more as a plot device than the central character; but he's a welcome plot device nonetheless.

When I saw the ending of Assassin's Creed 2, I didn't even care about the Templars anymore. To me, the Templars are just some organization in the background that's unintentionally trying to stop us from saving the world. So yeah, I like the modern day story at least as much as the past ones. Granted both Desmond and Lucy were both boring as heck, but I pretty much just projected myself onto Desmond and payed attention to Shawn and Rebecca, and saw Lucy as the work-obsessed buzzkill that's only there to balance everything out.

my thoughts are that they used Desmond as a plot device for the whole assassins vs Templars scheme. but i do like the whole " Ezio doing an animus type event" with him him looking into Altiar's memories. and i'm pretty sure jumping out of the animus won't be a problem in revelations because your pretty much stuck in a (presumed) subject 16 like state with the black room area. but i'm kind of glad that there rapping up Altiar's and Ezio's stories so we can answer some of the big questions. But i'm also curious about AC3s story and where and what time the next assassin will be in.

Xathos:
And while its been a while, I don't think the game ever really forced you out of the Animus' sessions did it? It let you know you could talk to your team/check emails, but that was it unless I'm mistaken(Please correct me if I am). I actually kind of like this a bit.

Yep, you are correct, and it was my favourite way to handle it. I spose the title of me 'hating' desmond isn't quite correct, I checked the prefering of the AC:B approach. In AC1 and AC2 I seriously hated being right into the game only to be pulled out to talk to a scientist for 10 minutes or to run around a warehouse.

I just felt it added nothing to the game and that the screen time these characters were getting wasn't worth it for the things they added to the plot - i.e, Templars still exist and they want the apple too. So having them there is fine and playing them at the start and end isn't a problem, it was the inbetween things that got to me.

If they stick to this format from now on I'll be happy - I just have no interest in being pulled out of the Animus to run around for 10 minutes, go to sleep, wake back up and get back in.

It makes for an interesting framing device but overall I don't think he's necessary to the series.

I REALLY got sick of all the bits in AC1 where things would routinely grind to a halt just so he could sit up on the table & bitch.

The time periods that the games take place in are centuries apart, so I don't mind having the future story to tie them together and keep them related to each other.

Sparcrypt:
In AC1 and AC2 I seriously hated being right into the game only to be pulled out to talk to a scientist for 10 minutes or to run around a warehouse.

I actually liked that part. It kept me grounded and reminded me of how bad the situation actually was. It was also nice to be complimented on my abilities rather than called a crazy person.

He's alright. Kind of a pansy. Ezio was a much better character, the ending of Assassin's creed 2 made me feel for the guy.

Desmond was actually done perfectly. Here me out.

In AC 1 the player knew nothing of what was going on or why. In fact I know I booted it up expecting just to start romping around Jerusalem going all face stabby and shooting a crossbow (he had one damnit, in that idle cut scene he had one.) So boy was I shocked when they yanked me out. Well, then they give you Desmond, and he's kind of immediately kind of draws you in and makes you relate to him because he doesn't know anything just like you.

AC 2. He's much more involved, and interested in becoming an Assassin, as are you. The idea of following one Assassin from his inception to his graduation in the Brotherhood. Plus at this point he kind of connects all that ancient history with the modern world, so he's kind of a bridge.

In AC: Brotherhood Desmond is more of what he was always going to be, an Assassin. In fact it's kind of a stunning reversal the focus tends to be not on finding something in the past just to find it, but finding it so Desmond can actually do something important. He moves from being a pawn to a more powerful piece in this cloak and dagger stuff. Ezio actually kind of takes the back seat as the facilitator this time around.

They've also upped his personality too.

Desmond is the blandest of the bland. I get so bored with his parts in the game, he's like the Keanu Reeves of video games.

I think a better framing device would be a blank-slate protagonist being put into the Animus, along the lines of the multiplayer for AC:B. Desmond is the epitome of meh.

I don't hate desmond at all. He isn't perfect but he isn't bland or uninteresting. He's just a "There" guy. He's the one asking the questions for us.

I confess I've never played AC1, but I did play 2 and Brotherhood. I gotta say, Desmond is warming up to me, and I didn't mind his segments since they seemed to, in 2 anyway, take place between memory segments, which seem like serviceable segments for commercial breaks anyway.

Plus, I think that his parts in AC:Revelations might be interesting.

A part of me hopes that there'll at least be SOME contact with Shawn and Rebecca. Those two stole the show of the present events in Brotherhood. At least for me.

I like Desmond. He's alright.

I don't really like Ezio. He felt pretty bland/dull to me.

Technically Desmond is acting out his ancestors lives, so you've been playing Desmond this whole time!(DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUH). Plus they give us this guy who has this entire empty story, we see Ezio we see Altair, let's get to the guy that this happens to.

Kahunaburger:
I think a better framing device would be a blank-slate protagonist being put into the Animus, along the lines of the multiplayer for AC:B. Desmond is the epitome of meh.

How would a blank-slate be better?

He and the other modern assassins grew on me a lot in Brotherhood.

Damura:

Kahunaburger:
I think a better framing device would be a blank-slate protagonist being put into the Animus, along the lines of the multiplayer for AC:B. Desmond is the epitome of meh.

How would a blank-slate be better?

Less is often more. Take Myst: it's more immersive in part because the protagonist is basically a self-insert. Assassin's Creed would lend itself well to this because there's already a protagonist - "you are controlling the boring protagonist who is controlling the interesting protagonist" is too inception-y, IMO.

I think Desmond is kind of generic. Maybe I just don't know enough about him (funny how after 3 games I still don't know that much) or maybe its just because I don't really have a reason to care for him (he hasn't done much besides sit in a chair and play games). Maybe he'll wind up being better in the future but for now he's not quiet where I care for him.

I like Desmond he's not bad and he's becoming a Assassin and his modern day storyline is very interesting.

I had no interest at all in Desmond's story. If I wanted to play a game with modern day assassins I would...

Frankly I wish Asscreed 3 would be announced and take place in a different area. I got my fingers crossed for feudal Japan.

The whole animus thing is kind of irrelevant.

I have no opinion of Desmond. He's too bland. The only hint of personality he gives is in the Monteriggioni tunnel in Brotherhood, where he switches into full-on Nathan Drake mode. Now that was cool.

I love Desmond's story, in Assassin's Creed 1 I actually looked forward to the bits where I came out of the animus, because it meant I'd be finding out more information about why I was there etc. I also found the assassin parts of AC1 a little repetitive.

Brotherhood actually pissed me off by NOT yanking me out of the animus, there was no real story kinda thing or events going on outside of it apart from a couple of emails and some hidden items.

He's OK... I don't hate him, I don't like him.

But, I do like how his story was developed and his abilities to match (sort of). Though I thought it best in AC:B because in the other two with being dragged out of the Animus at set points made it rather flowbreaking. Other than that, I didn't mind in the slightest. Thought it could've been better, but can't have everything, even though gamewise AC is one of my fav franchises.

Kahunaburger:

Damura:

Kahunaburger:
I think a better framing device would be a blank-slate protagonist being put into the Animus, along the lines of the multiplayer for AC:B. Desmond is the epitome of meh.

How would a blank-slate be better?

Less is often more. Take Myst: it's more immersive in part because the protagonist is basically a self-insert. Assassin's Creed would lend itself well to this because there's already a protagonist - "you are controlling the boring protagonist who is controlling the interesting protagonist" is too inception-y, IMO.

I don't agree. I've never enjoyed a mute protagonist.

Desmond is just enough for me at the moment. I think there is room for more of him in future games. He doesn't need to be as interesting as his ancestors but it's good to get some insights from an actual character about what they're experiencing.

Personally I didn't like Ezio that much. He seemed to me to be a pretty poor successor to Altair. Bit of a let-down in many ways. Desmond, both in and out of the animus, was quite welcome. You're probably right about Myst. I haven't played enough of it to really comment but I can see how a blank-slate character might be an advantage. In every other game I've come across that features a mute protagonist I've been pretty disappointed with them. So personally it's something I wouldn't want to see. I don't think it's for everyone (though clearly Desmond isn't for everyone either..).

ForgottenPr0digy:
I like Desmond he's not bad and he's becoming a Assassin and his modern day storyline is very interesting.

I've always wondered about that... why bother training him in the Animus? When everyone should have guns and buildings are going to be harder to climb in a modern setting, what's the use?

Xathos:
the game had no subtitles

It had subtitles

Hate is a strong word. I just don't care about him. I didn't get out of that animus for him, I got out of that animus for Shaun and Rebecca. Desmond isn't annoying, he's just boring, a plot device, akin to being a silent protagonist - just more boring. But the game would be less with him being a silent protagonist in my opinion. Despite my animosity towards brotherhood, that was one of the things they did right, but AC2 style would be fine too - it didn't do it nearly enough to piss you off. Or force you to walk down a corridor to sleep. However, Desmond is getting better, very slowly, but he's getting there.

Damura:
In every other game I've come across that features a mute protagonist I've been pretty disappointed with them.

My take is more that Assassin's Creed already has protagonists - Altair and Ezio. Desmond's more of a framing device/backup protagonist, and if he didn't talk (or was a blank slate) the game would still have a speaking protagonist. It would also allow them to focus on the protagonist with the more extensive personality and character arc. Also, if Desmond wasn't in the picture the series would be a lot more flexible in terms of where it could take the next games, because they aren't limited to the genetic memories of one person.

Well when I got AC2 and saw they didn't fix the shit they should and threw away the story parts I wanted to see expand it was done for me, stuck it on ebay and got nearly all my money back.
So I'm fairly happy as the series stands, with a good resale value :)

He's always come off as generic to me, I don't hate him but I don't particularly like or care about him...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked