Honestly Connor just comes across as this naive doucebag. (SPOILERS)

#1MetlGearPIkachuPosted 12/2/2012 8:41:01 PM
I mean seriously. His whole motivation in life is is avenge the suffering of his people so he vows to kill Charles Lee. Except that Lee wasn't behind the burning of his village but instead it was his good ol friend George during his days in the British army. So Connor goes about killing Templars "Because it's his duty as an Assassin" The Assassin's in this game have no other goal than to kill the Templars regardless of what outcome may happen. They have become a reactionary force and their creed is no longer relevant. Several characters in game make light of Connor's "Hero" delusions by calling him "boy" despite being a grown man. It's not until he realizes his naivete has cost him his people and backing a government just as oppressive as the last does he grow up. Maybe that was the point. The Templars who are shown to be behind many events leading up to the Revolution and have some sort of goal. This is again reflected when he meets with Haytham, a former Assassin, who tries at least to connect with his son, but all Connor does is push him away simply because of his title because he is the "enemy". Never once does he try to have any answers he has (and you know he has many) answered by then. Haytham understands what the Assassins were really like and defected to the Templar Or........


Ok I'm going to stop now........
---
http://i.imgur.com/TjFAK.jpg http://i.imgur.com/N0HGx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/tnGo0.png http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/683/ibukiunmask.jpg
#2z_cherubPosted 12/2/2012 8:53:55 PM
Yes he does. It's been covered as nauseum here.
---
PSN: ZCherub
#3Qc_StryderPosted 12/2/2012 8:58:15 PM
I don't agree
---
Qc_Stryder said that^^
#4lll-SlimJim-lllPosted 12/2/2012 10:03:08 PM
...What?

Templars want control, it is as simple as that. Connor (or any Assassin) doesn't kill Templars out of boredom. He fights for freedom, it's obvious...>.<I mean really? This has been covered for what 5 games now? Assassins want freedom, Templars want control.

Also, I doubt many are going to bother breaking down that fortress of text you built yourself up their. Keep an eye out of this key buddy [ENTER]. Use it, become one with it.
#5TiO_GeRPosted 12/2/2012 10:06:34 PM
QC_stryder posted...
I don't agree


This. If you play the homestead missions you see he is anything but a d-bag. He's actually pretty cool and kind.
#6SymphonicRainPosted 12/2/2012 11:04:12 PM(edited)
lll-SlimJim-lll posted...
...What?

Templars want control, it is as simple as that. Connor (or any Assassin) doesn't kill Templars out of boredom. He fights for freedom, it's obvious...>.<I mean really? This has been covered for what 5 games now? Assassins want freedom, Templars want control.

Also, I doubt many are going to bother breaking down that fortress of text you built yourself up their. Keep an eye out of this key buddy [ENTER]. Use it, become one with it.


But this time it was different. I don't remember much of Al Mualim so I can't comment on him, but Ezio's adversaries were always stupidly corrupt. In this game, Haytham is just a man with a set of principles and foresight to make **** happen. He brought a strong Templar presence to the Americas, and every time Connor took down a target thinking he was doing the world some big favor, each and every victim pretty much laughed in his face at how his killing the wrong person is going to cost more lives than if he had just minded his own business.

You never feel bad in the past games killing the targets because they're always exaggerated pieces of crap, but this time there actually is a simple and basic reason for the Templars, order is needed so that people like the average user of gfaqs don't run amok.

If we could actually be trusted to live and let live, not misbehave and rape, pillage and burn everything to the ground, then sure, bring on the total freedom. I liked Connor over all but there is no denying that he was a naive kid with a stupid pipe dream. How anyone could think total freedom is good for humanity is beyond me, we barely get by with the rules we have.

Haytham 4 president.
---
"invade some poor sap and jihad bomb him" - LazyKenny
#7NorthernDruidPosted 12/3/2012 3:04:03 AM
SymphonicRain posted...
lll-SlimJim-lll posted...
...What?

Templars want control, it is as simple as that. Connor (or any Assassin) doesn't kill Templars out of boredom. He fights for freedom, it's obvious...>.<I mean really? This has been covered for what 5 games now? Assassins want freedom, Templars want control..


But this time it was different. I don't remember much of Al Mualim so I can't comment on him, but Ezio's adversaries were always stupidly corrupt. In this game


Al Mualim and his nine companions took control over the holy land, with all of them having seemingly noble goals (well, most of them). And Al Mualim playing both sides to try and become as a god. Altair was resistant to the apple and managed to take it from Al Mualim, going against his mentor after having evolved on the spiritual journey Al Mualim himself had sent him on.

Most of the villains in AC2 and Brotherhood had selfish goals and ambitions, with no real focus for the real templar goal. Ezio got into the Brotherhood for selfish reasons and left out of his own bitterness in the end.

The ACR templars are the most interesting, not because they're much better than the others, but because the allies of the Assassins this time around are abusive. Manuel Paleiologos is someone who has had his rightful kingdom stolen from him by the Ottomans and the Assassins, and he makes a point or two in his rant against Ezio, however, at the heart of his speech, lies what makes the Templars the "bad guys" of the series. That because they percieve others to be lesser than them, in need of guidance, they believe the common man has no right to his twisted, stupid, ignorant self. And it's easy to agree, to say that people need looking after. But remember that the templar way of making sure you're safe, involves breaking your knees so you can't run away.


In a way i find only Pitcairn so far (up to Church, including Biddle) to feel like a regret to have killed.

Johnson belittled the natives, and all but insulted them in order to act as their legal guardian.

Hickey didn't care for his cause, and chose sides based on payroll.

Church was simply a dick, and a traitor.

Biddle... i never really got what he was up to. It seems there was some intent on ambiguity, but i never saw it. He was admiral and all pointed to him abusing his position to sabotage the patriots and serve the templars.

Pitcairn at least, was just misunderstood. And was genuinely surprised and not only upset, but directly angry with connor.


In general though, we haven't heard anything outrageously evil from Haytham yet, and it's quite clear that as at least a few people have told him (and as he himself has noticed himself by where i am now) Connor may be backing the wrong people in assisting the patriots, believing initially their cause and goals to be the same when they are not.

By and large though, i blame Achilles for not trying to maintain the brotherhood, and for not guiding Connor to watch out for the Patriots' guile.
---
The best plans are the ones that don't work unless you wing it along the way. -Skandrae
Support Project Crystallis! http://projectcrystallis.org/
#8shygirl914Posted 12/3/2012 4:05:04 AM
Yes, Connor's naive. That's a huge part of his character. That's what makes the story sad. He's a good guy though when he knows what to do(ie,. Homestead missions).
---
Nice to meet you. :)
Friend Code: 2664-2125-3148
#9CaterwaulPosted 12/3/2012 7:04:12 AM
He had no help, and Achilles was an ass to him during the whole game. It's only expected he plays it by ear, and makes a lot of mistakes. I think that's what Ubisoft was going for, to set him apart from the other two.

With that said, I hate everything Connor does or says.
#10RedZakuPosted 12/3/2012 12:05:32 PM(edited)
NorthernDruid posted...
Biddle... i never really got what he was up to. It seems there was some intent on ambiguity, but i never saw it. He was admiral and all pointed to him abusing his position to sabotage the patriots and serve the templars.


Biddle was using his position controlling the seas to deny George Washington the supplies he needed to fight so Washington would look terrible enough in the eyes of congress that he'd get replaced by Charles Lee, which was what Haythem wanted.
---
-PSN: SeigZeon
Your logic fails more than the shields of the U. S. S. Enterprise.