the ending was not bad. why? *spoilers....duh*

#1zeroboboPosted 11/3/2012 8:07:28 PM
ok. so you got the whole minerva and juno thing. how they locked juno up and its like a big twist at the end. "but thats terrible! right?!" uh. what series have you been playing? the entire assassins creed series has been a series based on big twists and reveals at the end of each game. how is this any different?

remember the ending of AC2? when the first civilization thing was revealed, and the whole end of the world nonsense. then it just ends. and you're sitting there like "uh....wtf? thats NOT AN ENDING...." at least thats how i reacted. AC2 had a HORRIBLE ending.

but anyways, back to AC3.
desmond dying. thats a GOOD thing. why? well one dude can only have so many super influential and awesome assassin ancestors before it gets a bit goofy. desmond isn't really all that important really. not anymore. with the animus you can go back to any of the assassins or even templars.

so desmond is dead. juno is revealed to be a bad guy, she's released and apparently granted supreme powers. the world is saved by the global northern lights effect (wtf?) and thats the ending. seems fine to me. theres TONS of room for the series to continue.

how you ask? well ANYONE else with important ancestors could jump into the animus.
why would they? well to fight juno of course. they jump into the animus to help track down pieces of eden to fight against juno. plus the first civilization had all those scrapped super weapons and tech they tried to save the world. im sure some of those could come in handy against juno. more excuses to jump into the animus.

so whats the big problem? seriously i had more problems with AC2's ending than this one. this one actually made sense. AC2's was just BIG REVEAL CUT TO CREDITS BEFORE THEY ASK QUESTIONS WEEE SEQUEL BAIT!
#2MetoclesPosted 11/4/2012 4:45:41 AM
You actually provide a very good explanation and interpretation of the ending and make me think about it as well. If we step back and really look at it, what Juno is doing is a lot like what the Templars wanted in the end. They want order above all and through order, peace. I could totally see the Templars actually helping out Juno when they find out that she is the supreme being in order for the entire world to be under this control.

This only moves us to the next point as there will always be an anti-thesis to one viewpoint; that being the assassins. The animus, which was ironically invented by the Templars would become the greatest tool and weapon of the Assassin order now because it would provide you with an army of assassins through a very short period of time as we saw with Desmond. We heard about many of the other assassins through the timelines of these ancestors that Desmond lived through. Ezio and Altair knew a lot of them and met with a lot of them spanning from the entire globe.

It will be interesting to see, of course, where Ubisoft goes with it next. Will we have another main character that hinges on becoming the main focal point through their animus ancestors? Or will it be the remainder of the surviving assassins that does it? Desmond, however; was a pretty special individual to survive the psychotic repercussions of the bleeding effect, so it would probably take an equally stable individual to take on another romp through history.

Bringing us all to the inevitable last question: where will the next game take place in? We all know that Ubisoft loves to place games back into the past and immerse the player in some past time period or city, so which do they choose. Do they go with what many people want in Egypt? What many people think this AC3 would be in Japan? Or do we go somewhere completely different? That's what I love about Assassin's Creed
#3The DevourerPosted 11/4/2012 4:53:28 AM
I don't see all the hate for the ending either. The only thing that sucks is it's like...well what happens now? I feel like they did it intentionally to leave it open for ANOTHER game just like they left the massive ass cliffhangers from the first one like they did.

Was it a bad ending? No... not to me anyway. Was it satisfying? No, it just left me wanting to know what goes on next or where they will go with it. But that's all really. Definitely not ME3 levels of buffoonery like everyone wants to say...
---
FX6100, HD7970, 8G DDR3 1600, 750G/400/1T SATA2/3, 700W, Logitech G5/G510, Win7
XPS16 - i7 720QM, 6G DDR3@1333, 500G SATA, HD4670 1G, Win7
#4Ryzell16Posted 11/4/2012 7:09:12 AM
Just saying the lights were because of the solar flare not what stopped it.
---
http://cwmemory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/abraham-lincoln-shooting.jpg
ultimate facepalm
#5zerobobo(Topic Creator)Posted 11/4/2012 4:58:39 PM
Ryzell16 posted...
Just saying the lights were because of the solar flare not what stopped it.


ah ok
#6tmac2517Posted 11/4/2012 5:05:07 PM
No problem with the ideas behind the ending, problems with the way it was presented. No reactions or emotions from Desmond's team, no real conclusion.
---
GT: TanneRain
GowNation.net
#7AsbesdosMothPosted 11/4/2012 5:07:30 PM
I don't have any problem with the ending, I just thought it stopped a little suddenly, there's the whole conversation with Minerva and Juno, the vision of a possible future, all cool, and I understand Desmonds decision, and kind of agree with it, but then Des dies, we see some space magic (without a moral choice to determine colour) radio gives the all clear, roll credits. I was hoping to see some of the aftermath, that's all.

It's obvious we'll see further games to expand it, but this was the last in that trilogy, I would've liked a little more closure.
---
My other pack mule is a wood elf.
#8HeeroAODPosted 11/4/2012 5:07:37 PM
In my opinion the reason the ending was lame and lacked conviction is because this was supposed to be the end of a tale. In ac2 that ending was supposed to be a cliffhanger just like ac1, acb and acr because it continued on. In this ending we get "oh you worked hard to save the world and stop the Templars from ruining freedom, but hey, let's kill you off in self sacrifice, only to undue everything the assassins have fought for, betray your teachings, and unleash the worst evil to enslave humanity. And for what purpose exactly? Simple, to create a placeholder in the series so ubisoft can now take any direction with the next animus person and continue the story for as long as they feel like milking this series, since its so critically acclaimed. So many plot points were ignored, like all of subject 16s warnings and messages, all for ending a game, and actually beginning it all over again. Templars will side with Juno, assassins will fight back, Minerva may assist them, and it goes on and on and on. It was not the end of Desmond's story, but a way to prolonged the ac series to become cod. I hate to say it but its what seems most likely. In the end it was ubisoft that were the true Templars. What an end....
---
Gt is HeeroAOD
#9zerobobo(Topic Creator)Posted 11/4/2012 5:07:43 PM
tmac2517 posted...
No problem with the ideas behind the ending, problems with the way it was presented. No reactions or emotions from Desmond's team, no real conclusion.


no real conclusion.....

you realize you're playing an assassins creed game right?
NONE of them have had solid conclusions. its all sequel bait every single time.

at the end of AC1 your reaction is like "huh? WTF?"
at the end of AC2 your reaction is like "huh? WTF? whats going on?!?!"
at the end of BH your reaction is like "wait what?"
ect. ect. ect.
#10assassin2568Posted 11/4/2012 5:14:25 PM
juno told connor that he made an influence on the world, and that hed do so again. this means either desmond isnt dead, will gets in the animus, or desmond has at least one sibling.
---
If murder cant solve your problems, you're in deep s---.