Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-18014300-20170331201308 - Revision history

Soranin: Text replacement - "’" to "'"

2026-08-11T22:08:41Z

Text replacement - "’" to "'"

imported>Sol Pacificus at 20:13, 31 March 2017

2017-03-31T20:13:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 31 March 2017
Line 28:		Line 28:
	P.S. For reference, [here]( http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:210479#37) is another link to one of our discussions.		P.S. For reference, [here]( http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:210479#37) is another link to one of our discussions.

	† We noticed that in the movie, the date of “January 6” is given for the second regression which contradicts historical sources of the formal capitulation of Granada occurring on January 2. We’re not sure if this was a script error or not. <ac_metadata title="Draft of Message to Ubisoft Concerning ~~''~~Discovery~~''~~'s canonicity" related_topics="Assassin's Creed II: Discovery\|Assassin's Creed (film)"> </ac_metadata>		† We noticed that in the movie, the date of “January 6” is given for the second regression which contradicts historical sources of the formal capitulation of Granada occurring on January 2. We’re not sure if this was a script error or not. <ac_metadata title="Draft of Message to Ubisoft Concerning Discovery's canonicity" related_topics="Assassin's Creed II: Discovery\|Assassin's Creed (film)"> </ac_metadata>

imported>Sol Pacificus at 20:13, 31 March 2017

2017-03-31T20:13:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 31 March 2017
Line 28:		Line 28:
	P.S. For reference, [here]( http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:210479#37) is another link to one of our discussions.		P.S. For reference, [here]( http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:210479#37) is another link to one of our discussions.

	† We noticed that in the movie, the date of “January 6” is given for the second regression which contradicts historical sources of the formal capitulation of Granada occurring on January 2. We’re not sure if this was a script error or not.<ac_metadata title="Draft of Message to Ubisoft" related_topics="Assassin's Creed II: Discovery\|Assassin's Creed (film)"> </ac_metadata>		† We noticed that in the movie, the date of “January 6” is given for the second regression which contradicts historical sources of the formal capitulation of Granada occurring on January 2. We’re not sure if this was a script error or not. <ac_metadata title="Draft of Message to Ubisoft Concerning ''Discovery'''s canonicity" related_topics="Assassin's Creed II: Discovery\|Assassin's Creed (film)"> </ac_metadata>

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "Hey Aymar! My name is Marco, and I am a major contributor to the Assassin’s Creed Wiki, editing under the name of Sol Pacificus. We really appreciate all the hard work Ubi..."

2017-03-31T20:13:08Z

Created page with "Hey Aymar! My name is Marco, and I am a major contributor to the Assassin’s Creed Wiki, editing under the name of Sol Pacificus. We really appreciate all the hard work Ubi..."

Páàjì titun

Hey Aymar!

My name is Marco, and I am a major contributor to the Assassin’s Creed Wiki, editing under the name of Sol Pacificus.

We really appreciate all the hard work Ubisoft has put into this franchise all these years, and you guys have always been exceptionally well at maintaining consistency in lore in the past, but when we heard about Ubisoft’s decision to declare Assassin’s Creed II: Discovery non-canon in light of the film, many editors were in an uproar over this. In this case, we found the decision to be so problematic, we couldn’t help but to contact you about it and inform you of our perspective.

Prior to this news, we had hosted our own extensive discussions regarding inconsistencies between the game and the film; one of the many threads on the subject can be found [here](http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:209302). We came to the conclusion that the two are not as irreconcilable as may appear in hindsight.

As one example, although it is heavily suggested that Tomás de Torquemada is not actually a Templar in Discovery contrary to the film, Ezio only draws this conclusion based on his probing dialogue with Torquemada rather than any hard proof, and so it can be written off as a mistaken assumption. Much of the conflict between the film and Discovery stems from the fact that Ezio and Aguilar’s respective groups do not cross paths in the final stages of the Granada War. However, given that Ezio had proceeded directly from Aragon to Granada while Aguilar operated in Andalusia, as well as the immense Templar presence between these two areas and the ongoing purge of Spanish Assassins, we think it’s entirely probable for communication between the two groups to have been limited. Moreover, it’s not necessarily impossible that Ezio, for whatever reason, was needed elsewhere during the ransom exchange, especially given that on the same day, he was preoccupied with rescuing Granadan civilians from the Inquisition and assassinating Juan de Marillo. Ezio’s rescue of Sultan Muhammad XII coincides with the last battle of Granada in November 1491, but the ransom meeting most likely was set on January 2,† the date of the formal capitulation, so there is no overlap between them. The explanations to resolve some of these inconsistencies are a little shaky, but they’re not entirely unbelievable and still lie in the realm of the possibility.
I want to really emphasize though, that our misgivings about Discovery being made non-canon isn’t from the fact that we think that it’s entirely reconcilable with the film per se. Rather, there are a multitude of reasons extending from that.

The first—and perhaps most important—point is that we fear what the retcon would mean for the integrity of Assassin’s Creed lore. Subtle references to Discovery, or connecting to the game, have been repeated throughout the other works. Luis de Santángel features in the Contract missions linking Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood and Assassin’s Creed: Project Legacy. Raphael Sánchez plays a prominent role in the backstory of Assassin’s Creed: Identity—as much as we recognize that this game itself seems to be of dubious canonicity. In the database entry of “North Atlantic” in Assassin’s Creed: Rogue, Violet da Costa mentions that Abstergo insists on spelling Christopher Columbus’s name by “Christoffa Corombo”, which seems to harken back to Discovery’s practice of using the native form of his name.
While it is possible to retain all of these references while excising out Discovery, they show that the game had previously been well-integrated into Assassin’s Creed lore, at least better than the film. The film, on the other hand, still contradicts some other elements of lore. An authority higher than Alan Rikkin, the Council of Elders led by Ellen Kaye, is introduced in the film despite recent sources such as Assassin’s Creed: Unity and Assassin’s Creed: The Essential Guide clearly stating that only the three Guardians stand between the Inner Sanctum and the General of the Cross, and Rikkin, himself, is not just a member of the Inner Sanctum, but a Guardian himself. There is also, as I’ve noticed some have mentioned in your Reddit AMA, the issue of there appearing to be only one Apple of Eden in the lore of the film.
We totally respect that the film is canonical, but in light of the fact that Discovery has simply fit better into the larger lore, with less conflicts, the outright removal of the game from the lore has left many of us feeling like it has blasted a hole that didn’t have to be. We strongly believe that such a move disrupts the overall integrity of Assassin’s Creed lore, something that is so vital to maintain as much as possible given that in recent years, the franchise has been criticized for a loss in direction and cohesion. An attempt at reconciliation between the game and the film, which is possible in our analysis, would have fewer ramifications for the franchise and the lore as a whole, as well as for the faith of fans in Assassin’s Creed’s attention to continuity.

It need not be said that another reason why we at the Assassin’s Creed Wiki were so disappointed at Discovery being declared non-canon is simply because of the tremendous amount of hard work we have put into the game’s content. Check out [Mission to Aragon](http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Mission_to_Aragon), [Helene Dufranc](http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Helene_Dufranc), and [Luis de Santángel](http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Luis_de_Sant%C3%A1ngel) as but a few examples. Although these articles can be relabeled as non-canon—as we would obviously not consider deleting them outright, this admittedly still leaves the feeling that the significance of our labor on them is diminished. Moreover, there are still many examples of articles where we merged the content of the game with the film. For a prime example, check out the article [Granada War](http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Granada_War) which also gives an idea of our reconciliation between the two. We are loathe to have to radically rewrite or dismantle articles such as this, and others like [Christopher Columbus](http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Christopher_Columbus), where we had dedicated so much time and energy compiling a complete and well-written text accommodating both the game and the film’s lore.

Aside from pride in our efforts and dedication, accommodating Discovery’s new non-canonical status would be disruptive to the wiki. For instance, we would need to create entirely new articles for characters such as Christopher Columbus, Tomás de Torquemada, and Muhammad XII to reflect the canon version of events. While normally non-canonical information only has to be explained in the Trivia/Behind the Scenes section, Discovery content on these characters far eclipse that of the film, which would mean that using this approach, the body section would become stubs awkwardly outweighed by the Trivia. Having multiple articles on these characters is manageable, but it could be an additional source of confusion for readers. Such a complication is entirely unnecessary given the way we have seamlessly merged content between the film and Discovery. Our resources are already strained in keeping up to date with the great volume of new content in comics and novels released by Ubisoft this year, as well as revising older content that needs improvement; we are averse to diverting time and attention away from these projects. I must be clear that it is not that we are unwilling to do so to keep in line with Assassin’s Creed lore, but that we would find such endeavors to be wholly unnecessary when the problem is better solved—and continuity better preserved—by retaining the canonical status of Discovery and reconciling it with the film.
I might also add that we fear this may set a precedent for capricious retconning by Ubisoft for other parts of its lore set aside in side-games and supplementary material. Altaïr’s Chronicles is one example, being one of the oldest Assassin’s Creed spin-off games ever made. Though the game is littered with improbable, “malevolent”, architecture typical of classic platforming games—elements that are obviously non-canon—its plot and one of its main characters, Adha, are referenced not just in Assassin’s Creed: The Secret Crusade, but by an informant in Assassin’s Creed, in Altaïr’s codex in Assassin’s Creed II, and in Assassin’s Creed: Memories. I am sure you guys do take care to weigh these decisions in fruitful discussions, but I would like to urge nonetheless that retconning or blatantly designating a formerly integrated work as non-canon should mainly be reserved as a last resort. It is rarely looked upon favorably by fans, who are always thrilled when the developers of a franchise show their astute attention to continuity to the most minute of details.

It is the view of the Assassin’s Creed Wiki that this last resort, which invites a host of other complications, is not needed in resolving the implied conflict between the film and the video game Discovery. We understand that Ubisoft has likely discussed this issue already in-depth, but having spent so much time writing articles merging the two subjects together without much trouble, we cannot help but disapprove of this decision. There has been quite a bit of protest in our community over this, and the majority believes that it’s far more respectable of Ubisoft to make a show of effort in resolving any issues in continuity, as we have, rather than taking the simpler, yet more extreme, route of irrevocably retconning away content.

I, myself, am genuinely concerned for the future of Assassin’s Creed, and I don’t believe that this move helps with the integrity and reputation of the franchise. We hope that you take our concerns into consideration.

Sincerely,<br>
Marco<br>Sol Pacificus

P.S. For reference, [here]( http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:210479#37) is another link to one of our discussions.

† We noticed that in the movie, the date of “January 6” is given for the second regression which contradicts historical sources of the formal capitulation of Granada occurring on January 2. We’re not sure if this was a script error or not.<ac_metadata title="Draft of Message to Ubisoft" related_topics="Assassin's Creed II: Discovery|Assassin's Creed (film)"> </ac_metadata>