Forum:AC Rogue DLC Story???
Why AC Rogue doesn´t have a Story DLC? I mean, since AC 2 that all games have one (except AC Liberation), why the hell Ubisoft didn´t make one???
Shay Story isn´t complete, since nobody knows what hapened to him after the end of the game when he kills Arno Father and says that the Templars are ploting to start the French Revolution. If Shay has involved directly in French Revolution is unclear. But Shay Story is not the only incomplete...
Connor and Aveline Storys didn´t have a proper ending, so I tought that if there were to be a DLC Story on AC Rogue, it would join these 3 characters since they all have ties with the American Revolution. But now Ubisoft claims the American Saga ended with AC Rogue.
I dont know about you guys, but i think that Ubisoft lost a great opurtunity here. Especialy since it look like they where planing to gather all of this characters. Follow my trail of thought:
1º - In AC3, The Homested database entry says that, the Davenport Mansion "DISSAPEARED" a few years after the end of AC3 and claims that this could be a result of a Templar Attack, but is unclear. Shay could have attack the Homestead (like Cesar Borgia did when he attack Monterigioni) since he know is location.
2º- In AC Black Flag, in the end of Aveline DLC she say that would take Pattience Gibs to Connor Homestead wich means she could be there if there were a Templar Attack.
3º-In the end of AC Rogue, Charles Dorian reveal to Shay that the American Revolution undo all the work that Shay and the Templars had done on the colonies, and the responsiable has Connor. Shay could have returned to America to seek revenge against Connor.
4º-If you haven´t noticed, Connor and Shay are refflections of wich other. For Shay, Connor is wath he used to be: an Assassin that cares for the good of the people, no matter the ideals of the Assassin Brotherhood. For Connor, Shay is the person that Connor would become if he was raised by Haytham.
5º-A fight between Connor and Shay would be EPIC. The AC games had some epics battles like Altair VS Al Mualin, Ezio VS Cesar Borgia, Edward VS Bartholomew Roberts, Arno Vs Pierre de Bellec (and in the end of the game, with Germain wielding the Sword of Eden). Connor and Shay were the only that dind´t have a epic fight. I was very dissopoint with Connor fight with Haytham (we simply throw Haytam againts barrels and tables) and there was no fight with Charles Lee. I tought Shay would fight Achiles or Liam, but the only god fight he had was with Adawalé.
So was you can see, Ubisoft had plenty of ways to make a DLC Story and ending properly the story of this 3 characters. The reason why they didn´t use one of them is unknow to me.
What is your opinion on this matter???
BlackScorpion050794 (talk) 17:36, February 8, 2015
- My opinion is that it sucks. Majorly. But Ubisoft already wasted their money on the Dead Kings DLC so they probably thought "well we're done here" and moved on to Victory. Sad, really, cause Shay could really have gotten some interesting story content still. Crook The Constantine District 17:51, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
Never got why the Templars would plot the French Revolution, I literally see no gain. They'd only cause a revolution to gain more controll, dispossing of the king and using some other noble or such would make far far more sense. Revolution such as the one that occured makes the least sense of all the options.
Also if Connor had been brought up by Haytham they'd of both ended up Assassins eventually, though they might've caused issues before they converted (though maybe Connor wouldn't of converted). Haytham was clearly by the end rather regretful of his side chosen and was in many ways glad his son chose the Assassins.Bobemor (talk) 17:03, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it actually makes quite good sense for the Templars to manipulate the revolution. Germain's plan was to remove the aristocracy, which the people knew was opressing them, and replace it with the new class of wealthy merchants, bankers, etc. That way, the people would think themselves free, while the Templars took control in a more subtle way: capitalism. On top of that, the violent revolution would make the people fear unlimited freedom.--Bovkaffe (talk) 17:16, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
Surely though they would benefit more by instilling an enlightened despotism after showing how both unlimited and moderate freedoms end in failiures. And you can't argue they're doing that, they'd of done it now. Though what you say makes a lot more sense initailly, still think they'd benefit more from doing some form of constitutional monarchy atleast...Bobemor (talk) 17:32, March 9, 2015 (UTC)