Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
WARNING: This article HAVE spoilers. If you didn't play the game, don't wanna know about the game's plot or are lucky enough to have never read something about it: these are not the best comments to read. TOLD YA.
What's up guys, Yellow Ledbetter here.
Well, we all know Assassin's Creed franchise is around history facts. We all found awesome how they manage to warp history but being accurate on deaths (not causes, of course), dates and ideas. As you all know, since the beginning of the game it never seemed that it would took the way we are right now. When Altaïr adventures started, the Apple was discovered, we knew we had some "steampunk" fact. After it, Ezio Auditore was shown as the most known character of the series, but in all three games, it still made the same fictional point since the beginning.
But now, we all (at the least who played/watched/heard/read) know how Assassin's Creed III ended. And, in my opinion, was a WTF moment. I mean to say, that edning where Juno is somehow freed and Desmond dies, the world is "saved". Didn't you think it went too far?
If you think it went too far, far beyond the pattern of AC I and II (Brotherhood/Revelations) comment below. Just to remeber: if anyone think it was dissident from all others, maybe in a strange way, it does not mean that the game was a lame and Connor sucks and etc. It has no connection. I'm asking about the development of the plot, and maybe if that ashtonished most of us, it does not mean the game is awesome (because IT IS AWESOME). But if you think it was totally expected and the ending was in the pattern, let me know too.