One of the most memorable moments in the entire Assassin’s Creed series occurs early in Assassin’s Creed 3. Haytham Kenway, having assembled his band of assassins in the New World (or so the player believes), embodies the charisma of previous protagonist Ezio Auditore. He uses a hidden blade, rescues Native Americans from prison, and even confronts British redcoats—all seemingly heroic acts. Only his utterance of the familiar Templar phrase, “May the Father of Understanding guide us,” reveals his true allegiance: he’s a Templar.
This surprising twist perfectly encapsulates Assassin’s Creed’s untapped potential. The first game introduced an intriguing concept—locate, learn about, and eliminate targets—but its story fell short, with both Altaïr and his victims lacking personality. Assassin’s Creed 2 improved things by replacing Altaïr with the iconic Ezio, but its adversaries remained underdeveloped, as seen with Cesare Borgia in Brotherhood. Only in Assassin’s Creed 3, set during the American Revolution, did Ubisoft dedicate equal effort to developing both hunter and hunted. This created a natural narrative flow and achieved a balance between gameplay and storytelling rarely matched since.
While the current RPG era is generally well-received, many articles, videos, and forum posts suggest Assassin’s Creed is in decline. The reasons are debated. Some cite increasingly fantastical premises (battles against Anubis and Fenrir), others point to romance options, or even the controversial use of a real-world historical figure like Yasuke in Assassin’s Creed Shadows of Memories. However, I believe the decline stems from the series' abandonment of character-driven storytelling, lost within sprawling open worlds.
Over time, Assassin’s Creed has incorporated RPG and live-service elements: dialogue trees, XP systems, loot boxes, microtransactions, and gear customization. But larger installments feel emptier, not just due to repetitive side quests, but also in their storytelling.
Games like Assassin’s Creed Odyssey boast more content than Assassin’s Creed 2, yet much feels underdeveloped. While player choice enhances immersion theoretically, longer scripts to accommodate multiple scenarios often lack polish. The focused scripts of the action-adventure era created sharply defined characters, unaffected by player choices forcing compassion or brutality. The result is a lack of immersion; interactions feel with computer-generated characters rather than complex historical figures.
This contrasts sharply with the Xbox 360/PS3 era, featuring some of gaming's finest writing. From Ezio's defiant speech after defeating Savonarola to Haytham's tragicomic final words to his son, Connor:
“Don't think I have any intention of caressing your cheek and saying I was wrong. I will not weep and wonder what might have been. I'm sure you understand. Still, I'm proud of you in a way. You have shown great conviction. Strength. Courage. All noble qualities. I should have killed you long ago.”
The writing has also suffered from simplification. Modern games often present a simplistic Assassins=good, Templars=bad dichotomy. Earlier games explored the blurred lines between the two orders. In Assassin’s Creed 3, defeated Templars challenge Connor's (and the player's) beliefs. William Johnson suggests the Templars could have prevented genocide. Thomas Hickey criticizes the Assassins' mission. Benjamin Church highlights the subjectivity of morality. Even George Washington's actions cast doubt on the Assassins' cause. The result is a story that leaves the player questioning everything—a strength the series has lost.
AnswerSee ResultsThe popularity of "Ezio’s Family" from Assassin’s Creed 2’s soundtrack highlights the impact of character-driven narratives. The PS3-era games, especially Assassin’s Creed 2 and Assassin’s Creed 3, prioritized character development. While I appreciate the current games’ world-building and graphics, I hope the series will return to more focused storytelling—a style that made the franchise so captivating.
