Why Assassin's Creed 2 and 3 Had the Best Writing the Series Has Ever Seen

One of the most memorable moments in the entire Assassin's Creed series unfolds early in Assassin's Creed III. Haytham Kenway, having assembled his team in the New World—or so the player believes—exhibits all the hallmarks of an Assassin: the hidden blade, the charisma reminiscent of Ezio Auditore, and heroic actions like freeing Native Americans and confronting British redcoats. The revelation only comes with his utterance of the familiar Templar phrase, "May the Father of Understanding guide us," a stunning twist revealing our allegiance to the enemy.

This masterful setup exemplifies Assassin's Creed's untapped potential. The first game introduced an intriguing premise—locate, learn about, and eliminate targets—but fell short narratively, with both Altaïr and his victims lacking depth. Assassin's Creed II improved by introducing the iconic Ezio, yet its adversaries remained underdeveloped, as seen in the underwhelming Cesare Borgia of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Only in Assassin's Creed III, set during the American Revolution, did Ubisoft dedicate equal effort to developing both hunter and hunted, creating a seamless narrative flow and achieving a rare balance of gameplay and story rarely replicated since.

While the current RPG era enjoys widespread acclaim, a consensus among articles, videos, and online discussions points to a decline in the Assassin's Creed franchise. The reasons are debated: unrealistic premises involving gods like Anubis and Fenrir, the implementation of romance options, or the controversial use of a real historical figure like Yasuke in Assassin's Creed: Shadow. However, I argue the decline stems from the series' abandonment of character-driven storytelling, overshadowed by 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. However, this expansion has led to a sense of emptiness, not only in the numerous side quests but also in the core narrative.

Although games like Assassin's Creed Odyssey boast more content than Assassin's Creed II, much of it feels underdeveloped. While player choice theoretically enhances immersion, the lengthy scripts needed to accommodate multiple scenarios often lack polish. The focused, screenplay-like scripts of the action-adventure era fostered sharply defined characters, unburdened by a structure demanding capricious shifts in personality. The result is a lack of immersion; the interaction with characters often feels artificial rather than engaging with complex historical figures.

The writing has also suffered in other ways. Modern games often rely on a simplistic good versus evil dichotomy (Assassins=good, Templars=bad), while earlier installments explored the complexities of this conflict. In Assassin's Creed III, defeated Templars challenge Connor's beliefs, forcing the player to question their own assumptions. William Johnson suggests the Templars could have prevented genocide; Thomas Hickey criticizes the Assassins' mission; Benjamin Church highlights the subjectivity of morality. Haytham undermines Connor's faith in George Washington, revealing the future nation's potential despotism and exposing Washington's role in the burning of Connor's village. The game concludes with more questions than answers, enhancing its narrative power.

The enduring popularity of "Ezio's Family" from Assassin's Creed II's soundtrack highlights the emotional resonance of the PS3-era games, particularly Assassin's Creed II and Assassin's Creed III. These were character-driven experiences; the music reflects Ezio's personal loss. While I appreciate the improved world-building and graphics of the current games, I hope the franchise will eventually return to its roots, delivering focused narratives that recapture the magic of its earlier installments. Sadly, in the current gaming climate, this may not be a financially viable approach.