AC and the Conundrum of Sequels
So I've noticed a particular trend that paraded many people's minds within the AC community, and that's been the gradual descent into this rather presumptuous mentality that the more sequel games a character has, the more unequivocally 'better' their development is as a character. This is often followed by Ezio used as the poster child.
[Disclaimer: I don't hate Ezio or Bayek, I'm just using them to illustrate my points]
While I understand this sentiment, I've also learned that under a more critical lens, a lot in the case of Ezio's supposed "growth" has arguably always been more aesthetical than anything of substance.
When we are first introduced to Ezio in AC2, we are already bombarded with a character that is far too perfect. It's hard to think of any genuine flaws in his personality or behavior - especially those that have any lasting consequences for the plot. He never quite makes any mistakes either; it doesn't help that everywhere he goes there's a small army of people desperate to help him out. He also has actual armies willing to help him at the drop of a hat, as well as being best friends with one of the smartest people in human history. His achievements in the plot are all handed to him on a silver platter.
He's never made to learn to do anything for himself. At first, you feel like that could have been the point of the early game. Ezio's father and brothers are dead, he's a wanted man and he needs to protect his mother and sister. Then, instead of trying to get them to safety, he prioritizes a chance for revenge, which suddenly brings the whole city down on him, making it harder to protect his family. The whole thing would then set up a story about Ezio having to grow up, stop being so brash and arrogant, etc. Having been born into luxury and an easy life, he now has to learn how to provide for himself and others. But these opportunities are missed.
When it comes to Ezio's motivations, I always felt like there was no reason for him to continue pursuing the Templars after all the Florentine conspirators were dead. Nor is there any kind of "Creed" or higher calling at play here, since he doesn't remotely know what the Assassins are for another ten years. He just hears that there are some bad guys in Venice and decides to go kill them. By this point, he doesn't have any real reason or motivation to continue hunting them other than his own blood lust. As a result, Ezio often feels like he is a vehicle is that dictated by the plot rather than the other way around.
I mean, only look at the average description for his character arc:
"He went from a young teen to wise master assassin and mentor."
That's all there is to say for most people: arbitrary labels. Rarely do you receive any commentary around here that delves into any shifts within his mindset, outlook, point of view, or anything that isn't just this parroted and outdated take. When we get to Brotherhood, this problem is exacerbated more where Ezio is even more static than he was before (aside from leadership and giving orders), because his arc was already concluded in the game prior where we already spent over twenty years with him where he was already leading people and giving orders. It's just more pointless and reductive padding.
Bayek is another character that normally gets wrapped up in the sequel discussion, but genuinely ask yourself:
Is there anything else left to do with Bayek in a sequel?
Much like Ezio in AC2, his arc is also pretty much wrapped up by the end of Origins (including the Hidden Ones DLC). He begins looking for revenge for his son's death; takes a stand against the Templars when he realizes the problem is far bigger than just himself; founds the Assassins to fight this corruption. What else is there to really do with the character? His arc's been concluded, it's not even like AC2 where not killing Rodrigo Borgia left a door open for a potential sequel. Any new game would essentially have to come up with a load of new goals and motivations for him to the point you may as well just come up with a new character.
But this is frustrating because we see complete and profound development from characters like Altair in a single game, even before Revelations. He begins as an arrogant jerk who sees himself as better than everyone but slowly becomes a wise individual upon learning from the complexity of his enemies and the contradictions within his own Creed. It's learning from his allies and enemies alike, learning the pros and cons of concepts like freedom and control, about what is gained and lost from acquiring both in life, does he truly become not just a better leader for the brotherhood but a better man.
We also see the same from Connor in a single game. Starting as a naive idealist who wants to fix all the world's problems, only to realize that he'll never be able to do so. The consecutive deconstruction of his naivety through each of his interactions with allies and enemies alike teaches him that the ability to judge right from wrong can sometimes be lost in a world that's presently reluctant to do the same. But through it all, he maintains his faith in his convictions and compromises with what's in his control to forge a better tomorrow for humanity. Altair & Connor reach the same conclusions about life, human nature, and their place within the ongoing struggle in one game, a fraction of the time, as much, if not more than Ezio does in three.
Yet, more is needed because we've been spoiled and entitled to more than what was necessary with Ezio. And it's honestly this fixation that holds this series back. Whenever we delve into this topic, I never really feel like the underpinnings behind what sequels actually did for Ezio and his characterization are discussed beyond the surface-level shallow aesthetics, or the ignored light-switch motivations that have made many in the community so insistent that every other character must also have this kind of treatment.
andulkaphoto
ellievsbear
dededos
tangentwithtanner
dailybridgerton
baratheonpilled
romaincrisis
