Talk:Assassin's Creed/Archive 1

Assassin's Creed II Platforms

I added Mac OS X to the list of platforms as ACII is now being sold on the Mac platform as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.36.116 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I added Brotherhood as available on OS X since they just started offering it. 98.232.18.134 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed II: Multiplayer

Why was Assassin's Creed II: Multiplayer (2010) for the iPhone removed from the list of games? If no one answers, I may just put it back. Agiar2000 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have received a message from the editor who removed Assassin's Creed II: Multiplayer from the list, and he did not realize that it was a separate game for the iPhone. That is why I am placing it back in the list. Agiar2000 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was Assassin's Creed II: Multiplayer (2010) for the iPhone removed from the list of games again? It is a real game that has actually been released already. http://assassinscreed.us.ubi.com/assassins-creed-2/iphone_multi.php Agiar2000 (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed II: Discovery

I did not put up the neutrality dispute tag, but I agree that there is something wrong with that section as it stands. While the first part of it seems okay to me, the rest of it reads more like a review in and of itself than of an encyclopedic article or even an article reporting on a review. I do not think it is appropriate to use words like "guy" or qualitative phrases saying how great something is or isn't as part of an encyclopedic article. I especially do not think it should ever mention the first person, "That's pretty much my only large complaint about Assassin's Creed: Discovery, though." This should not read like someone's blog or personal take on the game. What say you Wikipedians out there? Can we get this cleaned up? If I do not see any responses, I may try to clean it up myself, whenever I can get around to it. Agiar2000 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The section seems somewhat personal and subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.52.194 (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Games

I'd suggest removing all the games listed after Assassin's Creed III in this section, because 1.) there hasn't been any statements referring to any games past that, and 2.) this series was confirmed as a trilogy, long before the first game was released. All the games listed after AC3 are just speculation and wishful thinking on someone's part. Not only that, but the year that AC3 comes out is speculation as well, we only have one known Assassin's Creed game possibly coming out as late as 2011, and that's Brotherhood. In fact, I'd wait for them to actually announce any more games past Brotherhood before actually listing them or possible release dates for them.

EDIT: I went ahead and fixed it. Removed all the games listed after AC3; changed the release dates for AC: Episodes, AC: Brotherhood, and AC3; and fixed spelling errors. I left Brotherhood and Episodes separate, though it's likely the same game given that they just now acquired the Brotherhood domain.

One more edit, apparently it wants to have that section expanded now that I deleted that, but since I'm new to editing this sort of thing, I'll let someone else deal with that. -  — [Unsigned comment added by 74.133.10.50 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 April 2010.]

It was caused by an error in the table. You'd deleted the close table marker which caused the table to think that the following expand section template was the end marker. - X201 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed II: Brotherhood

I've reverted the Assassin's Creed II: Brotherhood section back to its original "Episodes" title. All that has happened is that Ubisoft have registered a domain name. There is no evidence that this is for one of the Episode games. It may be for a totally unconnected title or even Assassin's Creed III. To say that Brotherhood is Episodes is total guesswork. - X201 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood has been confirmed via Kotaku to be the Episodes project. I've gone ahead and updated the page to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.10.50 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No. It hasn't been comfirmed to be one of the Episodes games. Only that its an Assassin's Creed title. I have reverted your edit untill there is confirmation that Brotherhood is one of the Episodes games. Either way the Episodes section will need to stay because there is at least one other game that we know nothing about. - X201 (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the Episodes project (only one game, not more than one as you've stated) was said to be out this fiscal year, I highly doubt it's anything but. In addition, IGN's listings for the Episodes project also redirects to Brotherhood now. And everything listed on the cover of the Brotherhood reserve box is what we were told was the Episodes project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.10.50 (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Assassin's III period

Has it been stated for sure that it will take place in the colonial era? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.201.211 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not by a reliable source. - X201 (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It states that in the table, maybe we should remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.201.211 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Speculation should only be based on a reliable source from Ubisoft itself or the developer subsidiary. Either something they let slip or cruising the Ubisoft forums and seeing if anyone who actually works for the company gives hints. Putting it just because says it on some gaming site isn't good enough, they need to be using a good source themselves. Hpelgrift (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Creation of Assassin's Creed Portal

I Think Assassin's Creed is popular enough we should create a portal for AC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannywahyudigho (talk • contribs) 11:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly support this idea as this game series is incredibly popular with ever expanding media and as Ubisoft have said they plan on milking it for everything it's worth and saying they could do as many as 30 games (run-on). It's also incredibly awesome and pwns like no other game, but that's just my opinion (It's really fact, but I can't put that.)Hpelgrift (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional material on Assassin's Creed: Project Legacy

Heres an article by the Sydney Morning Herald's Digital Life section about the game: Ubisoft sends 'Assassins' to Facebook. Salavat (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What's is the games rating?

It would be good to have the rating of the game(s) in the main article. (Tim) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.136.200 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved per request and discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Assassin's Creed (series) → Assassin's Creed — According to WP:NCVG, this page should be shifted to Assassin's Creed as the series now consists of 8 games, 2 graphic novels, 1 novel, a series of comic books, a short film and an animated short film. Thus it is more common for people to be searching for the series rather than the first game when they are looking for "Assassin's Creed". KiasuKiasiMan 11:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Assassin's Creed → Assassin's Creed (video game)

• Oppose - within the general VG community, while it is a series, the title "Assassin's Creed" used alone almost always is about the first game. To most gamers, there's only 3 games (the portable versions don't count for them, and spinoff media doesn't matter much). --MASEM (t) 14:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll pull Kingdom Hearts as an example, its a game with only 2 numbered games but 4 handheld games, it also has a series of mangas and novels. So as long as a series has more than 3 games (I don't think mobile phone titles count) as well as media of some form in a media other than video games. It should take the main series' name, especially given a series which is currently releasing a game every year.KiasuKiasiMan 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I release the quantity and type of media for KH and AC are nearly the same, and I do agree that when most people say "KH" they mean most anything from the franchise and not so much the first game.. But based mostly on a general read from articles and forums, "Assassin Creed" nearly always refers to the first game. Why they are treated differently, I dunno (possibly AC having larger exposure on new consoles...), but that's my interpretation and read for why the first game is more significant than the series. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • And to add - with something like KH, most people would likely have difficulty differing what happens in what game (unless they are die-hard fans of it), while each AC game is very distinct from the others, making the individual titles stand out more, than this general "when did this happen in the series" concept. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment wouldn't people look for the first game as Assassin's Creed 1 ? 65.94.45.167 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment naming a game with the number "1" behind it isn't according to naming conventions. See: Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy (video game) or Twisted Metal and Twisted Metal (video game) for reference.KiasuKiasiMan 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree there. Since the first Assassin's Creed game does not have a 1 in the title that would make Assassin's Creed 1 a made up title which we can't use. The only way I could ever see that used would be if the developers rerelease the game using the 1.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: WP:NCVG – "If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item." Seems to be the case here. Prime Blue (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: As per nom and also in the hope that it will generate more traffic and help improve this article. - X201 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible Kinect use in future AC Games

This might deserve a sentence or two: Ubisoft said that they think there is a kinect future for all of their brands possible: http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/02/02/ubisoft-hint-at-kinect-assassins-creed/ Leave how it will actually work up to the reader's imagination (the idea of the avg gamer actually being able to use this for parkour and free-running is hard to imagine, but leave that to the gamer sites and gamers.)Hpelgrift (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Books

I was at Walmart a few minutes ago and I saw an Assassin's Creed book titled "Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood", though it hasn't been listed in the "other media" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One-eyed Nero (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-history science fiction.

The "Pseudo" here is unnecessary, we already have "fiction", which describes the nature of the genre. It's basically saying "false historical fiction", what the hell is that, how can fiction be "false"? Rehevkor ✉ 12:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That is why I took it out those two times it was put it, the second time suggesting the fellow come to the talk page. In fact, I see he put it back a third time. Isn't that WP:EW? :| Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR applies, but that's only two actual reverts by the IP. Hopefully there won't be any further issues. Rehevkor ✉ 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah I thought it was basically fighting rather than just crossing the 3RR rule. Well I put a little thing on his talkpage explaining why I think it is there and invited him to come to this page for discussion if he still wishes to add it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh come now. Someone made it so that it now only says historical, it's definitely not historical, rather historical science fiction. Now it's misleading. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Constantinople-era?

AC:Revelations should be put under Rennaissance, as A, that period is still in full-swing at the time of tha game (1509 or 1511), and B, the main ancestor you play as is still Ezio Auditore da Firenze. Also, I don't think there is such a thing as "Constantinople-era", it just sounds strange and made-up. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I have removed that header. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Add secret before megacorporation

In "Cluster 9" of the glyph puzzles in AC:Brotherhood, it's revealed by this "phone call" that Abstergo's existence is not actually public knowledge. As this is something in-game, I think you would have to use a YouTube link, there's simply no other way. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Third Book coming out on June 28th

There's a third book coming out about Altaïr [http://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Creed-Crusade-Oliver-Bowden/dp/0441020992/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306727261&sr=8-1]. Who the hell is Erazo btw? I hope they mean Ezio and the schmuck who put that there just has no idea what the story's about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this is much better. I found it on a site called Play.com with a much better blurb. [1] "Niccolo Polo, father of Marco, will finally reveal the story he has kept secret all his life - the story of Altair, one of the brotherhood's most extraordinary Assassins. Altair embarks on a formidable mission - one that takes him throughout the Holy Land and shows him the true meaning of the Assassin's Creed. To demonstrate his commitment, Altair must defeat nine deadly enemies, including Templar leader, Robert de Sable. Altair's life story is told here for the first time: a journey that will change the course of history; his ongoing battle with the Templar conspiracy; a family life that is as tragic as it is shocking; and, the ultimate betrayal of an old friend." If no one has any objections (and judging by the activity I have seen here thus far, no one will have any...) I will add in what I can. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

AC:III in Paris (that rhymes with proper pronunciation of Paris)

An IP-fellow has been trying to add info saying that III will take place in Paris during the French Revolution. He's put it in about the right place, but there is still no source for it. It would make perfect sense for it to take place there. This is the only thing I have found about it. [2] <--- key term is rumor in the URL btw. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just rumours/speculation/wishful thinking, no setting has been confirmed, virtually no information on the game has been released. Should be removed. Rehevkor ✉ 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'd place money on it being the setting (like I said, it makes sense when you think of the possibilities what with the Reign of Terror and the Templars Napoléon and Robespierre :p) and on the game coming out in 2012 (for obvious reasons). Until then though, yep it should be removed. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

WiiU additions

People keep adding that Revelations will be on Wii U without any confirmation. Can someone change the table in a way that it doesn't show that as yes? I don't know how to make it something like unconfirmed or a variation of that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Assassin's Creed logo.svg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Assassin's Creed logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 DoneI've dealt with this. A user had replaced the existing image; that had a correct FUR. With a version of the logo that they had uploaded to commons. - X201 (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikia as an External link

I'm heard several different opinions on this. So I want to clarify this once and for all. I added links to the Assassin's Creed Wiki on Wikia to this article and Assassin's Creed: Revelations, I have been reverted twice by Rehevkor (talk · contribs). He says it's not allowed per WP:ELNO and this confuses me because I've seen Wikia linked to for years on enWP and if it were forbidden like WP:ELNO state why would Template:Wikia be allowed to exists? In short I'm asking for clarification on if Wikia is allowed in the External Links section. Thanks. chris†ianrocker90 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, wikia is linked to well over 100,000 times from mainspace; whether or not each particular link is valid is up discussion however. But, a wikia wiki dedicated to the article's subject seems, in this case, to be a valid EL, given precedent. fr33kman 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed's wiki is also a very well-maintained and well-sourced wiki from what I have seen. One of the best I have seen. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I know, external links to Wikia wikis are allowed, if the wiki in question is well-maintained and sourced, i.e. if it's a genuine help for readers (there are many Wikia fan wikis who contain less information about a subject than Wikipedia). Wookiepedia for example is a definite precedent for this on most Star Wars related articles. #12 of WP:ELNO also clearly allows this by saying "[[.]] except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." With 1300+ articles and 1000+ active users, I have to agree with Flinders Petrie that AC Wikia is one of the better examples of a Wikia wiki and should be allowed as an external link. Regards SoWhy 08:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For comparison, please review the two Futurama wikis [3] [4], both of which are indiscriminate repositories of info rife with OR, speculation, and every other problem you can imagine. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Futurama wikis are that bad, they are probably an average example. Both have some active users and a high number of articles, as well as structure and some great articles. You can find much, much worse examples than that. Regards SoWhy 09:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know wikis being linked is certainly the exception, not the rule - the exceptions that spring to mind (Memory Alpha and Wookipedia) seem to qualify "substantial history of stability" at least. What other examples are there? That have been established as usable by consensus? Gaming wikis in particular here, I'm struggling to think of any. I should also point out that most Wikia sites run afoul of WP:ELNO#11 (and to a lesser extent #10). Rehevkor ✉ 11:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in ELNO it says that there has to be consensus before they can be added. If they have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", they can be added. AC Wiki meets these requirements. Of course this can be challenged, which is why we have this discussion here now to determine whether the requirements are fulfilled. ELNO #10 and #11 do not apply though because ELNO #12 was clearly meant to handle such wikis. As such, it's clearly lex specialis to both #11 and #10. Regards SoWhy 11:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ELNO is vague on wikis and subject to opinion, "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" is not specific, it begs for a consensus, I feel it should be established that a wiki qualifies on an individual basis. The consensus here so far seems to be to include it, this is good news. I may not agree that #10 overrides #12 but I'm not going to argue that point. Rehevkor ✉ 11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "it begs for a consensus" is supposed to mean, exactly. The guidance is intentionally unspecific though; it's fine as is. If this link is acceptable, which it appears that everyone here agrees with (including myself, for the record), then there's really no reason for this RFC. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"it begs for a consensus" because ELNO specifies links that are ones that one should generally avoid - I think it's perfectly acceptable to want a consensus when making exceptions to this guideline. I didn't start this RFC, an informal discussion is a perfectly acceptable way of gaining a consensus too. Anyhoo, I think we're off track here this discussion is about the suitability of the link, not to attack my reasons for asking for a consensus. I have conceded that my original judgement was against consensus and have already said this is a good thing, but I maintain I was correct to request a consensus also. Rehevkor ✉ 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So no one has any objections to it being put back then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This RFC is not about how to change a policy or guideline. Therefore it does not belong in the "policy" category. I've corrected it for you.

In general, these questions are usually taken to WP:External links/Noticeboard, which you may find quicker and simpler in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Permit external link -The link is this page. It can be kept in this article for a few reasons:
  • The WP:ELNO guideline states that links to wikis are generally discouraged: " [avoid] links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." Upon scrutinizing the A.C. Wikia, that link appears to satisfy the requirement of "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors".
  • The WP:ELOFFICIAL guideline expressly permits "official" external links, namely "the linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable", and the A.C. Wikia appears to meet this definition of "official"
  • The wikia appears to have a large amount of information that would be valuable to readers of Wikipedia
  • This article does not have an excessive number of external links (only one)
  • The nature of the topic is a video game, which naturally has a vast amount of information on-line, and so it a few external links are to be expected (e.g. "Halo" has 4)
  • Other video game articles in WP include external links to Wikia sites

so, for those reasons, the external link should be included. --Noleander (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be considered "official", the wiki is basically a fan site in that respect (it is contributed to by and run by fans), which the guideline specifically rules out. Яehevkor ✉ 20:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

All the articles are sourced and are well maintained. A fan site is something without moderation. This wiki has moderation. chris†ianrocker90 06:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Eagle or Flying One?

When I looked up the meaning of Altaïr, it said it means Eagle. What is the source for the meaning being "Flying One"? In the context of the series eagle would have made more sense. So where did this Flying One idea come from? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ezio means flying one, I think.

ACIII addition

So an IP fellow added ACIII. This is of course a real story, but I think it needs a bit of editting. As well, should the entries not all be set to no on the table? I'm mulling over whether to put ACIII in its own separate area. I know it'll be a different time, but still, it's a bit OR. Then again, WP:IGNOREALLRULES.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 02:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. It was extrapolation. The original article made no mention of AC3 and only covered the conclusion of the AC2 storyline. - X201 (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Must have been different from the article I read then which did talk about it. [5] I'll admit I didn't read the one the other dude sourced. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 19:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Edit: Though they use the terms suggest and such, which makes it a bit iffy in my book. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 19:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

mobile installments of AC1, 2 (multiplayer) Brotherhood and Revelations

There is a mobile version of AC1 for Android (and probably other platforms). There are a few differences, but the game's splash screen states "Also available for PC, XBOX 360 and PS3". So, shouldn't this be added to AC1 in the platform table? Allyddin Sane (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Got a link? - X201 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't think it's for sale anymore, but here's a link from the AC wikia http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_%28mobile_game%29 Allyddin Sane (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed the header because my thesis research revealed there are more mobile games unmentioned here. I am still uncertain of whether to add the checks to the main (console/PC) version or add another line to that already humongous table. Perhaps it should be split somehow? Allyddin Sane (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Velayudham vs Assassin's Creed

hey did anyone know that there is an Indian film called Velayudham? well it is important to know that the superhero costume worn by the hero in it is loosely borrowed from Assassins's Creed! Kailash29792 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Parallels with Alamut (1938 novel)?

It occurs to me that the premise of this series is in some ways similar to Alamut_(1938_novel), the maxim "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" is referenced frequently in the game. Is there any official or reliable source that shows this connection? 64.9.146.171 (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrm a quick google shows this interview Perhaps worth including into the main article? 64.9.146.171 (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Brotherhood summary Typo

In the Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood summary there is the sentence “…he spends the night with Caterina Sforza, waking up armourless to find the city besieged by Cesare Borgia.” “armourless” is not a word in the English language, I would correct it if I knew what was meant, "amorous" perhaps?

Clearing inferring "without armour". Removed it though as it does nothing to explain the plot. Яehevkor ✉ 23:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

URL Spelling

I'm sorry guys, I don't know how to do this, never done it before - Please delete this as appropriate - Just letting you all know that the URL to the following page is misspelt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assasins_creed

It should be "Assassins" - note the double "SS" - whereas the URL has "SS" and "S"

Hope it can be sorted by you guys? Keep up the good work.

-Pete, a regular Wikipedia user (but not contributer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.80.91 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the link you gave goes to a redirect page, which then brings you to this page. If you type the URL with 'assassin' spelled correctly, then you will arrive directly at this page (although you have to use '%27_' for the apostrophe if you want to get here directly). The redirect is more of a convenient feature than a bug. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed: Graphic Novel

Is "Assassin's Creed: Graphic Novel" an official title or a Wikipedia neologism. If it's an official title for an 8-page comic magazine, it seems massive proof for the watering down of the term. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems that it was merely called Assassin's Creed [6][7] - it doesn't even seem to have been a graphic novella as it'd require an ISBN to qualify. It appears to be an 16-page promotional one-shot that was given away at conventions and with pre-orders. (17:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC))

Order of Platform List in Games Section

Just wondering what other people thought about the order of the table. A recent change by user Zntrip (talk · contribs) changed the order to alphabetical, while I felt it should be in it's original order, where the main consoles were first, followed by handhelds, then mobile, etc. Not trying to start anything of who's right, who's wrong, but IMO I felt that it is better to represent the order by the consoles that the games have mainly come out on, followed by those that are least used for releases. Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In general it is best to have alpha grouped orders based on console/computer, portables/handhelds, and then mobile, particularly since the game started on the former systems and extended out in that order. (If AC started as a DS title, I might argue otherwise, but this is most neutral anyway). --MASEM (t) 02:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my feeling as well. I will change it back and refer here as reason. Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, Who the hack are we trying to decide what platform should be given first order.I mean to say that what if I want Xbox 360 first and PS3 second? It would be a complete mess.So, Just avoiding any dispute, put it in a alphabetical order.This would never ever create any type of dispute.59.161.23.88 (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

But we are doing it alphabetical for priorities. PS3 and Xbox 360 are the main consoles that the games are coming out on. Thus, they should be first, alphabetically. Then the computer based (Mac, Windows, OnLive). Then the handhelds (PSP, Vita, DS) followed by mobile operating systems and Facebook. I get what you are saying 'Who cares Xbox or PS3 first?'. It doesn't matter but it looks better alphabetized. And while overall alphabetized looks nice, why would we put Android first when the only games it has had is one meant for handhelds and one that was not a major number release? We can look at it as we are ordering it by the systems that have had the most releases, which in turn essentially creates it in the order of consoles/computers, handhelds, then mobile. Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Anything other than alphabetical order is arbitrary and confusing. Alphabetical order is the most neutral, common sense approach. What platforms the series debuted on is largely irrelevant as it has now expanded to included many others. If your concern is that the core console releases will be less prevalent, perhaps those titles can be in bold text? – Zntrip 09:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not arbitrary though. It is separated into three sections as I have mentioned: consoles/computer, handhelds, then mobile. This is not arbitrary since games like Assassin's Creed are intended for release on consoles/computers first. Then they branch off for non-numbered games on handheld devices and sometimes mobile. If you look at a page like Madden NFL, while the table is not in the same format, the order of which the games were released on are in the order of consoles, then handhelds and mobiles. This order is accepted when talking about main console game series. That is why there is no arbitrariness to the order. While it was not perfect, it is close and can easily be changed to a better order of console/computer, handheld, mobile. Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand. How about we split the platform section up so that it is easier to understand where one section begins and one ends? This will also make it easier to see which game is a console or handheld release. The five sections I came up with are consoles, PCs, handheld, mobile, and other (for Facebook and OnLive, since both can be accessed from numerous PCs and mobile devices). – Zntrip 20:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Year	Title
		Platform(s)
		Consoles			PCs		Handheld			Mobile					Other
		PS3	X360	Wii U	Mac	Win	DS	PSP	Vita	And	iOS	Symb	webOS	WP	Face	OnLive

That is a good suggestion and I'm glad you understand the point I made. I wasn't trying to bash or put down the alphabetical order, but with video games it does not make sense to do it that way most of the time. :) I think after I wrote my other response, I had done more work on the table so it should be in a better organized state. If it comes to a point where there are more complaints about the order, then we can definitely implement the formatting that you suggested. Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to wait until there are complaints. The only reason I changed the table was because I didn't understand the reason for how platforms were ordered. The order confused me and will probably confuse others, but if the table is changed to my above suggestions I don't think that will be the case. If there aren't any objections I will go ahead and change it. – Zntrip 23:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Fine by me. I took care of adding the headings. I kept the order as I had changed it to before, but it overall is stil the concept that you suggested. Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool, made some more changes to the abbreviation and some other things. Tell me what you think. – Zntrip 07:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I think we are all set now. Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph of "Future"

Does anybody mind if I delete the second paragraph under the "Future" section? It's redundant, because the same information is found above it in the section talking about the games. --Packinheat2u (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No need to ask permission, just WP:BRD it. - X201 (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag

Could the time for release of further info be changed from CT to CET as there are seven hours difference and this is misleading as the Facebook page clearly states CET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.168.219 (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Done -Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Cancelled games

Can we remove cancelled games like Lost Legacy from the other games list? Theyre not other games if they dont exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.60.40 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Historical fiction?

There has been a disagreement among several users pertaining to the labeling of the genres in the first sentence of each game. The third game in the series, as well as Brotherhood and Revelations have all had "historical action-adventure stealth video game" to signify their genres. User: Darkwarriorblake wishes for the year to go in place of historical, however I would personally have to agree with User: TJD2, User: Jasca Ducato, User: Seth Forsman PhD, and the IP: 71.95.82.119. This section is for us to discuss what we think the header should be. Midnightstrike3625 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally, in describing the genre of the video game we use the gametype and not the narrative type, so AC games are "action-adventure video games that include elements of open world structure, and stealth and parkour gameplay." There should be mention of the games using historical fiction narrative in the lead but it wouldn't be included in genre. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be in the lead. "Assassin's Creed X is a historical action-adventure open world stealth video game" has been the opening line in every Assassin's Creed article since as long as I can remember, and when I first changed it I thought it was a simple mistake and didn't expect any controversy at all with it. That's why I marked it as a minor edit. TJD2 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems in that neither "open world" or "stealth" are genres. They're gameplay elements, and major ones at that, and should be highlighted, but not part of the genre statement. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The article for Stealth describes it as a genre, as well as in games such as Metal Gear Solid and Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell which are usually categorized as "Stealth games" and "Stealth Action" titles. Is stealth a gameplay element for those as well? I've always considered stealth a genre or game category, just like "first person shooter" is to Halo. I'm a bit new here so I don't claim to be an expert on genre labeling. I was just going off of what seemed like an error to me as well because all the other AC articles use historical in the opening line. I can see "open world" being a gameplay element, so no concerns there about leaving that out.Midnightstrike3625 (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, stealth is a genre (I didn't realize we had an article for that but my mistake). IT's just that "action-adventure" and "stealth" seem contradictory in terms of what they imply. But still, "open world" is not a genre, but gameplay. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of people wish for it to be like User: TJD2 stated with the opening sentence, I'd opt for leaving open world out myself, but most people don't want the year like User: Darkwarriorblake. He is the only one who is reverting everyone else's work, whilst not discussing it here. Midnightstrike3625 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing historical fiction, but not to replace it with "2010 game". That is not a genre and has no business being there. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting interpretation of saying I haven't turned up to discuss TJD2 when noone has informed me of the discussion, and an ongoing discussion doesn't give you the right to continue to edit war or claim that ALL the AC articles were that way when they weren't (also WP: Other stuff), they were with the year in the opening sentence and Historical Fiction linked in the second paragraph within context well before you began edit warring over it.
  • Seth Forsman, 2010 is a year, it implicitly opens with when the game was first released and provides context for it's release, a release date at the end of the opening paragraph is not the same, nor does it need to include the year and so is explicitly not the same. And I do not know where you have picked up "2010 game" from, that was never an option, it was "2010 action adventure video game".
  • Midnightstrike, I am not the only one reverting, others reverted , do not disguise the facts. That others have continued to edit war over the content without holding a discussion or informing all parties of it to make it easier on themselves is not a good step either.
  • Historical fiction has no place in the opening sentence, it's a description of the setting, which would need to be applied to any and every game that does not take place in a modern setting if you wish to apply it so loosely since every game based in the real world is a historical fiction. That said Historical Fiction IS PRESENT IN THE LEDE, it is present where it belongs, describing the setting of the game in the opening of the second paragraph of each and every article that is being warred over but apparently not read.
• There is no justification for putting it in the very opening and even less justification for why the users all conveniently make the exact same edit to the articles and all believe somehow that the year needs to be removed to put in place historical fiction. Frankly I'm fairly sure the IP, TJD2 and possible Midnight are socks of TJD2, but either way there is no explanation given for why having the year there is some offensive affront. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User TJD2 has again reverted the edit on an established stable article instead of allowing the stable version to stand until discussion had concluded. One must ask what his problem is, why he cannot wait for discussion to end and why he continues to edit war over that content that was in place LONG BEFORE he started all this. A discussion doesn't mean you put your change in place repeatedly while we wait an outcome. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Putting the accusations aside, this user has been blocked numerous times dating back to 2006 for this very thing. User Masem, I am requesting a block for User:Darkwarriorblake for harassment, false accusations (which other administrators have said are false as well per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TJD2&diff=prev&oldid=558185628), and violation of the 3RR. TJD2 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The admin said there wasn't enough evidence not that it was false. As for harassment, accusing you of being a sockpuppet with reason is not harassment, it's a genuine attempt to stop abuse of the system. This user hasn't been blocked numerous times at all, this user has never been blocked except once, which was an accident the admin apologised for. And none of this or your ignorance of the ongoing discussion and continued edit warring has anything to do with solving the discussion at hand. If you had simply adhered to the discussion you wouldn't be throwing all Caps-lock fits for receiving a warning. Why you feel the need to keep reverting the stable version instead of waiting, I don't know, but it isn't how discussion works, not informing all participants is also not how discussion works. There is an ongoing discussion and I have given multiple reasons for why the particular articles are correct, and your only argument so far has been that some of the other AC articles do it the way you want them to. That is not a reason. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User: Darkwarriorblake I am curious as to your reasoning for the edits themselves. So far all you have done is made accusations at me and other users. It's almost like you're saying "I'm right and all those who disagree are the socks of another account". If you wanna know who I really am, I'm on youtube! I'm not a "sock", as you call it, of anyone else...I just want to improve the articles of the media I review; that's all. Everybody on the talk page has come to the consensus that the year should not stay, now we have to decide whether or not "historical" should be put in it's place. On a side note I did respond on my talk page and said I am putting up a discussion, you probably just didn't see it. What are everyone's thoughts on this issue? Midnightstrike3625 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Upon closer inspection, you give reasons as to why "historical" should not be included, but what are your reasons for including the year? Aside from the fact that it's when the game was released that is. Lots of games, including your previously mentioned Bioshock Infinite do not open with the year. Midnightstrike3625 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make me keep linking WP: Other stuff, Bioshock is a long article that exists, that does not by default make it a perfect article or one that can not be improved. Bioshock also does not include historical fiction in the opening, though by the logic used to apply it to Assassin's Creed why wouldn't Bioshock have it there? And who on the talk page has come to a consensus that the year should not stay? Only you have repeatedly said it, the rest just keep removing it as a consequence of hitting undo/revert instead of editing the article considering no explanation was given for its removal nor has any justification been given AGAINST the reasoning I've given for its inclusion. 20 people can say the sky is red, doesn't make it so. No one, not one so far has given a reason why the year would not be there nor why historical fiction should be nor why historical fiction in the second paragraph is not sufficient nor why they keep reverting the same thing yet not REMOVING the properly placed link to historical fiction. I have explained why the year should be there above, please read that as I won't repeat myself.

As for your comment about sock accusations: Your registration coinciding with the edits TJD2 was attempting to force through and the unregistered IP, despite the IPs few edits and your relative newness, you have all edited the same or associated music articles with just a cursory glance at your history relating to Black Sabbath and Newsted. It COULD be coincidence, but the exact same reversions on these AC articles and disregard for the 27 times I've said Historical Fiction is linked in the 2nd paragraph makes you all seem very similar and raises a case that you are one and the same. That may not be the case as I can't check your locations, but I'm not accusing you of being a sock simply for disagreeing with me. I don't have your talk page on my watchlist so I was unaware of the discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again all bands and games that I have reviewed. I apologize for not linking you to the discussion, like you said I'm very new to Wikipedia and I thought you would check my talk for a response. Would you be for dropping both the year and historical, so it'd be "Assassin's Creed is an action adventure video game" or something along those lines (Masem said stealth and Action Adventure contradict each other)? I would like to come to a resolution. Also I personally have not touched the AC articles since I posted the discussion, so no I am not TJD2 or the IP. Midnightstrike3625 (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Historical fiction is in the lede's second paragraph, it doesn't need dropping I just don't think it belongs by the genre as it is setting and I think where it is right now, it gives the game a good framing context for the narrative and helps better explain what the historical fiction refers to. I don't see a reason to drop the year, it provides an instant guide to when the game was released which in AC's case can help with ordering the generally otherwise unuseful titles and helps understanding. For instance if I go to Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, while it is handled in a different way, I can instantly get an idea of what kind of game it will be because of the year it was made, it is the same with films, all films have a year in the opening, though it is a different project the two share many style similarities such as opening with the genre. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The year can be in the second sentence or even in the first, it just shouldn't be mixed with the genre terms. "AC is an action-adventure, stealth-based series of video games first published in 2010." --MASEM (t) 22:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake - I was just trying to come up with compromises so we can agree on what to do with the article. I wasn't necessarily saying it SHOULD be that way. Masem - that kind of makes it sound like the series ITSELF was published in 2010. It already states the release date in the first paragraph so wouldn't putting it in the first few sentences be a bit redundant? Midnightstrike3625 (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Midnightstrike3625. Neither historical fiction or 2010 should be in the header, as both pieces of info are already in the next few lines. Also, I find it funny how Darkwarriorblake claims he wasn't made aware of this discussion, even though his own talk page disproves this. Please stay honest in these discussions. Thank you. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The talkback message on my page was in relation to an earlier comment on Midnight's talk page. I had neither this nor his talk page on my watchlist and wasn't aware of it until TDJ2 continued edit warring on those articles citing this discussion as a reason to do so. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's quite possible actually that he may not have seen it. We were discussing on my own talk page about the issue, so I didn't think I had to post a second time reminding him. It was my mistake, I just thought he would check my talk page for my response after he had made his. Midnightstrike3625 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so as I am a total newbie for editing articles, I hope people don't yell at me for not knowing my stuff, but I just wanted to put a suggestion, an idea out there (or rather, in here) for how to word the opening sentence and the following sentences of these AC articles..so the way they are at the moment is perfectly fine, doesn't bother me at all, but would this idea make sense and please tell me everything that you find not right about it, criticism I will embrace-the first sentence Could be like, "Assassin's Creed is a video game series that consists of..." so just take out all descriptions of what type(s) of video game(s) it is, then maybe in one of the following sentences they could be placed instead, in such a manner like: "the series has a historical fiction narrative, and features action-adventure in an open world with stealth and parkour elements" and it could be something like that, but I'm not sure, does that go against the norm? Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope this is not the wrong place for this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3randomtrippycolors (talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello @3randomtrippycolors: Per the guidelines at the Video Game project, it states that leads for game articles should first state "The name of the game in bold italics, its gameplay genre, release date, platform, and other identifying information." So the ordering should follow that format, and thus the info can not really be stated as you suggested. Thank you for it suggestion though! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

2nd game for the PS3 & Xbox 360

According to IGN, Ubisoft a planning to release 'ACV - Comet' at the same time as 'Unity' for the previous/current generation of systems. Maybe this needs to be mentioned in the 'Unity' section? http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/15/10-ubisoft-studios-developing-assassins-creed-unity?watch 31.209.163.158 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Info for "Comet" is in the "Future" heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 20:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Change of Lead Developer

Ubisoft Quebec has just replaced Ubisoft Montreal as the lead developer for the future Assassin's Creed title (which is not include Unity). Putting it in the future part I assume is the best. They also take part in previous Assassin's Creed titles like III and Black Flag. It should not be removed. If you want to check, check the link out. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/470093/interviews/interview-assassins-creed-has-a-new-lead-developer/

Ubisoft Quebec are only leading development on a single game. They have not taken over responsibility for the entire franchise; that is still Ubisoft Montreal's baby. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2014

Please change "However, Hutchinson stated both he and May were open to the idea of a future entry set during the time of the British Raj, which now consists of the modern states of India and Pakistan.[32]" in the Future section of the article to "However, Hutchinson stated both he and May were open to the idea of a future entry set during the time of the British Raj, which now consists of the modern states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.[32]" ArgRaihan (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Game Engines

Physics engine used in all the games released for home consoles is havok, hard to know wich version/revision of the havok engine is used in each game though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.170.202 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What's a main game?

Hasn't Assassin's Creed: Liberation been "elevated" to a main game with the HD release? The same studio also did Assassin's Creed: Rogue. On the other hand, isn't AC: Rogue a tie in game only released for very specific consoles (no PC release yet), which is kind of telling a side-story? Compare to the Call of Duty series where back in 2005 there was an entirely different Call of Duty 2 for the then-last gen consoles, but those weren't counted as part of the main series? My point is, I think either AC: Rogue isn't really a main game or AC: Liberation could be considered a main game as well as it features elaborate gameplay the same engine and mechanics as the other games and has been made available to relevant consoles. 91.23.134.184 (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

On the lemma for Assassin's Creed: Rogue it says it is "the eight major installment" and "the sequel to Black Flag". So yes, obviously Roque is a "main series game". Liberation was first released as AC 3: Liberation, and on the Asassin's Creed Wiki, it's labeled as a spin-off game, not part of the main series. I think this makes sense, no matter what engine it uses or how long the gameplay is, and regardless of the fact that they restyled the name of the game (without the "III") later. The story is somewhat parallel to (or a spinoff of) the main series title Assassin's Creed III, it features a different protagonist, and within the in-game logic of the Assassin's Creed world, is described (self-referential) as a game that was first released by Abstergo Industries (the main antagonist in the story of the game series) as a propaganda tool. Also, it was first released on the exact same day as AC:III itself, first only for PS Vita, which (no offense to PS Vita) makes it pretty much a NON-main game, even though they released a polished version of the same game on the "main" consoles PS3 and XBOX360 later. So I think it's a special case on multiple levels. Good for them (and the fans) that they released two (more or less) full-fledged games at the same time, but even though it may be a full fledged game (I don't know from first hand experience) that still doesn't make it a main series game.

By the way, the Call of Duty game you are referring to, I think, is Call of Duty 2: Big Red One. As the title shows, it is not Call of Duty 2 itself, but a special release with a "spin-off" title. CoD2 is a "main series" title, and CoD2:BRO henceforth, is not, also because as you said it was released for the then-previous-generation of games. Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyway... (a bit of a meta discussion what follows next)... I think anytime you say or think "main game" or "non-main game" you should at least think/consider "MARKETED AS a main/non-main game" and/or "GENERALLY PERCEIVED AS a main/non-main game. I mean, it's all a bit subjective of course. The only thing we can say (more or less) objectively is whether a game is labelled as one or the other by the publisher. And even that often doesn't happen explicitly in oral or written statements, but often has to be inferred implicitly from expressions such as the level and method of of marketing. So that's largelt in the eye of the beholder and not 100% objective either. So I would say it's at least as important to consider whether or not it is seen as such in the general opinion of the fanbase. With AC3:Liberation first released as a spin-off, I think it became a spin-off in the general opinion of the fanbase, and the fact that the publisher apparently (possibly) wanted to upgrade the title to a more independent status later by slightly changing/restyling the name (probably just as marketing trick to increase the chance of decent sale figures amongst PS3 and XBOX360 users) really won't change the status of the game in the popular experience, and won't change any of the other characteristics/facts about the game that I mentioned here. Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014

Moh4151 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Hi, Ubisoft also released Assassin's Creed Encyclopedia 3.0 on November 2013 so just wanted to add that aswell.

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China to the table of games. It will be out for the same platforms as Unity (PS4, Xbox One, PC) in early 2015. It is also covered by Unity's season pass (not sure that's relevant here, but I think it's pretty cool!). http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-unity-season-pass-assassins-creed-chronicles-china/

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

And actually, should Freedom Cry maybe go in there as well, considering it's a standalone game that doesn't require Black Flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.130.14 (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe so, because it was not a game - it is still the DLC, even if released independently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Add game "Assassin's Creed II: Multiplayer" to the games section

After AC: Discovery there should be AC II: Multiplayer (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_II:_Multiplayer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialpsychology (talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Manga

There seems to be a manga based on the Assassin(')s Creed franchise, not sure if it is official canon or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.31.165 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

Please complete the list of other games. The correct list is Assassin's Creed (mobile game) Assassin's Creed: Altaïr's Chronicles Assassin's Creed: Bloodlines Assassin's Creed II (mobile game) Assassin's Creed II: Discovery Assassin's Creed II: Multiplayer Assassin's Creed: Project Legacy Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (mobile game) Assassin's Creed: Multiplayer Rearmed Assassin's Creed: Revelations (mobile game) Assassin's Creed: Recollection Assassin's Creed III (mobile game) Assassin's Creed III: Liberation Assassin's Creed: Pirates Assassin's Creed: Liberation HD Assassin's Creed: Memories Assassin's Creed: Identity Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China Parham akbari (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. These are already covered in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015

2.190.131.148 (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 17:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2015

Please add this time line: (From french version.)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassin%27s_Creed_(s%C3%A9rie)&gettingStartedReturn=true#Chronologie

Careful, two DLC must have their original names. (Freedom cry and Jack the ripper)

Dugom (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done; content is already covered in the "Release history" table. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

hi, i want to add a new game to the article. "Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag - Freedom Cry" it must be added to the 'Release History' table after main game "Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag", also please edit the 'Other games' and add description for the Freedom Cry. here is the original article from assassin's creed wikia. thankyou

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Freedom_Cry Sandun Wellage (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As "Freedom Cry" is DLC and not a new game, it doesn't make sense to include it on this as a separate entry. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

The content and tense of the section "Assassin's Creed Syndicate" should be changed to reflect that the game has already been released. The existing text references only one new protagonist when there are two.

Original:

In December 2014, images and information leaked for a new Assassin's Creed game, titled or code-named Victory, which was later confirmed by Ubisoft. Victory will release in late 2015 for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One and is being developed by Ubisoft Quebec. It will be set in 1868 Victorian era London and feature a new assassin protagonist.[18] In May 2015, Kotaku leaked that Victory has been renamed Syndicate.[19] On May 12, 2015, the game was officially announced by Ubisoft.[20] The PlayStation 4 and the Xbox One version of the game was released on October 23, 2015, while the Microsoft Windows version was released on November 19, 2015.[21]

Proposed:

In December 2014, images and information leaked for a new Assassin's Creed game, titled or code-named Victory, which was later confirmed by Ubisoft. In May 2015, Kotaku leaked that Victory has been renamed Syndicate.[19] On May 12, 2015, the game was officially announced by Ubisoft.[20] Syndicate was developed by Ubisoft Quebec. The game is set in 1868 Victorian era London and features two new protagonists: twin assassins Jacob and Evie Frye.

Julsssark (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  20:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sales Figures

This article states that the series has sold 73 million copies worldwide, but the The Bestselling Video Game Franchises article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises) says that the Assassin's Creed series has sold 93 million copies with a reference, so should the number be changed?The Editor 155 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well,the number changed.Someone had edited that 14 hours ago.I think we need more accurate info(what a cliché lol). Editor Mr.Ninja (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

error in 'future' section

Just a minor mistake that i would correct myself if the page wasn't locked. The side mission in AC Syndicate is set during WWI, not WWII.82.47.31.154 (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, corrected.--Comnenus (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Spiritual Sequels to Assassin's Creed 2, are 1666:Amsterdam and Ancestor: The Humankind Odyssey

Proposed additions

Spiritual Sequels to Assassin's Creed II Patrice Désilets served as lead designer of Assassin's Creed I, II and Brotherhood, left Ubisoft in June 2010, which was confirmed by the company on June 13, 2010. The publisher explained to Game Informer that Désilets' role as creative lead on Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood was "essentially done," and that he's no longer involved with the completion of the game. Many players believe his departure from the series, is the reason for the extremely disappointing ending of Assassin's Creed III, and the mishandling of the Desmond Miles story. 1666 Amsterdam (Cancelled) Patrice Désilets would officially return to the games industry in the summer of 2011, joining THQ in their newly developed Montreal based studio. The project 1666: Amsterdam, was described to be similar to the Assassin's Creed series. In January 2013, THQ Montreal was sold off to Ubisoft in an auction, Patrice continued working at Ubisoft for "1666: Amsterdam", describing it himself as a project where he put his 15 years of experience in video games. On May 7, 2013, Désilets again left Ubisoft. When asked why, Désilets replied, "Contrary to any statements made earlier today, this morning I was terminated by Ubisoft. I was notified of this termination in person, handed a termination notice and was unceremoniously escorted out of the building by two guards without being able to say goodbye to my team or collect my personal belongings. This was not my decision. Ubisoft's actions are baseless and without merit. I intend to fight Ubisoft vigorously for my rights, for my team and for my game." In April 2016, Désilets announced that he had gained back the rights to 1666, and settled the lawsuit with Ubisoft. He further added that 1666 would not be his priority, and that he intended to focus on and complete Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey first. Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey In December 14 of 2014 Patrice Désilets with his team, composed of many staff members of "1666: Amsterdam" whom resigned with him after his second departure from Ubisoft, reunited to launch a new game development studio in Montreal, called "Panache Digital Games". In April 23 on "Reboot Develop 2015" Désilets and his team announced the title of their first game developed and published by Panache Digital Games Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey which is a third person action-adventure survival episodic game. A teaser trailer was released by Panache Digital games, using the tagline: "The minds that made you jump from rooftop to roftoop, climb a campanile with your brother, run on walls to avoid traps, and rewind time for your love. After having fought millions of Templars, hidden in haystacks and chased a Pope, it is time for something new...", clearly referencing Désilets and his team previous work in "Assassin's Creed II", and how "Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey" is meant to be an spiritual sequel. After regaining the rights to 1666:Amsterdam, Désilets expressed that he intended to focus on and complete Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey first. Talk page discussion

I believe we should mention the existence of such games here, it's super relevant to the franchise specially because developer Patrice Desilets and creator of Assassin's Creed has said multiple times over the years, that both games were conceived as Spiritual Sequels AC2. Maybe with a different wording but I shortened the story a much as I could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs)

Considering I've never heard either of those games being called a spiritual successor to AC2, I would say that it's best to keep them of of the article. Besides, even if the were calld as such, their relevancy is dubious at best. -Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I added my edit here so it can be pasted at the bottom of the article if it's agreed upon.

Search about it. Many fans, Desilets departure is the reason of the universally hated, awful ending of Assassin's Creed 3. I've never have known someone who liked the ending, included me. I think this need further discussion, but fans do see it as the game Assassin's Creed 3 should have been, thus an Spiritual Sequel. Also there's a huge controversy about why "1666: Amsterdam" was shelved by Ubisoft, many people have said the reason is that it completely was a better game, than Assassin's Creed and Ubisoft was afraid of it hurting their sales. Ubisoft tried to destroy it for many years.

The Banjo Kazooie series article, and the System shock article both mention their Spiritual Sequels at the bottom. So it's done frequently on other articles. I believe it's relevant to the franchise. The fact that the sequel to Assassin's creed the creator aproves is called Ancestors, i read in an interview that he was resented of how they is handled desmond

Also someone an usser named Izno thanked my edit for adding the Spiritual Sequels section. This needs further discussion, we should have a discussion. Should we add mention the Spiritual sequels?

• My stance is Support

Rosvel92 (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

Oppose all changes by Rosvel92 I agree with Jasca Ducato's statements above. I've never heard these games being called spiritual successors. Just because they are developed by Desilets, doesn't mean that they related. Most games are all "spiritual successors" to some other game, as they all take and reuse similar concepts, ideas and gameplay mechanics, especially between game developers. Also for the other edits you did (re here), once again, there is no need to further subdivide "Other games". Your insistence on games like Project Legacy doesn't deserve to be in the same category as a real handheld game, because the browser games is too unimportant (quoted from my talk page here) goes against WP:NEUTRAL as you are adding your own bias and opinions. You can't determine what is or isn't important to a series and "Other games" is a perfectly suitable subheading for all games not released on consoles. Readers can see where they were released from the table and prose. As for your "Shared universe" heading, that was just an easter egg (it would help if you actually read the sources you were adding, because someone from Ubisoft is quoted in that article to confirm this: ""[Watch Dogs is its] own game in the Ubiverse," McDevitt wrote on Ubisoft's official AC Initiates forum. "We like to put Easter eggs in our games, but they are not literally connected."). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you decided to make an official proposal, I guess I'll have to officially oppose, for all the reasons above. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016

"A live-action film, Assassin's Creed, set in the same universe as the video games and other media,[50] is scheduled to be released on December 16, 2016."

This needs to be changed to December 21, 2016.

Section8Loco (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2016

116.68.121.116 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not Done Not sure what you want edited. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

They wanted the new movie added to the "Future" section, but then clearly noticed it was already mentioned in "Other media" and attempted to delete their request. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said not sure what they wanted done. I saw they removed the question but not the request. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017

Small QOL change: The Assassin's Creed Chronicles section has a reference to 2.5D games. A link can be added to the 2.5D platform games section on the 2.5D page to find it easier. The first line would read as follows:

Assassin's Creed Chronicles is an episodic 2.5D action game for ... Bdcon (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Typo in third paragraph

Additionally from the video-games the series has been expanded into a film, comics and novels; all of wich take place within the same continuity as the main video-games series.

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Empire - next game of the series

Cheers, some information about the upcoming title called "Empire" should be added here. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

So you requested that info be added without providing a reliable source, then added unsourced information to the page yourself? Please refrain from doing this in the future. Any reliably sourced information about any upcoming titles can be included in the article, but nothing else. Thanks! -RM (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There's various reliable information about this, check for yourself or the related ref. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Its not a reliable report, its full of rumours. It fails WP:CRYSTAL item 5 - X201 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

New game says time period is Ptolemaic Egypt, actually takes place in Ancient Egypt

Ptolemaic Egypt was the time when the Greek Ptolemic Dynasty ruled over it, this game takes place in ancient Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.255.240.9 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A reliable source - The GameInformer cover story on page 41 says the developers "decided Ptolemaic Egypt, around the ascent and reign of Cleopatra". 2012MarcoMDNA (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Chronicles

Should the Chronicles games (China, India, Russia), have their own subsection in the console or other games section of this page? I am aware they have their own page altogether, but other than the table showing a chronology, they're virtually not mentioned on this page at all. Tostie14 (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassin's Creed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831144528/http://www.littlebigplanet.com/en/game_guide/ps3/downloadable_content/assassins_creed_ii_ezio_auditore_costume/ to http://www.littlebigplanet.com/en/game_guide/ps3/downloadable_content/assassins_creed_ii_ezio_auditore_costume/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassin's Creed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141122143445/http://store.ubiworkshop.com/assassins-creed/books-and-comics/assassins-creed-encyclopedia-third-edition to http://store.ubiworkshop.com/assassins-creed/books-and-comics/assassins-creed-encyclopedia-third-edition

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Colon in the titles of some of the games

Some of the game articles are titled in the format 'Assassin's Creed: title' and that is also how a lot of websites refer to the games. However Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed franchise doesn't use a colon after Assassin's Creed for any of the games listed. Should the articles be re-titled/moved to remove the colon? Chris Ssk _talk 23:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary spoiler in books section

There's a huge spoiler for Assassin's Creed Unity in the section for the book adaptation of the game. Could someone with the authorisation please edit it out? I know that being spoiler-free isn't exactly a Wikipedia priority for obvious reasons, but this one is completely unnecessary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hophi (talk • contribs) 11:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ficiton set in [year]

A recent edit by Cydebot drew to my attention the fact that this series hasn't been set in 2012 since, well, 2012. The modern-day stories of Black Flag, Rogue, Unity, Syndicate, Assassin's Creed (the movie), Origins and Odyssey are all set in their respective real-world launch years, which means that the following categories should probably be added: Fiction set in 2013, Fiction set in 2014, Fiction set in 2015, Fiction set in 2016, Fiction set in 2017, Fiction set in 2018, and Fiction set in 2019 (DLCs for Odyssey). Any objections to me adding these categories in? --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless there's clear evidence that the "present" of those games are in those years, they should not be added. Clear evidence here is something the player is assured to see through cutscenes or similar details, not something buried in in-game emails or the like. We knew AC1 was 2012 due to the reference to the Mayan end of world calendar date among other things, but the others less clear. --Masem (t) 15:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why there is a distinction being made between dates shown in in-game emails and... however else the game is supposed to show dates. Dated emails which do not appear until certain points in the respective game's stories (i.e. the email is "received") makes dating the games a non-issue. Also, as a point of interest, we didn't know the first three games were set in 2012 until Assassin's Creed II; no dates which revealed the year–which finally did come via email, no less–were shown until the second game. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's been months now and no further objections ahve been made, so I'm adding these additional categories in. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Android

Is this game run on Android Guy kay (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Error in info about the first game?

To quote the section I'm referring to: "in the left side of his room, the player sees "I Entered the Animus and never returned"."

This actually isn't true. I just finished playing through the game today, and it reads "I've entered the Abyss and never returned" I wasn't sure if I should change it, so I figured I'd just point it out here. Honestly the whole sentence seems a bit out of place tin 1949it wasture that abe was not dwad he is still alive today beware he is a zombie in san deigo.

😥😥😥 Guy kay (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2020

37.237.128.37 (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No changes actually requested. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

it says haven on the page it should say have must be a spelling error

"A series of art books, encyclopedias, comics, novelizations, and novels haven been published." This should say "have" 71.223.170.249 (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020

Assassin's Creed Symphony section should have past tense verbs. Precisely: First sentence: Change—Assassin's Creed Symphony is to Assassin's Creed Symphony was Last sentence: Delete—It will began in the summer of 2019,[159] Last sentence: Delete—and will feature holographic characters from the series.[160] Last sentence: Change—feature to featured holographic characters from the series.[160] --MissusD (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC) MissusD (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@MissusD:  Partly done: That section only has references announcing the tour. Therefore, I changed the sentence to "It was scheduled to begin in the summer of 2019, and expected to feature...". I also added {{update section}} in the hopes that someone will add reliable sources that demonstrate the tour actually happened. GoingBatty (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Release Timeline Suggestion

I remember someone wanted to use a color-coding system on a Release Timeline template for the franchise, and thought that it could be done per story arc. You know, the franchise has three story arcs for games, so... I figured something like one for the Desmond Miles series of stories, one for the games post-Miles, and a third for the current arc in the franchise being focused on. GUtt01 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are limitations to {{Timeline of release years}} which prevent this. Specifically, two entries released in the same year, but represent different eras cannot be coloured differently from one another. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Regarding the release history table. The table previously showed the historical era setting of each game, making ot eaiser for the lay person to understand which games were part of which 'arc'. This table was ‘simplified' saying it was FANCRUFT. I reverted it back to the older version, which was again reverted to the 'simple' version by the same user. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia and don't want to start an editing war so I figured I would ask here. I do believe that the older table is more informative and eaisier to comprehend, and is not FANCRUFT. Smithinson77 02:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a proper RfC. You should have signed your comment and write a neutral question. I have signed your comment. See WP:RFCST.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Whilst the signature is optional, the timestamp must be in exactly the same format that four or five tuldes would have produced. In this case, you omitted the parentheses around the time zone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with GUtt01's edits. A huge table like this is very cluttered: it's organised by setting first, next is a column of the years it is set in and only then we get to the actual game. But it's supposed to be a list of the games first, not the in-game fictional setting. Assassin's Creed is set during the Third Crusade, but linking to the article on the actual historical event is not necessary. Wikipedia - and video game articles too - are written for a general audience, not for people necessarily interested or familiar with Assassin's Creed. That the platforms are divided by console, computer, handheld, mobile and other is unnecessary too. In the descriptions of the games there is a mention of the historical setting, which is sufficient. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As the user who made those edits, Soetermans has fully explained my reasoning for the edit changes. Remember this CAREFULLY: Wikipedia is a General Encyclopedia, designed to provide a generalised view of topics and subjects for viewers, not detailed information for a specific audience. Such information is best left for the various Wikis designed for specific subjects. GUtt01 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with both Soetermans and Gutt01 here, with the only suggestion being the games featuring the same "historical" main character (like II going to Brotherhood and Revelations) but that would likely lead to editors wanting more ties between games marked, so better just to leave that well-enough alone and explain in text. The games themselves in the media are not typically seen in these "arcs"; if they were clearly described commonly in the media that way, then we'd have a reason to group them as such, but any such grouping right now requires really hunting and pecking for sources to support. --Masem (t) 13:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Is it covered in RS? - I think a really good rule for determining whether something is WP:FANCRUFT or not is to simply ask whether it's is covered in RS. I'm curious whether User:Smithinson77 can point to any sources which provide tables similar to this one. NickCT (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add back "Setting" and "Years" columns - the other columns are unnecessary (consoles, computers, handheld, mobile, other can all be collapsed into one), but the setting/years column looks helpful. Ikjbagl (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ikjbagl, I agree that cutting out all the console columns is for the best, and strongly believe that the 'setting' and 'years' columns should return. As for NickCT's question of RS, the setting and year of each game is almost always mentioned within the first few sentences of each game description in RS such as Ubisoft's website and game descriptions on all platforms stores. Regarding Masem's comment about 'arcs', I will note that as more games are being released and re-released, they are being marketed in 'arcs', with the Ezio Collection and the Rebel Collection. Hopefully this adds a bit more to my original RfC, and I have properly made a case for at least the 'Setting' column to return. Smithinson77 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smithinson77: - re "almost always mentioned within the first few sentences of each game description in RS " - Has any RS taken the time to compile that information into a table? If not, why is that compilation of information notable or helpful for readers? Just b/c individual things might have been noted by RS doesn't mean that a compilation of information is notable or helpful. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's got to be some indication that the compilation is notable or helpful. NickCT (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@NickCT: The obvious answer is that it's helpful because it organizes information chronologically and gives context/supporting information in nearby columns that the average reader looking at an encyclopedia page about this subject would want to know. I don't understand your argument that a table has to appear in another source to be helpful or to be included on the encyclopedia. There are probably thousands of lists, tables, etc., that appear on Wikipedia and are not found in an outside source because tables are a visually simple way to compile information from outside sources. It makes no sense to say we cannot include a table here because another source didn't make the same table first. It's not like Wikipedians are making up the information in the table; the table is a compilation of information from outside sources. Compiling information into a table is not what "fancruft" is. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"thousands of lists, tables, etc." - For example? NickCT (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delete the table and replace with {{Timeline of release years}}. -- ferret (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• There's a lot that I feel we need to reconsider on this page. There are far too many games to have anywhere close to detailed plot summaries for them, and instead tackle at best the high level arc (that there's been the time-worn history of assassins and templars, the Isu, the modern day stuff involving the animus). But because the individual narrative elements (either the historical characters that are followed, or the modern day ones) have such inconsistent arcs, its near impossible to sort them outside of a strict release chronological order, barring anything from Ubisoft akin to the "official" Zelda timeline. Or that said, we can use an article like this from Gamestop that aligns the main games in an order that we can break into the Desmond, John/Juno, and Layla arcs, with the games not mentioned on this list considered as spinoffs from the series (stories that don't advance this plot). But note this would be by the modern day stories, and using the modern day protagonist only to help break the arcs. But again, not the same as being asked.
• I do think that we want a small table to list game releases and platforms as to easily distinguish computer/console from handheld and mobile. If we do an abbreviate Timeline like Ferret says, and drastically kill the plot summaries, the current table can be moved below and better spelled out for release date and platform which is more salient data than the eras and the like. --Masem (t) 02:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem makes a good point about some issues on this page. There are so many AC games now that perhaps the best thing would be to go with a simple {{Timeline of release years}} and create a new page, 'List of Assassins Creed Media' - like this or this. In my original RfC I was trying to make the point that the historical setting of each game is important, and must be included on a basic overview table of releases to help the lay person distinguish 'arcs'. This information could easily be included when there is more space to do so. Having a 'list of media' page could also help show all the re-releases on different platforms, cut back on the 'In Other Media' section of the main page, and be better in the long run when more and more games are released. Smithinson77 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed series release timeline

Main series entries in bold

2007	Assassin's Creed
2008	Assassin's Creed: Altaïr's Chronicles
2009	Assassin's Creed: Bloodlines
	Assassin's Creed II
	Assassin's Creed II: Discovery
2010	Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
2011	Assassin's Creed: Revelations
2012	Assassin's Creed III
	Assassin's Creed III: Liberation
2013	Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
	Assassin's Creed: Pirates
2014	Assassin's Creed: Freedom Cry
	Assassin's Creed Rogue
	Assassin's Creed Unity
2015	Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China
	Assassin's Creed Syndicate
2016	Assassin's Creed Chronicles: India
	Assassin's Creed Identity
	Assassin's Creed Chronicles: Russia
2017	Assassin's Creed Origins
2018	Assassin's Creed Odyssey
	Assassin's Creed Rebellion
2019
2020	Assassin's Creed Valhalla

I've made a preliminary effort on utilising {{Timeline of release years}} (as can be seen here), but it's worth pointing out that if we're going to use this template, there is a lot more transmedia in the series (i.e. novels, comics etc.) that will need to also be included. The easiest way to do this would be to have multiple instances of the template in the article (one for main games, one for transmedia). --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Replace with "Timeline of Release" - There would be firm support for this, considering the problem we have at present with this table. Since the article is focused on the series in general, anything about the platforms for each game is best left to their respective articles. Any plot details would also be best left in the same manner as well; a brief summary of what occurs or what players do is simple enough here. However, I DO NOT agree to Smithinson77's comment:

In my original RfC I was trying to make the point that the historical setting of each game is important, and must be included on a basic overview table of releases to help the lay person distinguish 'arcs'.

The reason for this is simple: WIKIPEDIA IS A GENERAL ENCYCOLEPDIA, and this is a generalised article on the series. Anything about settings and historical eras are best left to the respective articles covering each game, and should not be included here so it can be tailor-made to suit a specific audience rather than a general audience. GUtt01 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to modify the timeline to colour code eras, but due to a couple of games covering different eras, but releasing in the same year (i.e. Bloodlinges and Assassin's Creed II), it doesn't quite work. By way of compromise, we could organise the "Release history" section to group titles by era. For example:

==Release history==
===Crusader era===
*''Assassin's Creed''
*''Assassin's Creed: Altaïr's Chronicles''
*''Assassin's Creed: Bloodlines''
===Renaissance era===
*''Assassin's Creed II''
*''Assassin's Creed II: Discovery''
*''Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood''
*''Assassin's Creed: Revelations''

We would then remove the existing table and replace with the Timeline of Release template. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's going to be original research to mix the physical game releases with the "era" of the game narrative, particularly once we get past Black Flag. --Masem (t) 15:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

STOP IT RIGHT NOW - Don't keep suggesting arranging games by Historical Era!!! It's pure FANCRUFT as I have pointed out. There is no point in continuing to say "Oh, we should include Historical Settings because it offers more information/ people might like to know this", because such information is best left to the articles for each individual title. Doing this just makes a complete mess of the information, and is not helpful. We need to list Release History purely with games and the year they came out with; platforms for games is debatable, and I've begun to start taking to a belief that should be the case of articles for the games themselves to detail out. GUtt01 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

GUtt01, I've reverted your edits because they had yet to be agreed upon. Jasca Ducato talks of compromise, which is important. The 'timeline of releases' that you changed to was a preliminary creation, and doesn't even hi light the main series games! This clearly seems to be a issues that needs more discussion. Just because you personally believe that historical settings should not be mentioned in an overview does not mean it is not helpful and cannot be included in a neat table of information. I will stand by my point that the historical setting of and Assassins Creed game is of the utmost importance to the general reader. Think of how a layperson would be aware of the games. They do not know AC Origins as 'Origins', but most likely 'the Egyptian one'. If anything, the historical setting is the opposite of Fancruft! Smithinson77 (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

GUtt01, I would appreciate it if you didn't start DEMANDING things of people. This is a civil discussion and shouting at people is not an effective way to get your point of view across. You have consistently stated that providing the historical eras for each game is FANCRUFT, but your argument lacks merit, in my eyes. If youdislike the use of terms such as Crusader era, or Renaissance, then there are Ubisoft-approved names like; "The Ezio Collection" for AC2, AC:B, and AC:R; the "Kenway Saga" for AC3, AC4:BF, and AC:RG which can be used - though this would leave us lacking for the first few games, and those from Unity onwards.

I am, personally, indifferent on the matter of inclusion, but it is clear that there are at least a few people who believe we should work to find a way to include this information in-article. EDIT: I would like to add that, according to Wikipedia:Fancruft#Tone and focus "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world." Adding "real world" eras would, thus, not necessarily be considered fancruft. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

But what is the point? Release History is focused on the release history of games and other medias in the franchise. It's not about defining what historical setting they belong to. The original table made the most bizarre decision of defining release history for games with columns for Historical Era and Year, which is most bizarre. No release history table for video game franchises does that thing for games set within real-world environments, let alone those in historical periods. Let me give an example - Call of Duty features a number of real-world settings for two set of games: Modern (Present) era; and World War II. Now in the table given for all games within this franchise, it never states anything about Historical Era and Year; its not relevant for a table pertaining to the Release History of titles in the franchise. By adding these, it just compounds the table with more information than is needed. What should a Release History Table be all about? Simple: All games in the series, platforms they were made for, Year of Release, and Developer (if titles had different ones). GUtt01 (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Defining games by Historical Era (not Year in that Era) is something that could be done within the section of information, but its not something that is suitable for a Release History table. Just a suggestion. GUtt01 (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I am, personally, indifferent on the matter. I care not a whit whether the historical eras are included in this article or not, but others do. I'm merely offering suggestions as to how the information can be included, should that be the final consensus. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Understood. But I think this RfC was about including these in the Release History table, not the article in general. And that's the issue in question.GUtt01 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include the setting. Reliable sources frequently reel off a list of settings when discussing the series as a whole, including in the context of a list of releases. Identifying the setting in this table would help users know which games are which at a glance without getting into the summary of each game, which I think is where the cruft in this article really lies - summaries this detailed should be reserved for the main article on each game, we can trim that a lot. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Only in the main bulk of information; not the Release Table, which was what the editor who started this RfC was asking for. GUtt01 (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Is there a separate easy-to-hand table that you think the setting could be included in? I'm specifically stating that I do not think the user should have to scroll through the descriptions of each individual game to see its setting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No. The simple answer is this - setting is not essential for a Release History Table, and no other table design should include it for a franchise. Users will have to make do about finding out the setting for either a section about each game that was released or the main article on the game. We cannot return the table back to its previous arrangement that included Historical Era and Historical Year; the table should never have been designed in that manner. Anyone wanting to do that, should do it for the Wiki devoted to the franchise, not on Wikipedia. GUtt01 (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I very much disagree that "the place/time the game is set" is fancruft-type information. It is generally something reliable sources, including reliable sources from outside the world of gaming, discuss. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

But the RfC is about the Table for Release History, not the section as a whole! GUtt01 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, it's about release history table, a table which shows the real-world information about the video games. Assume a person knows nothing about any of the Assassin's Creed video games and they stumble upon this article. Listing real-world years, linking to real-world historical events creates a WP:SEAOFBLUE and doesn't help in understanding the Assassin's Creed video game franchise. Might I suggest creating a separate fictional chronology template (see {{Metal Gear chronology}}, {{Kingdom Hearts chronology}} or {{Contra chronology}})? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Soetermans: I don't agree with the distinction you're drawing between real-world information and fictional-world information here. "The developers chose to set this game during the Crusades" is a real-world fact. I don't think the release table needs to name the protagonists, but a list of settings absolutely does help a user understand the Assassin's Creed video game franchise at a glance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Within the sub-sections within Release History - yes. Within the Release History table - NO. That is not what the table is for! The table is to help users know about the release history of the games in the franchise, not specific details within - not protagonists, not major characters, not setting, nothing about fictional or real-world elements. The only information in it should be about the titles that were released, the year they released, and the platforms they were released on; review scores can be included, but that's optional and requires citations, naturally. To keep claiming that video game elements other than what the table is designed for, is pointless. Even if you want to help a user know these, look below the table - we got sub-sections for each game which help to clearly identify the setting for a game as such. We should not be including those details in the table: Wikipedia is mostly a generalised encyclopedia, and tables are mostly designed in that respect. Adding such information is not essential, other than for such tables within Wikis for the respective franchises. GUtt01 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Roscelese:, you don't agree that we should treat WP:UNIVERSE content differently? We shouldn't say anything about the stories or protagonists, but we should mention in what period of history it is set? How would that help the general reader? "After looking at this table of releases, I don't know anything more about Assassin's Creed, third-person action-adventure games with stealth elements, the Assassins, the Templars, Abstergo or Desmond, but I do know for that the first game is set during the Third Crusade!" I don't want to start sounding like a broken record, but it's a table of the franchise's releases, not a description of the releases. They're games first, and we don't list gameplay elements either. And to make a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, that's not how video game franchise articles tend to be organized. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on what reliable sources talk about, the fact that the game is set in the Third Crusade is way more significant than Desmond or Abstergo! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you up to double-check the sources? I'm just going to guess they will mention the names of protagonists and the plethora of gameplay elements too. But we don't include that either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Further up the page, I linked two sources that list the settings and do not talk about Desmond, etc. Beyond those, this source does go into more detail but it foregrounds discussion of the various historical settings, and this is another source that includes a table of the games with their settings before going into further detail. This is a common way that sources talk about the games; they consider the games' historical settings to be a key feature. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include the setting. I am convinced by Roscelese's sources and I think it is useful information. Pikavoom (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Include in Section, not Table: This RfC is about the table, not the section itself. Anyone entering this discussion should please note that this was the original talk of the RfC. GUtt01 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Please stop trying to limit the scope of this conversation. The discussion is about including historical time periods in the article, and how this can be achieved. Some of these options include it not being in the table. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jasca Ducato: Please read the top paragraph of this RfC. The original subject was about the release history table; I'm not against the historical settings being in the section for each game, I'm just clarifying that the original reason for the RfC was in regards to the Release History table's layout. GUtt01 (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thinking about this more, given that we have at least one RS article (Gamespot's) that broadly covers the series' narrative, I would support two separate tables but given that we'd be drastically culling back details on individual games in the series on this page:
  • One table would be narrative breakdown based on the Gamespot's ordering/era. Would NOT include release information, but would include era (of the simulation), historical protagonist, and modern-day protagonist. This might nt include all the spinoff games which may not be easily placed in the larger arc. This table should be used to accompany the discussion of a very high-level plot smmary of the entire series as a per-arc level (not per game level) much as the Gamespot article works from. Alternatively, we may not need this table if we are clear that each arc is a new paragraph that identifies the games in that arc.
  • The other table is strictly the release table, which should be the game in chronolical release date, the lead studio(s) on it, and target platforms. That can be later in the body. This needs to stay a table.--Masem (t) 18:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

We can't do a table for fictional element breakdowns - no franchise article on Wikipedia does that. I mean, check out Star Wars, Pokemon or Grand Theft Auto - none of them incorporate such an arrangement. The only thing that could be done, in terms of say "Story Arc" is to use the Release History Timeline template, and color-coding games per the story arc they encompasses. To break it down with elements such as Historical Era and protoganists would be excessive; this is an article about the franchise, and this section is focused on summary of Release History and their brief summaries of each game in the franchise, not the fictional elements within each per se. GUtt01 (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we do for The Legend of Zelda which has a more convulted but confirmed timeline from Nintendo. Here, the problem with the AC games is that the narrative history is not coincident with the release history or as simple to describe with, say, Star Wars. --Masem (t) 19:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda has that, but within a section devoted to providing insight on the fictional chronological set of events that the games are arranged to and the sort of story arcs as such, including arcs defined by one possible outcome from a game. Here, such fictional information would not be suitable for the Release History section; if the information is important to these people, it might be better suited to setting up a separate section, similar to LoZ, but only if they conform the information to a generalised view. Otherwise, it might struggle and could cause further problems for the article. GUtt01 (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So yes, for a release history, I still point to the second table: game, date of release, primary studio, and platforms. But that should be lower in the article as that is a bit more detail than a broad overview of the series. I'm just saying that nearer the top we can consider a separate table for summarizing the broad series plot via era similar in nature to the Zelda box there, but NOT containing any release date information. --Masem (t) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

In the table in the section "Release History", it is stated that "Assassin's Creed Origins" is available on "Stadia". I did check the stadia offering and Assassin's Creed Origins isn't part of it. (source: https://stadia.google.com/store/list/3)

Please change the Platforms for "Assassin's Creed Origins" to "PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Windows" Keep "Assassin's Creed Odyssey" with "PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Windows, Stadia" Lndium (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Change lots to time to lost to time Josiahmac (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

first edit hope I did it correctly Josiahmac (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Some suggestions going forward

Given the above, here's what I would suggest going forward as this page is still awfully repetative:

First, I've made up the following table for the purposes of aiding in the narration section ONLY , not to be combined with the release table (as emphasized by discussion above:

Game	Historical character Period/Era	Present-day character
Assassin's Creed	Altaïr Ibn-LaʼAhad Third Crusade	Desmond Miles
Assassin's Creed II	Ezio Auditore da Firenze Italian Renaissance
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Assassin's Creed: Revelations
Assassin's Creed III	Connor (Ratonhnhaké:ton) American Revolution
Assassin's Creed III: Liberation	Aveline de Grandpré French and Indian War	unknown
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag	Edward Kenway Golden Age of Piracy	unknown
Assassin's Creed Rogue	Shay Patrick Cormac Seven Years' War	unknown
Assassin's Creed Unity	Arno Dorian French Revolution	The Initiate
Assassin's Creed Syndicate	Jacob and Evie Frye Industrial Revolution
Assassin's Creed Origins	Bayek and Aya Ptolemaic period	Layla Hassan
Assassin's Creed Odyssey	Kassandra and Alexios Peloponnesian War
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	Eivor Viking invasion of England

I would expect to float this table on the synopsis section and even if necessary collapse it by default. Note this follows the GameSpot article on the game's chronological order so this is no guesswork in terms of series order.

Second, in the current Release History under the release history table, I would remove all the game descriptions except for the mobile games and collections that aren't covered by the above table or synopsis. We don't need to repeat between the synopsis and this section the same elements. By this point is should be fairly obvious what, say, AC III will be about even if we are only doing broad strokes. --Masem (t) 22:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Overall, I'm happy with this proposal. My only concern is that we have a number of spin-off titles to consider (e.g. Bloodlines, Discovery, the Chronicles releases) to which we do not know who the "modern-day" character is (or if there even is one). For that reason, I do think the third column is not strictly necessary. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Those being the mobile games, we have no idea where they fit into the larger timeline narrative (all these do slot into that). And as mobile games, while we'll acknowledge they exist in the franchise, they really don't get considered as serious entries in the series. --Masem (t) 15:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition in the Comics section

The comics should be updated. Narottam Murmu (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Narottam Murmu, thanks for your help. Could you also add WP:SOURCES when adding material? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

The latest release now in Assassins Creed Valhalla releases on the 10 November, 2020 Change Latest Release : Assassins's Creed Oddessey TO Latest Release : Assassin's Creed Valhalla Moazashraf007 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Greyjoy ^talk 11:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Assassins Creed Syndicate - Also on Stadia

The game listing should include Stadia as a platform for Assassins Creed Syndicate (it's available here: https://stadia.google.com/store/details/88a2945345f744519c5148ddd54f26d1rcp1/sku/8aa42ef528804d0ba75608240a6c0289p)

Thanks,

A1phanumeric (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Ed

AC Brotherhood of Venice release date is incorrect.

It is going to be released in may. as anounced on ubisoft the game is funded by kickstarter and is where news on it is from https://news.ubisoft.com/en-us/article/7yYMlYPDm4sAhKqJwoVB4x/assassins-creed-brotherhood-of-venice-board-game-bringing-stealth-infiltration-to-tabletops https://triton-noir.com/assassins-creed-brotherhood-of-venice/ https://www. kickstarter.com/projects/135116486/assassins-creed-brotherhood-of-venice/posts/3019728 --All the usernames I wanted (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I propose swapping out the current infobox format on the page, from the "Infobox video game series" to "Infobox media franchise" template, as Assassin's Creed now encompasses a variety of novels, comics, board games, films (animated or live action), an audio drama, a symphony tour, and an upcoming TV series besides the original format of video games. Does anyone have any objections to that? Haleth (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

I suggest to edit the use of italic font in the second bullet point of Assassin's_Creed#Main_series_(desktop/console_games), sub-section "Re-release compilations / Collections" in order to be consistent with the other points in the same list. Generally, only titles are italic, however in point 2, there's an unexpected mix of italic and non-italic used for various bits of information. My suggestion:

Change this:

• Assassin's Creed: The Americas Collection (American title)/ Assassin's Creed: Birth of a New World – The American Saga (European title): Developed by Ubisoft Montreal, features Assassin's Creed III, Assassin's Creed: Liberation HD and Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, for the PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. The collection was released on October 3, 2014 in Europe and October 28, 2014 in North America. The PC version was only released in Europe.

to this:

• Assassin's Creed: The Americas Collection (American title)/ Assassin's Creed: Birth of a New World – The American Saga (European title): Developed by Ubisoft Montreal, features Assassin's Creed III, Assassin's Creed: Liberation HD and Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, for the PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. The collection was released on October 3, 2014 in Europe and October 28, 2014 in North America. The PC version was only released in Europe. 130.216.209.12 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Two apostrophes went missing. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Related draft - Infinity

Started a related draft about Infinity, Draft:Assassin's Creed Infinity.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Open-world

I’d like to bring up a point about this article being in the Open-world category: While yes the cast majority of the games do have an open-world, not all of them do, and as such calling the series an open-world series is entirely misleading, as that implies that the entire series falls under that, which isn’t the case at all. I know its a technicality, but it is a huge one that should be noted.NickWX28 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

As you yourself admit, the "[v]ast majority of the games" in the series are open-world, which makes it an open-world series; there is nothing misleading about that. Categorisation does not require that 100% of releases meet the open-world criteria for the article about the series as a whole to be included in said category. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 19:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn’t that be a flaw with the categorisation system then?NickWX28 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, because there are often situations, exactly like this one, where articles broadly meet the criteria for inclusion within a specific category with one or more exceptions. Category:Open-world video games is the most specific category we have available, so it is appropriate that it be here. A similar example is Borderlands (series) which, like Assassin's Creed, has several non-open world spin-offs but is still categorised as an open-world series. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 09:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That may be a bad example to use considering I myself am the one that added all Borderlands games plus the series page to the category (with the exception of 3).NickWX28 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a perfect example to use then. Either both fit the category (which they do), or neither does. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 08:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I also haven’t re-reviewed those yet so thats still tbd. Like I said, I added those to the category in the first place. I’m reviewing the entire category though and being more thorough about things.NickWX28 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We generally need to consider the main games in the series to make this assessment and not so much the spin-offs. And limiting that to just the main games, they definitely all are open world games. --Masem (t) 14:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Chronology Table Missing Content

To round out the “premise” section we should add a couple more installments like the live-action film, chronicles, and/or Lineage and Embers. Jfucgighufiggugfvhg (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The live action film is not assumed to be within the same narrative timeline the games purposely align themselves. And some of the side games aren't as critical in their story to the larger premise of the series, being side games. --Masem (t) 01:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I thought the movie was supposed to be in that universe. Jfucgighufiggugfvhg (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Respectfully, your point regarding the 2016 live-action film not being a part of the same narrative timeline is incorrect. The events of that film are very much a part of the series' canon and have been referenced a few times in subsequent video game releases. That being said, nothing happens in the film that warrants specific inclusion in the Premise section of this article. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 14:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

I am looking to add a component to the "Cultural Impact" subject which relates to Ubisoft's effort to make "Unity" free for PC owners for a time in response to the 2019 Notre Dame fire that heavily damaged the Cathedral. The initiative was undertaken to allow players to experience the chapel, as the Ubisoft team dedicated a great deal of effort in replicating the details of the cathedral prior to the fire. VenantiusOnline (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

CHANGE

The entire game is presented as a product developed by the in-universe company Abstergo Entertainment, who have done a heavy a amount of censoring in regards to the Assassin-Templar conflict. At various points during their playthrough, the player is contacted by the hacking collective Erudito, who helps them uncensor the game to learn the true nature of the events depicted.

TO The entire game is presented as a product developed by the in-universe company Abstergo Entertainment, who have done a heavy amount of censoring in regards to the Assassin-Templar conflict. At various points during their playthrough, the player is contacted by the hacking collective Erudito, who helps them uncensor the game to learn the true nature of the events depicted. Wimpkitty (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- ferret (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

Change Marc-Alexis Cotê to Marc-Alexis Côté 207.253.166.234 (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023

Original: After Syndicate, Ubisoft recognized that the series needed a major reinvention across both gameplay and narrative.

To: After Syndicate, Ubisoft decided that the series needed a major reinvention across both gameplay and narrative.

The reason for this change is that to say Ubisoft "recognized" something is to assert that this is objectively true. Saying that Ubisoft "decided" makes no claims about the objectivity of this decision and so is a better fit for an encyclopedic source. Gtyrovolas (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Fix the “legendary” Boar.

So I keep F* dying from all the pigs. Why is there so many, I’m literally level 30 and dying from level 21s, get rid of the other boars. Just have the damn boss so it’s a 1v1 and not a damn third-party. I had a bounty hunter help me bro 64.156.99.174 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ubisoft Montreal

Most of the games in the franchise were not primarily developed by Ubisoft Montreal James Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)