Assassin’s Creed 2: Shot Through the Heart
A video game tackles religion head-on. The results are mixed.
by Richard Clark
28 January 2010
1,299 views
15 Comments
Note: If you haven’t played through AC2, you may want to finish first before you read this. There’s some acknowledgement of end-game revelations.
Assassin’s Creed 2 opens with a telling disclaimer: “Inspired by historical events and characters, this work of fiction was designed, developed and produced by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs.” It’s the first in a series of signals that what we are about to play is in fact a very different type of game.
In an industry starved for games that mean something, acknowledge the concept of God in a real and serious manner, and that do more than dodge hot-topic issues, Assassin’s Creed 2 is a game that should be first commended. Clearly the writers of this game put their beliefs and convictions on the line, or at least refused to suppress them, resulting in what can only be a more interesting and provocative game. While most video games are produced with a mindset not unlike Michael Bay - with a determination not to confuse or defend the lowest common denominator – we could use a developer that pours itself into its’ games.
There were specific things about the game I really loved and can really get behind. For the most part, Assassin’s Creed 2 drives home the moral gravity of killing a human being. Each major assassination is followed up by a small cinematic in which the target dies in my arms. Ezio, our lead character, always finds it within himself to wish them peace, however hypocritical that wish may be.
In fact, it is that conflict that serves as the primary growth experience for Ezio. Rather than becoming more comfortable and hardened as the years go by, each kill brings its’ own surprises and regrets. That guy you were going to kill because you thought he was going to do something hurtful? The letter you find on his person explains that he wasn’t going to go through with it after all. Another man had a family that he loved dearly and anxiously anticipated seeing again. These people Ezio killed? They’re human beings.
The game itself takes place within the ‘Animus’, a type of virtual reality system in which Desmond, our real hero, experiences the past lives of his relatives. This is a brilliant narrative device which drives home the essence of playing a video game in which you carry out numerous questionable acts. Desmond is doing no real harm by merely experiencing Ezio’s many assassinations. He is, however experiencing a very real idea and concept. The acts may be virtual, but they carry real weight and represent real evils. It’s a helpful way to think about the tension video games present in the first place, and in my opinion the masterstroke of Assassin’s Creed 2 itself.
I am a devout Christian though, and just as the writers poured themselves into the development of the game, I cannot help but experience Assassin’s Creed 2 within the context of my own belief system. It is in fact the concept of a belief system itself which this game seems to hold up to scrutiny, particularly when the Assassin’s Creed is revealed: “Nothing is true. Everything is permissible.” This creed is in fact presented in direct opposition to the organized religion of the Catholic church, the only real religious institution in place within the context of the game.
By the end of the game it becomes very clear that the true heroes aren’t the ones who claim the truth, but are instead those who live in ambiguity and seek out freedom. The climactic moment is by far one of the most memorable and disturbing video game moments I’ve ever had: I literally had to assassinate the Pope (it turns out, the games primary villain) as he recited a Latin liturgy in the Vatican.
Granted, this guy is (both within the fiction and historically) probably the worst Pope ever. And yet, in this game, like so many of the other characters, he is used as a kind of object lesson or prop. The game points to him and every other powerful spiritual leader and declares unequivocal villainy. Meanwhile, the group of Assassins which Ezio joins later in the game are the unabashed good guys. We see that over time they’ve grown to be much more conflicted about the nature of their assassinations. Is it really right to take a man’s life, for any reason? In this world, the religious institutions and their leaders do so much harm, that they simply must be stopped.
Maybe we can acknowledge that one of the problems with video games of this sort is that the primary mechanics have a tendency to overshadow any traditional attempt at balance. So yes, while the targets often turn out to be human beings, while the villain is probably about as evil in the game as he was historically, and while the Assassins seem to be rethinking the whole killing thing by the end of the game, the mechanics tell another story.
Yes, that disclaimer at the beginning attempts to say something, but for a video game like this, it says very little. Maybe it’s true that people of various faiths developed this game, but I’m starting to wonder if any of them were writers for the game. I wanted Assassin’s Creed 2 to be an honest discussion about the benefits and dangers of organized religion, but as I jumped out of the rafters and towards the Pope with blades drawn, I started to feel like that discussion was over. When Alexander VI’s sermon stopped, the preaching was just getting started.
(No Love Yet)
Loading ...
AC2 SPOILERS IN THIS COMMENT
Wow, assassinating the pope?! How disturbing.
Thanks for the writeup!
Do you think there’s a possible allusion to The Brothers Karamazov in this game? “Everything is permitted” is Ivan Karamazov’s line (well, of course, it’s in the Bible too, but in a very different context). He thinks it’s just a philosophy, but it turns out to have devastating practical consequences within the novel.
Huh. I think that’s my first comment on a game-related post. :) My husband actually wrote about Assassin’s Creed 2 recently (he hasn’t played it–he’s more focused on the visualization of historical settings): http://www.openbible.info/blog/2010/01/videogames-as-time-travel/
(Shameless better-half promotion.)
Carissa, I haven’t read it, but Alan said the same thing. I doubt it, though. I read an interview with the developer where they were saying that phrase was the actual Creed of this historical group of Assassin’s which the game was based on. Their thought was that it matched up perfectly with the concept of freedom that comes with an open world game.
And yeah, I was certainly pretty surprised to see your comment here!
As for your husband’s post, the historical setting of the game is one of the most striking things about it. I found it absolutely fascinating to just explore, and even climb, all of the various landmarks around Florence and Venice. It was pretty amazing.
It’s a game don’t read too much into it. Religious people tend to get their panties in a twist whenever they are criticized by the culture.
It could be that religious people are the ones that need to reflect harder on why they feel everything is an attack on them in the first place, or how some entertainment need to be “thought provoking on the goods and bads of religion in society” and not just a piece of entertainment. People tend to see what they want to see in games, the designers just want to make good games and borrow some themes from the real world, they don’t want to make “statements” like in film they just want to take theme’s from the world and use them in games without stupid sensitive people getting their panties in a bunch. The game wasn’t a message what they think of religion.
After all the bible is obsessed with human evil, the old testament is filled with god criticizing the jews harshly and turning away from him. If anything assasin’s creed portrays flawed people as they are, flawed and evil. Assasin’s creed is more of a statement about humanity then anything else.
If you want serious discussion on religion they have theology / divinity courses in university, a game doesn’t need to be heavy. We have abundant avenues for discussion outside a piece of entertainment.
Booster, thanks for your comment, but I can’t help but feel you went a bit overboard in your criticism.
You said, “Religious people tend to get their panties in a twist whenever they are criticized by the culture.”
No, I’m pretty okay with being criticized by the culture, even in terms of my religion and its’ perceived failings. I think a lot of the criticism is valid, and a lot of it I feel comes from a genuine, if misguided place. I will acknowledge that there are a lot of religious people who do get annoyed by criticism, but that’s not me.
On the other hand, I do get frustrated when my faith is unfairly criticized or reflected in a way that doesn’t treat it seriously.
And yes, I think my faith, just like all faiths, philosophies, and beliefs deserve to be treated with respect and thoughtfulness even when something is merely entertainment. Because even entertainment contains ideas, and ideas have consequences.
Also, I would point out that did say a lot of good things about AC2. I just think it fails in its’ representation of my faith, which is a subject that I feel fairly qualified to weigh in on.
” I just think it fails in its’ representation of my faith, ”
And many other christian groups would have issues with you misrepresenting what they believe is true christianity. There are as many different types of christians with different doctrines and interpretations of the same book as yourself.
The whole point is that it’s a game, you’re reading your own meaning into it. There is no deeper meaning, it says more about your own internal dialogue with yourself then it does about anything.
Remember – it is a piece of entertainment, every story or human institution that has ever existed gets corrupted, intentionally and unintentionally.
The designers just wanted to use some related ideas from the real world to make a piece of entertainment. Lets us take a realistic perspective – a frivolous piece of entertainment should not be expected to be deep or correct about anything, this is what serious scholarship and public debate in open forums is for.
I’m sorry, I just disagree. Can entertainment not also be “art” and is art not a serious attempt to address, in some way, the real and serious issues of life?
Scholarship and public debate is good for clarifying and establishing arguments, but art is better for driving them home and making them seem relevant to us, something Assassin’s Creed 2 does quite well in many aspects and not so well in others.
I like the idea of play for play’s sake, but I also love the idea of entertainment or art that goes beyond frivolous and towards something more challenging and helpful.
Except video games are not about art, they are about money. These places are commercial entities. The company that green lighted assassin’s creed was thinking about sales not about art I can assure you that 100%
Video games are not the same as movies, most kids and adults when they are playing Assassins creed are not thinking anything serious about religion but about the fact that it’s cool to be an assassin killing people in a past they can never really experience.
It seems you are overcome by pride and cultural sensibilities, you want video games to speak to your cultural sensibilities on some level. I’m sorry to say it, but video games are the last place you should be looking for such things.
Booster. Art is about money. Which plainly doesn’t preclude it from also having meaning. I don’t think that video games, books, film, or comics are art—but they’re all about money too. That doesn’t stop them from being cultural artifacts though.
And as cultural artifacts, games, books, and movies cannot help but describe their cultures. And as descriptors, they have necessary meaning. Simple anthropology, chum.
Whatever you meant by this is lost in the morass of unrelated or unspoken premises. Rich being overcome by pride (possible) is unrelated to his being overcome by cultural sensitivities (what does this even mean? like, emotionally?) is unrelated to his desire to have the cultural artifacts he participates in reflect on some level his cultural sensitivities (and who wouldn’t enjoy that kind of comfort?).
Beyond the fact that you don’t show any evidence of understanding cultural anthropology, social hegemony, or the multifold use of cultural artifacts, your argument doesn’t even cohere. That aside, I do like your name.
@Dave
The problem is video games do not have the same history of books and films. Videogames were originally marketed to kids, if you go back and look at earliest 8-bit games is there any kind of “art” or “meaning” there? You’d be hard pressed to find anything other then wild childish entertainment, you’d come up with about zero games with anything the author talks about.
The problem with the author is that he wants the game to portray HIS idea of what religion is, the designers want to portray THEIR idea of what religion is. If he is offended he should send a letter to the designers of assasin’s creed and ask them if they even thought about portraying religion in a “more correct” light or if they even care.
The point is, to whine about a piece of entertainment because it portrays religion in a way you don’t like and then wishing it was different when these games are frivilous entertainment borders on childishness. Games are still by and large toys sold to teens. Why would anyone expect serious portray of religion in such a medium is beyond what is reasonable.
Especially given the mediums history of being for kids.
Film and books have no such history, games were specifically the niche of largely nerdy teens and most games today still reflect their tastes (Darksiders, God of war). Does anyone find “deep meaning” in darksiders, god of war or bayonetta?
I find deep meaning in Borderlands… Kill stuff. Make big BOOM. Get money. Bug bigger gun. Kill more stuff. Make bigger BOOM.
@Booster – As for the origin of film, it began as childish entertainments as well (Muybridge’s galloping horse didn’t really convey a whole lot of meaning). So, while origins are interesting and all, they do not bear on the question of whether a cultural artifact conveys meaning.
That question, of course, is answered by the brute fact of something being a cultural artifact. And it’s answered in the affirmative. That games exist as a product of our culture proves that they have meaning—they are invested with manifold meaning by their mere existence. That you continue to bypass this simple concept is baffling.
The question that faces anyone who cares to ask it then is: What meaning do games hold, since they must hold meaning?
What kind of things do they say about our understanding of the world? Of fantasy? About our values systems? About our needs as a populace? About our visual conception? About our concepts of competition, story, victory, loss, patience, frustration, honour, greed, cheating? About our cultural mores and particular ways of communicating? Of visual metaphor? Of ethics?
Your acuity for what holds and does not hold meaning is lamentable. Your understanding of the history of games is, despite being unrelated to the topic at hand, is abysmal. You refer to gaming as a medium, apparently unaware that when we refer to these cultural expressions (e.g., film, literature, music, games) as mediums, we as a society are describing them as vehicles for communication. Mediums for—wait for it—meaning. Societally, that is what we say and what you yourself by your adoption of the term have said.
Your complaints about the article are negligible because they are nonsense. If you wished to take issue with the idea that the developer-designed game mechanic and developer-designed narrative exist at odds with each other, that could be an interesting and valuable discussion. I’m sure there are other worthwhile points you could have made if you tried.
But you didn’t. You deeply misunderstand the place of cultural artifacts and you pretty obviously didn’t understand the above article either. It’s clear from the article that the author wasn’t unduly offended by the game or the values it promotes and abandons as a matter of game’s course, so that is a non-issue. You’re arguing non-issues. And not doing very well at it.
Game, set, match: The Dane.
Well played, sir. You sure did say that mighty pretty.
@Mr. Boomstick – That, Sir, is because I am mighty pretty.
haha
Leave your response!
Welcome to Christ and Pop Culture
Some of Our Favorite Articles
Recent Comments
Get New Posts via Email
Become our friend!
Writers
Subscribe
Archive
Posts Like This
Most Loved
Most Commented
Most Viewed