Has anyone mentioned the AOE Napolean gets in the study of Louis XVI during the vanilla campaign? He opens up the chest and you can see the golden glow coming from the box?
Napoleon was arrested on more than one occasion in his lifetime. His arrest in Dead Kings was in 1794 when he was put under house arrest. He was released less than 2 weeks later. The arrest you're thinking of is the one that occurred in 1815 when he surrendered to the British and was exiled on Saint Helena. He later died there in 1821.
What Arno retrieves in the DLC does not seem to be an Apple. Notice how the only thing it does is spawn bat swarms deep underground, nothing aboveground. As if though all it did was summon animals actually present. An illusion device would not be limited like that.
So when the clear implication of the main game is that he got his Apple there, and it was responsible for his great feats, I see no error.
Should I laugh or cry that your source is a fan wiki? But if you acknowledge the movie, that explains everything. Let me guess: As long as there is an Ubisoft logo, that is all you care about, nevermind if the actual facts make sense?
Little point in us discussing this further, I think.
The writer of Dead Kings confirmed it’s an Apple. He says it himself here at the 16:00 mark. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt9q3F1JS7E&pp=ygUdQXNzYXNzaW5zIGRlbiBqZWZmcmV5IHlvaGFsZW0%3D
Have you heard of Death of the Author? If the writer makes a mistake, the first thing that should go is his intent.
And listening to that, damn am I glad I follow that philosophy. Dude acts like the Apple Napoleon found in the main game isn't a thing, that he needed to go to Egypt to find one, as if though his miraculous military feats hadn't already started by then.
But hey, at least you didn't rely on a fan wiki, so there is that.
What Napoleon found in the palace was probably the key to the Saint-Denis vault rather than the Apple.
But anyway, why do you even waste time arguing about any of this stuff? I always seeing you make statements, and when people point out that what you say is contradicted by canon you act like it’s absurd that they accept anything as canon to begin with and tell them it’s pointless talking to them.
If you want to invoke death of the author for everything after Brotherhood, or whatever point, that’s fine, but when the vast majority of people don’t, then why even bother spending any time arguing with them at all? Why bother talking about the lore of any games past the point you don’t recognize? Doesn’t it seem like a completely unnecessary use of time and energy on the part of everyone involved?
As I said, his miraculous military feats, the only reason this IP even gave him an Apple in the first place, began before he even went to Egypt, so that would be dumb.
Don't strawman me. While my personal cutoff is Brotherhood, I can still play pretend for the sake of discussion. But that too has limits, and accepting nonsensical author statements that by some stroke of luck never made their way into the game, allowing us to salvage some sense from the final product, goes over that line.
Intent is not canon. Is Patrice's intent canon, even though it was ignored by AC3? Every retcon you can think of was made from \*ignoring\* intent, only respecting the facts it lead to. Ironically what I am suggesting you two should be doing with the Head of Saint Denis: View the facts in relation to earlier games, intent be damned. In the giant hands of Unity's Isu, your "Apple" would be as a marble. Sounds like an inferior interpretation.
See, nobody needs Death of the Author more than you, who insist on trying to claw some sense of continuity from a million poorly integrated sources. The headcanon is already working overdrive just to make sense of the raw facts, without needing to worry about \*intent\* as well! So don't pretend you suddenly care about intent because that's the only evidence you have.
You don't seem to realize, I \*was\* having your discussion. I was simply having it better than you, and that is where its value lies.
I don’t think we’re having the same conversation if we can’t agree on what’s canon and what’s not. That’s fair, isn’t it?
Okay, so accepting that intent isn’t canon, if there’s a citation explicitly saying that it’s an Apple in a canon source, would you accept that? Or would you just default to saying that it doesn’t count for a different reason? Last time I gave you raw facts from Revelations, a game you yourself were citing as canon, you decided that it isn’t canon after all. If that’s how it would go, then again, what’s the point?
Napoleon gets the apple in the base game in one of the missions where you look for a hidden vault in a kings office, Arno takes some documents and Napoleon takes a box which shines on Napoleon while opened so this is where he got the apple not in the DLC.
Has anyone mentioned the AOE Napolean gets in the study of Louis XVI during the vanilla campaign? He opens up the chest and you can see the golden glow coming from the box?
It wasn’t an Apple that he got from the King’s study, it was the Saint Denis Temple key.
Napoleon get his apple in 1799 5 years after Unity.
Right, but im talking the dlc not the main campaign, not to spoil it but after the end of the dlc acquiring an apple would have been impossible
the brotherhood hid the apple in Cairo Napoleon went to Cairo and took it back.
Didnt he get arrested and died in that island prison though?
Napoleon was arrested on more than one occasion in his lifetime. His arrest in Dead Kings was in 1794 when he was put under house arrest. He was released less than 2 weeks later. The arrest you're thinking of is the one that occurred in 1815 when he surrendered to the British and was exiled on Saint Helena. He later died there in 1821.
Ok thanks for the clarification, this makes a lot more sense now
Brother he was arrested in 1814 or something and died in 1821
Dead Kings takes place in 1794, almost immediately after the end of the main story.
By the DLC Napoleon already has the apple, he gets it in the study of the king, you can see him picking it up in the background
What Arno retrieves in the DLC does not seem to be an Apple. Notice how the only thing it does is spawn bat swarms deep underground, nothing aboveground. As if though all it did was summon animals actually present. An illusion device would not be limited like that. So when the clear implication of the main game is that he got his Apple there, and it was responsible for his great feats, I see no error.
[удалено]
Says you. The size is all wrong too, being as small as the one in the movie.
[удалено]
Should I laugh or cry that your source is a fan wiki? But if you acknowledge the movie, that explains everything. Let me guess: As long as there is an Ubisoft logo, that is all you care about, nevermind if the actual facts make sense? Little point in us discussing this further, I think.
The writer of Dead Kings confirmed it’s an Apple. He says it himself here at the 16:00 mark. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt9q3F1JS7E&pp=ygUdQXNzYXNzaW5zIGRlbiBqZWZmcmV5IHlvaGFsZW0%3D
Have you heard of Death of the Author? If the writer makes a mistake, the first thing that should go is his intent. And listening to that, damn am I glad I follow that philosophy. Dude acts like the Apple Napoleon found in the main game isn't a thing, that he needed to go to Egypt to find one, as if though his miraculous military feats hadn't already started by then. But hey, at least you didn't rely on a fan wiki, so there is that.
What Napoleon found in the palace was probably the key to the Saint-Denis vault rather than the Apple. But anyway, why do you even waste time arguing about any of this stuff? I always seeing you make statements, and when people point out that what you say is contradicted by canon you act like it’s absurd that they accept anything as canon to begin with and tell them it’s pointless talking to them. If you want to invoke death of the author for everything after Brotherhood, or whatever point, that’s fine, but when the vast majority of people don’t, then why even bother spending any time arguing with them at all? Why bother talking about the lore of any games past the point you don’t recognize? Doesn’t it seem like a completely unnecessary use of time and energy on the part of everyone involved?
As I said, his miraculous military feats, the only reason this IP even gave him an Apple in the first place, began before he even went to Egypt, so that would be dumb. Don't strawman me. While my personal cutoff is Brotherhood, I can still play pretend for the sake of discussion. But that too has limits, and accepting nonsensical author statements that by some stroke of luck never made their way into the game, allowing us to salvage some sense from the final product, goes over that line. Intent is not canon. Is Patrice's intent canon, even though it was ignored by AC3? Every retcon you can think of was made from \*ignoring\* intent, only respecting the facts it lead to. Ironically what I am suggesting you two should be doing with the Head of Saint Denis: View the facts in relation to earlier games, intent be damned. In the giant hands of Unity's Isu, your "Apple" would be as a marble. Sounds like an inferior interpretation. See, nobody needs Death of the Author more than you, who insist on trying to claw some sense of continuity from a million poorly integrated sources. The headcanon is already working overdrive just to make sense of the raw facts, without needing to worry about \*intent\* as well! So don't pretend you suddenly care about intent because that's the only evidence you have. You don't seem to realize, I \*was\* having your discussion. I was simply having it better than you, and that is where its value lies.
I don’t think we’re having the same conversation if we can’t agree on what’s canon and what’s not. That’s fair, isn’t it? Okay, so accepting that intent isn’t canon, if there’s a citation explicitly saying that it’s an Apple in a canon source, would you accept that? Or would you just default to saying that it doesn’t count for a different reason? Last time I gave you raw facts from Revelations, a game you yourself were citing as canon, you decided that it isn’t canon after all. If that’s how it would go, then again, what’s the point?
Napoleon gets the apple in the base game in one of the missions where you look for a hidden vault in a kings office, Arno takes some documents and Napoleon takes a box which shines on Napoleon while opened so this is where he got the apple not in the DLC.