One of the most memorable moments in the entire Assassin's Creed series unfolds early in Assassin's Creed III. Haytham Kenway, having gathered his New World assassins (or so it seems), embodies the very charisma of previous protagonist Ezio Auditore. He rescues Native Americans, battles British redcoats—all the while playing the hero. Then, uttering the Templar phrase, "May the Father of Understanding guide us," the shocking truth is revealed: we've been following the Templars.

This twist perfectly encapsulates Assassin's Creed's potential. The first game introduced a compelling concept—find, know, and kill your targets—but fell short narratively. Altaïr and his victims lacked personality. Assassin's Creed II improved things with the iconic Ezio, but its adversaries remained underdeveloped, notably Cesare Borgia in Brotherhood. Only in Assassin's Creed III, set during the American Revolution, did Ubisoft dedicate equal effort to developing both hunter and hunted. This created a seamless narrative flow, achieving a balance of gameplay and story rarely matched since.

While the current RPG era enjoys widespread acclaim, many believe Assassin's Creed is in decline. Reasons vary: unrealistic premises involving gods like Anubis and Fenrir; romance options; or even the controversial use of a real historical figure like Yasuke in Assassin's Creed: Shadows. However, I argue the decline stems from the series' abandonment of character-driven storytelling, lost within sprawling sandboxes.

Over time, Assassin's Creed has incorporated RPG and live-service elements: dialogue trees, XP systems, loot boxes, microtransactions, and gear customization. Yet, larger installments feel emptier, not only due to numerous side quests, but also in their core storytelling.

Games like Assassin's Creed Odyssey boast more content than Assassin's Creed II, but much feels underdeveloped. While player choice theoretically enhances immersion, lengthy scripts to accommodate multiple scenarios often lack the polish of earlier games with more limited interaction. The focused scripts of the action-adventure era allowed for sharply defined characters, unburdened by a structure demanding fluctuating protagonist behavior based on player whim.

The writing has also suffered in other ways. Modern games often rely on a simplistic Assassins=good, Templars=bad dichotomy. Earlier games explored the blurred lines between the two orders. In Assassin's Creed III, defeated Templars force Connor (and the player) to question their beliefs. William Johnson suggests the Templars could have prevented genocide. Thomas Hickey criticizes the Assassins' mission. Benjamin Church highlights the subjectivity of morality, and the British perspective. Haytham challenges Connor's faith in Washington, foreshadowing the latter's despotic tendencies. The game ends with more questions than answers, strengthening the narrative.

The popularity of "Ezio's Family" from Assassin's Creed II's soundtrack highlights the emotional core of the PS3-era games. Assassin's Creed II and III were fundamentally character-driven. The music reflected Ezio's personal loss, not just the Renaissance setting. While I appreciate the current generation's world-building and graphics, I hope the franchise will one day return to the focused storytelling that initially captivated audiences. Sadly, in today's market, that might not be considered "good business."