I originally started replaying Assassin’s Creed to max out my gamerscore. I didn’t have much interest in going back for the story, just nabbing all of the flags and other missing achievements so I could pretend to level up upon reaching the full 1000. I’m still deciding which new feat I’d like to take.

During my digital tour of the Holy Land I found myself listening a bit better than I had before. Assassin’s Creed doesn’t make itself easy to follow, as a player may be mentally multi-tasking as they wait to pick pocket or eavesdrop on a couple of men hanging around the alley. How to avoid those beggars? Is there an isolated area I can interrogate this fellow in? What task should I complete next? It makes it easy to miss some small details about each of the targets or even their purpose in the Crusades.

This is part of the beauty of the game’s narrative. You are handed nothing on a silver platter. The developers leave you just as in the dark as Altair or Desmond Miles. Bits and pieces are fed to you, and if you do not piece them together it is easy to get confused. Ultimately the climax reveals the villain’s master stroke and plot twist, and all is spelled out.

So all there is to Assassin’s Creed is a betrayal and manipulation that you didn’t see happening until the end, right?

Not so. Assassin’s Creed conveys a rather controversial set of ideas and philosophies throughout, one that could have gotten the game in major trouble with Fox News if the organization wasn’t so focused on shallow violence and sex. The game suggests that there may in fact be no God, that the truth is that there is no afterlife. What is surprising is that Ubisoft managed to portray this concept in an intellectually convincing manner.

Ray Bradbury’s Farenheit 451 is, contrary to popular belief, not about censorship. It is instead about the dangers of an illiterate society, how easily such ignorance can be manipulated and more. At one point Assassin’s Creed takes an opposing perspective, that literacy instead binds us to the ideas of another, someone with an agenda. It keeps us from seeing the world as it truly is and pits man against man.

A consistent theme throughout the game is the idea that the world as we see it is an illusion. In other words, what we perceive as right and wrong is not actually right and wrong. They are merely words that people attach to their own purposes. In the end, people ally themselves to ideas, governments or Gods without truly thinking of why. Eliminate all of those ideas, and what is left?

Ultimately, the subject matter tackled in Assassin’s Creed is actually worthy of study. Few games have tackled such ideas previously. This is not merely a game intended to provide a fun playing experience, but with the intent of making the player think about the preconceived notions of the world. Ironically enough, their own message has an agenda and presents a contradiction to the goals of the characters in their own story. Even so, it didn’t merely seek to entertain its audience.

This is the mark of true art. Assassin’s Creed has breached the wall of current game narrative to reveal a world of new possibilities. Where subjects as deep as religion, dangerous territory to tread on, can be discussed within a guise of fun gameplay.

Unfortunately, the game may only be remembered for annoying flag-grabbing and beggar-dodging play. While the narrative had sought to evolve, the players themselves may be lacking the proper mindset to see and accept that evolution. As a flawed gameplay title, can it be recognized as a masterpiece due to its story? Or even when that tale seeks to provoke a reaction from the player, is it only second fiddle to the interactive experience?

This is where the audience must decide what is more important in a game. Currently, gameplay carries the greatest importance in the success of a title. Should the medium change so that the story is more noteworthy than the gameplay?

Comment on this article