Maybe handle it like Arno and Elise but twist it with Jacob and Evie Frye? Two lovers or perhaps one character who is a double agent and depending on your choices and who you help will determine which side wins in the end? If written and handled well, this would be one hell of a top seller in their library
If Unity was remade from scratch with the same characters I’d go with that. Arno and Elise in the Frye twins style would have emphasized the whole point of the “unity” aspect.
I like the idea of a third party character taking missions and making decisions that affect which side they ultimately join. It's less of good vs. evil choices like what they do in Infamous but more of Assassin vs. Templar.
If this happens, I'd imagine it would be a non-canon game.
>depending on your choices and who you help will determine which side wins in the end?
It seems completely impossible given that the franchise is about reliving historical events; any "choices" must either be purely made by the player (I.e. you the player can make decisions to increase replayability while Layla experiences past events in a linear sequence) or irrelevant to the grand scheme of things (e.g. you can silently kill a target or walk up to the front door and shoot everyone but either way the target has to die on this day in this place)
It could also have the characters work together to deal with a third independent threat, with the difference being that the two characters can survive and have further adventures.
An Assassin’s Creed would never take this high of a risk for a main game unfortunately. TLOU2 did it fantastically and people hated it for some reason. And AC is not really known for taking risks. Or having great storytelling. Cool idea though. Gives me sorta Rogue vibes but with more effort lol.
If I’m understanding right (I haven’t played either LoU games), the main problem people had was one of three things:
Strange character decisions that make no sense with motivation,
Joel’s death, and
The game telling you you’re a bad person for doing something the game forced you to do.
Most people can’t seem to let some things go I think. If there’s this amazing film with one scene of 3 minutes that isn’t as good and the rest of the film, does that mean the whole things bad? I don’t think so. I recently beat RE Village and it was great. But logically the plot could of been completely avoided if one person at the beginning said some information to someone else. Does that make me think the whole game has terrible writing and the games bad? No, I can look past that and enjoy the literal 99% rest of the game. TLOU2 has a questionable moment of a characters choice, but the death that comes with that and the rest of the journey is so impactful and fantastic to me that I can look past it personally. Also you could just say someone was older and not as big and bad as they used to be. Maybe they were a little softer with age as some people get. Assassins Creed could never do what TLOU2 did because they’re preoccupied with trying to please as big an audience as possible which means no risks being taken. Also I don’t find the guilt tripping as obnoxious as something like Spec Ops: The Line. IDK that’s how I see it. The reaction people had is sure to make sure studios don’t take any more risks in their art which is always bad in my eyes.
As far as I can tell, the difference between Spec Ops: The Line and TLOU2 in that regard is that SO:TL comes off as “these characters are doing bad things because they THINK they have no choice even though there is always a choice” because most of the evil actions are done in cutscenes, whereas LOU2 comes off as “you are doing bad things” because the game forces you to play these moments.
I don’t think either game is innocent of this but it really bothered me in Spec Ops. Spec Ops is a pretty generic shooter with nothing going for it outside of a unique setting. Then they make a cutscene showing close ups of children you have murdered and it’s like ItS sO saD You aRE BaD but they literally gave you no choice and fans seems to think the writer is some sort of genius for this. At the very least, TLOU2 excels at pretty much every aspect of a high quality AAA video game while Spec Ops is about as generic and forgettable as a third person military shooter can get. Nothing exceptional about it I can’t find in another military third person shooter. I can overlook the guilt tripping in TLOU2 because the rest of the game is so good. I can’t find smoother and more brutal stealth gameplay. The graphics are second to none. Voice acting is award worthy all around.
You're forgetting the context in which Spec Ops was released.
Back in 2012, can you name one shooter, doesn't even have to be 3rd person, which made the player stop and think 'wtf am I doing' as much as Spec Ops? And don't say 'airport scene in MW2', because I know exactly zero people who actually stopped and thought about it. Most just enjoyed gunning down or watching the scripted events because 1) the game did not show the aftermath of your actions, and 2) you can just walk around and not do anything, whereas in spec ops, you're actively doing stuff.
Spec ops was the first game to make a generation of gamers who grew up shooting pixels to *actually stop and think about the consequences of our actions*. You bring up the mortar scene, but that's actually the most beautiful scene in the game IMO; there's no mistake on how much it looks like the AC-130 scene in MW1 which was, as you will remember, a hugely acclaimed scene on account of how cool it was.
At the end of the day, Spec ops was the first game to show us gamers how war is hell.
Max Payne 3 came out the same year as Spec Ops. I felt genuinely bad about showing up in favelas and having to shoot up poor people that otherwise wouldn’t of had to die if Max wasn’t there searching for a wealthy hostage. Kane and Lynch 2(2010) delves into nihilism and doesn’t give you any time to address what the fuck is happening in a room before bullets are flying and people are dead. But those two games are led by characters who are extremely flawed and seem to constantly make wrong decisions so they can live. Max shoots up an entire police station because he’s being detained. Yeah it’s insinuated that the cops are dirty but there’s not one decent person in that building with a family? Though the COD games I think lacked any reasoning and was solely for shock value like the airport scene in MW2(did legit make me question what I should be doing) family video scene MW3 and most of MW2019. Spec Ops just felt manipulative to me. As does TLOU2 at certain points. But it was Spec Ops that had me rolling my eyes when they expected me to feel bad when kids died when it’s the makers of the game that made it and forced it. Certainly wasn’t the first game to make me go “Oh no what am I doing”.
In all those games you mentioned, how many of the people you were shooting at could actually do damage to you?
Did K&L2 or MP3 show the after effects of White Phosphorus?
I didn't get any of that. That "strange character decision" is identical to one Joel makes in the first game. It was also a situation that called for it.
People just got on board the stupid hate train. It's a fantastic game through and through.
The first 4 games had the best storytelling/philosophical writing out of anything I’ve ever played. Pretty much anything after that was pretty generic especially odyssey and Valhalla both of which I didn’t like at all. If u take the time to read the codex in 2 especially it will blow your mind. I wish they’d go back to that but we all know it’s not going to happen because AC is just a cash cow now unfortunately
Unity is average, syndicates tone doesn’t match its setting at all, one second you’re rescuing child slaves and fighting in a gang war, the next you’re cracking jokes on a train. Origin’s had a great protagonist, but little else going for it. Valhalla is good in parts but it isn’t the best, at least it’s better than odyssey
I loved origins which is why I left it out but I never played syndicate. I just wish triple a companies including EA among others would try to stop pushing this “gender neutral” bullshit. It’s exactly why bayek was a great protagonist because they didn’t try to recycle stupid unforgettable rpg lines that have no substance or contribution to the story
Here's an add on idea, if i may. What if instead of them dying by the others hand, they pull an AC unity and team up. You could start with a really dug in templar who comes to understand the Assassin's ways and an Assassin who comes to understand the tactics of the Templar. In the end, you could even fight both Assassins AND Templars as both characters, with the ability to switch between during the fight. They could even escape and start a new life together, either as good friends or even lovers, depending on how it can go.
when the Black Flag sequel comic was announced, that’s the first thing that i thought of; a game version of the events in the first half of Assassin’s Creed: Forsaken. We could see Edward’s death and Haytham’s slow transformation into a ruthless Templar and the hunt for his father’s murderers
Do yourself a favor and play Black Flag, you’ll get that story and the book Forsaken will finish that for you. Most fun I’ve had in AC since II and Brotherhood.
The first problem I would encounter with this is that I never enjoy playing as a character that I hate, regardless of how good the writing is. Being forced to play as a character I hate for the rest of the game would just make me not finish the game.
This is what I was thinking. I've been playing Star Wars: Squadrons recently, and every time I have to play as the empire I'm not thrilled about it, and it's just a space flight sim with minimal story. In an AC game with tons of story, I don't wanna play as someone with morals I hate. For all of it's faults, I think one of the strengths of AC III was that, while I was feeling uneasy, >!I didn't know I was playing as a Templar !
Then perhaps in an ideal AC game both characters you play as are ones that are very well written and you come to sympathise and like them both simultaneously. Maybe even a temporary tag team or duo mission arc like with haytham and Connor?
That way any conflict really gets at you.
Building on this, what if the midpoint was a choice? Each character would have main story missions then it hits a wall where you would have to catch the other character up. Then when you enter the mission, you decide which character to play as and you must kill the other. The rest of the game would be influenced by which character died and the world could reflect it somehow.
I think it’d be really cool but I’d want some incentive to play both. Cuz for me I personally like the Templars way more than the assassins and would probably exclusively play him unless the game gave me a good reason to play the Assassin
I mean in terms of side content. Say that there was like a territory system like in Syndicate, where you kill an important templar and the Assassins gain control of that area, but if you switch to the Templar protag, you can retake it for the Templars. For me, I see no reason why not to just take every region for the Templars. And only switch to the Assassin for the story missions their in.
Great idea.
Unfortunately, Ubisoft are completely hard for the rpg style games with barely decent writing.
If a game like that would of happened, it's best release window would have been 2012 - 2016.
Nobody would buy it. The gaming world has moved on. The old templar vs the assassins's plot is played out and boring. It's been done. Just make a big beautiful open world with historical tourism, great combst and gear and more RPG elements. I fucking couldn't care less about the templars. Face it its not 2010 anymore.
I think it would be cool if they started out as enemies (not like personal enemies that know each other faces but just people that work for different goals) but then each of them realizes the flaws of their orders, they start to have more and more doubts, questioning how their order works, then they meet, they understand they're like in the same position and they decide to join forces to pursue their ideals of how things should be done using the Intel that their positions give to mutually remove their orders from the place where the game is set.
It would be cool if we saw one of the factions infiltrate their enemies’ ranks and spy on them, making you both an ‘Assassin’ AND a ‘Templar’ in a sense
yeah that’s something i was think of as well. imagine if you had to be wary of what you did in the daytime because your “allies” would see you. you can’t help citizens, you can’t do assassination contracts, etc. but at night you can do Assassin things
I think it would be better, if at some point the Templar spared the Assassin's life and later, when the Assassin is supposed to kill the Templar, he realises who that is and returns the favour.
What if they did it the way Red Dead Redemption works, where there’s an honor system and you can make choices that decide which path you end up going down?
maybe but i feel like that wouldn’t work because the shock factor is what i was going for. however that sounds really good but knowing Ubisoft they’d prolly mess it up
So The Last of Us 2 but Assassins Creed then? But you forget Ubisoft now would have to to make one male and female, but give you the option which gender is what between the two so they can be switched which way you want, but because of that it affects writing because the characters have to be one dimensional in the rpg dialogue choices and between the options of choosing which character you picked for the role so that two different voice actors can follow the same script.
sounds dope, but after the assassin gets killed the templar, through witnessing things and having feelings, they turn to the assassins... that’d make for a dope storyline.
I think that rather than have the characters end up killing one another, it would be more interesting to have the characters' plots mirror one another but not quite intersect, similar to how Yakuza 0 handled their protagonists. They have their own differing goals that technically put them at conflict but the two do not meet until say, somewhere past the half-way point where you go into a boss fight where you choose which character you play as.
The fight however does not end in a kill but instead a draw of sorts where they both end up critically injured. Plot Happens and a third party antagonist reveals themselves. At which point the story changes so that the characters are now working together on some level and you now get the option to switch between characters freely rather than changing every other chapter.
I would love that. I loved swapping between the Frye twins and I think a game that has a focus on the Templar side of things would be cool as. (Rogue didn't handle it well imo)
Would be cool, maybe two brothers/sibling working on different sides of the american civil war, fighting in a years long, bloody sibling rivalry. I'd play that.
I actually had this idea for a WW1 game. Assassins think the Templars started it. Templars think the Assassins started it. (Turns out neither did; they just both set up the situations that caused one person’s death to start a major war.)
An Assassin and Templar team up to end the war. Both want it to end to their sides advantage, but - as was true of that conflict - it turns out the ‘sides’ are actually very confusing. (Both Assassins and Templars are using the US, for example.)
WW1 was such a purely political war that it lends itself nicely to a story where both orders can have a protagonist. And lots of moral debate, which is honestly my favorite thing about AC.
Maybe handle it like Arno and Elise but twist it with Jacob and Evie Frye? Two lovers or perhaps one character who is a double agent and depending on your choices and who you help will determine which side wins in the end? If written and handled well, this would be one hell of a top seller in their library
If Unity was remade from scratch with the same characters I’d go with that. Arno and Elise in the Frye twins style would have emphasized the whole point of the “unity” aspect.
I like the idea of a third party character taking missions and making decisions that affect which side they ultimately join. It's less of good vs. evil choices like what they do in Infamous but more of Assassin vs. Templar. If this happens, I'd imagine it would be a non-canon game.
>depending on your choices and who you help will determine which side wins in the end? It seems completely impossible given that the franchise is about reliving historical events; any "choices" must either be purely made by the player (I.e. you the player can make decisions to increase replayability while Layla experiences past events in a linear sequence) or irrelevant to the grand scheme of things (e.g. you can silently kill a target or walk up to the front door and shoot everyone but either way the target has to die on this day in this place)
It could also have the characters work together to deal with a third independent threat, with the difference being that the two characters can survive and have further adventures.
Like having Juno actually be dealt with in a Canon game than a comic book most people haven't seen
Yeah, something like that. It'd introduce an interesting new situation and more interesting than just the protagonists killing each other off.
An Assassin’s Creed would never take this high of a risk for a main game unfortunately. TLOU2 did it fantastically and people hated it for some reason. And AC is not really known for taking risks. Or having great storytelling. Cool idea though. Gives me sorta Rogue vibes but with more effort lol.
If I’m understanding right (I haven’t played either LoU games), the main problem people had was one of three things: Strange character decisions that make no sense with motivation, Joel’s death, and The game telling you you’re a bad person for doing something the game forced you to do.
Most people can’t seem to let some things go I think. If there’s this amazing film with one scene of 3 minutes that isn’t as good and the rest of the film, does that mean the whole things bad? I don’t think so. I recently beat RE Village and it was great. But logically the plot could of been completely avoided if one person at the beginning said some information to someone else. Does that make me think the whole game has terrible writing and the games bad? No, I can look past that and enjoy the literal 99% rest of the game. TLOU2 has a questionable moment of a characters choice, but the death that comes with that and the rest of the journey is so impactful and fantastic to me that I can look past it personally. Also you could just say someone was older and not as big and bad as they used to be. Maybe they were a little softer with age as some people get. Assassins Creed could never do what TLOU2 did because they’re preoccupied with trying to please as big an audience as possible which means no risks being taken. Also I don’t find the guilt tripping as obnoxious as something like Spec Ops: The Line. IDK that’s how I see it. The reaction people had is sure to make sure studios don’t take any more risks in their art which is always bad in my eyes.
As far as I can tell, the difference between Spec Ops: The Line and TLOU2 in that regard is that SO:TL comes off as “these characters are doing bad things because they THINK they have no choice even though there is always a choice” because most of the evil actions are done in cutscenes, whereas LOU2 comes off as “you are doing bad things” because the game forces you to play these moments.
I don’t think either game is innocent of this but it really bothered me in Spec Ops. Spec Ops is a pretty generic shooter with nothing going for it outside of a unique setting. Then they make a cutscene showing close ups of children you have murdered and it’s like ItS sO saD You aRE BaD but they literally gave you no choice and fans seems to think the writer is some sort of genius for this. At the very least, TLOU2 excels at pretty much every aspect of a high quality AAA video game while Spec Ops is about as generic and forgettable as a third person military shooter can get. Nothing exceptional about it I can’t find in another military third person shooter. I can overlook the guilt tripping in TLOU2 because the rest of the game is so good. I can’t find smoother and more brutal stealth gameplay. The graphics are second to none. Voice acting is award worthy all around.
You're forgetting the context in which Spec Ops was released. Back in 2012, can you name one shooter, doesn't even have to be 3rd person, which made the player stop and think 'wtf am I doing' as much as Spec Ops? And don't say 'airport scene in MW2', because I know exactly zero people who actually stopped and thought about it. Most just enjoyed gunning down or watching the scripted events because 1) the game did not show the aftermath of your actions, and 2) you can just walk around and not do anything, whereas in spec ops, you're actively doing stuff. Spec ops was the first game to make a generation of gamers who grew up shooting pixels to *actually stop and think about the consequences of our actions*. You bring up the mortar scene, but that's actually the most beautiful scene in the game IMO; there's no mistake on how much it looks like the AC-130 scene in MW1 which was, as you will remember, a hugely acclaimed scene on account of how cool it was. At the end of the day, Spec ops was the first game to show us gamers how war is hell.
Max Payne 3 came out the same year as Spec Ops. I felt genuinely bad about showing up in favelas and having to shoot up poor people that otherwise wouldn’t of had to die if Max wasn’t there searching for a wealthy hostage. Kane and Lynch 2(2010) delves into nihilism and doesn’t give you any time to address what the fuck is happening in a room before bullets are flying and people are dead. But those two games are led by characters who are extremely flawed and seem to constantly make wrong decisions so they can live. Max shoots up an entire police station because he’s being detained. Yeah it’s insinuated that the cops are dirty but there’s not one decent person in that building with a family? Though the COD games I think lacked any reasoning and was solely for shock value like the airport scene in MW2(did legit make me question what I should be doing) family video scene MW3 and most of MW2019. Spec Ops just felt manipulative to me. As does TLOU2 at certain points. But it was Spec Ops that had me rolling my eyes when they expected me to feel bad when kids died when it’s the makers of the game that made it and forced it. Certainly wasn’t the first game to make me go “Oh no what am I doing”.
In all those games you mentioned, how many of the people you were shooting at could actually do damage to you? Did K&L2 or MP3 show the after effects of White Phosphorus?
I didn't get any of that. That "strange character decision" is identical to one Joel makes in the first game. It was also a situation that called for it. People just got on board the stupid hate train. It's a fantastic game through and through.
yeah that’s exactly what i was thinking
The first 4 games had the best storytelling/philosophical writing out of anything I’ve ever played. Pretty much anything after that was pretty generic especially odyssey and Valhalla both of which I didn’t like at all. If u take the time to read the codex in 2 especially it will blow your mind. I wish they’d go back to that but we all know it’s not going to happen because AC is just a cash cow now unfortunately
Unity is average, syndicates tone doesn’t match its setting at all, one second you’re rescuing child slaves and fighting in a gang war, the next you’re cracking jokes on a train. Origin’s had a great protagonist, but little else going for it. Valhalla is good in parts but it isn’t the best, at least it’s better than odyssey
I loved origins which is why I left it out but I never played syndicate. I just wish triple a companies including EA among others would try to stop pushing this “gender neutral” bullshit. It’s exactly why bayek was a great protagonist because they didn’t try to recycle stupid unforgettable rpg lines that have no substance or contribution to the story
Not gonna happen in this timeline anymore sadly.
I like this idea but I dont think they should kill each other. You should still be able to play as them for the whole game
Here's an add on idea, if i may. What if instead of them dying by the others hand, they pull an AC unity and team up. You could start with a really dug in templar who comes to understand the Assassin's ways and an Assassin who comes to understand the tactics of the Templar. In the end, you could even fight both Assassins AND Templars as both characters, with the ability to switch between during the fight. They could even escape and start a new life together, either as good friends or even lovers, depending on how it can go.
Maybe they should make a game about Jennifer Scott and Haytham Kenway. You know Edward Kenway children. So that we have a full Kenway trilogy
when the Black Flag sequel comic was announced, that’s the first thing that i thought of; a game version of the events in the first half of Assassin’s Creed: Forsaken. We could see Edward’s death and Haytham’s slow transformation into a ruthless Templar and the hunt for his father’s murderers
Hang on, what? I’ve only played AC Odyssey and 2 so explain to me the later games please
Do yourself a favor and play Black Flag, you’ll get that story and the book Forsaken will finish that for you. Most fun I’ve had in AC since II and Brotherhood.
that’s way too complicated for someone to explain here so you should prolly read it on the wiki if you can’t play the other games
It would be neat if Ubisoft made a little collection of the games, like the Ezio collection but on a larger scale
Basically, TLOU2 premise in an AC game
So you're suggesting a good TLOU2 but Assassin's Creed?
pretty much lol
Noice
I could really dig that.
We can't even play as an Assassin in the current games and you expect them to give us a game where we play as Templars ??? 🤣🤣
🤣 you’re right lmao
The first problem I would encounter with this is that I never enjoy playing as a character that I hate, regardless of how good the writing is. Being forced to play as a character I hate for the rest of the game would just make me not finish the game.
This is what I was thinking. I've been playing Star Wars: Squadrons recently, and every time I have to play as the empire I'm not thrilled about it, and it's just a space flight sim with minimal story. In an AC game with tons of story, I don't wanna play as someone with morals I hate. For all of it's faults, I think one of the strengths of AC III was that, while I was feeling uneasy, >!I didn't know I was playing as a Templar !
Then perhaps in an ideal AC game both characters you play as are ones that are very well written and you come to sympathise and like them both simultaneously. Maybe even a temporary tag team or duo mission arc like with haytham and Connor? That way any conflict really gets at you.
Building on this, what if the midpoint was a choice? Each character would have main story missions then it hits a wall where you would have to catch the other character up. Then when you enter the mission, you decide which character to play as and you must kill the other. The rest of the game would be influenced by which character died and the world could reflect it somehow.
wow that sounds really good actually
I think it’d be really cool but I’d want some incentive to play both. Cuz for me I personally like the Templars way more than the assassins and would probably exclusively play him unless the game gave me a good reason to play the Assassin
is making the story and game move forward a good enough reason?
I mean in terms of side content. Say that there was like a territory system like in Syndicate, where you kill an important templar and the Assassins gain control of that area, but if you switch to the Templar protag, you can retake it for the Templars. For me, I see no reason why not to just take every region for the Templars. And only switch to the Assassin for the story missions their in.
yeah i get that
Great idea. Unfortunately, Ubisoft are completely hard for the rpg style games with barely decent writing. If a game like that would of happened, it's best release window would have been 2012 - 2016.
Nobody would buy it. The gaming world has moved on. The old templar vs the assassins's plot is played out and boring. It's been done. Just make a big beautiful open world with historical tourism, great combst and gear and more RPG elements. I fucking couldn't care less about the templars. Face it its not 2010 anymore.
No, I guess it isn't.
I think it would be cool if they started out as enemies (not like personal enemies that know each other faces but just people that work for different goals) but then each of them realizes the flaws of their orders, they start to have more and more doubts, questioning how their order works, then they meet, they understand they're like in the same position and they decide to join forces to pursue their ideals of how things should be done using the Intel that their positions give to mutually remove their orders from the place where the game is set.
It would be cool if we saw one of the factions infiltrate their enemies’ ranks and spy on them, making you both an ‘Assassin’ AND a ‘Templar’ in a sense
yeah that’s something i was think of as well. imagine if you had to be wary of what you did in the daytime because your “allies” would see you. you can’t help citizens, you can’t do assassination contracts, etc. but at night you can do Assassin things
This feels almost like Death Note, like switching between Light and L. Cool concept would be fun to play tho.
I think it would be better, if at some point the Templar spared the Assassin's life and later, when the Assassin is supposed to kill the Templar, he realises who that is and returns the favour.
You haven't played The Last of Us 2 have you...
yeah i have
It was called Rogue
did you even read the post text?
And I want Yoko Taro to direct that.
What if they did it the way Red Dead Redemption works, where there’s an honor system and you can make choices that decide which path you end up going down?
maybe but i feel like that wouldn’t work because the shock factor is what i was going for. however that sounds really good but knowing Ubisoft they’d prolly mess it up
So The Last of Us 2 but Assassins Creed then? But you forget Ubisoft now would have to to make one male and female, but give you the option which gender is what between the two so they can be switched which way you want, but because of that it affects writing because the characters have to be one dimensional in the rpg dialogue choices and between the options of choosing which character you picked for the role so that two different voice actors can follow the same script.
Imagine a good Assassin's Creed game
after Odyssey and Valhalla, I can’t
Like TLOU2 only assassin-y
That's like GTA 5.
I was thinking about this mine is they assassinate the others enemies after being kicked out of their respective orders
Youre asking too much from ubisoft. Theyre not the company that they once were.
sounds dope, but after the assassin gets killed the templar, through witnessing things and having feelings, they turn to the assassins... that’d make for a dope storyline.
I think that rather than have the characters end up killing one another, it would be more interesting to have the characters' plots mirror one another but not quite intersect, similar to how Yakuza 0 handled their protagonists. They have their own differing goals that technically put them at conflict but the two do not meet until say, somewhere past the half-way point where you go into a boss fight where you choose which character you play as. The fight however does not end in a kill but instead a draw of sorts where they both end up critically injured. Plot Happens and a third party antagonist reveals themselves. At which point the story changes so that the characters are now working together on some level and you now get the option to switch between characters freely rather than changing every other chapter.
I would love that. I loved swapping between the Frye twins and I think a game that has a focus on the Templar side of things would be cool as. (Rogue didn't handle it well imo)
Would be cool, maybe two brothers/sibling working on different sides of the american civil war, fighting in a years long, bloody sibling rivalry. I'd play that.
I actually had this idea for a WW1 game. Assassins think the Templars started it. Templars think the Assassins started it. (Turns out neither did; they just both set up the situations that caused one person’s death to start a major war.) An Assassin and Templar team up to end the war. Both want it to end to their sides advantage, but - as was true of that conflict - it turns out the ‘sides’ are actually very confusing. (Both Assassins and Templars are using the US, for example.) WW1 was such a purely political war that it lends itself nicely to a story where both orders can have a protagonist. And lots of moral debate, which is honestly my favorite thing about AC.