Thoughts on Infamous

Having finished Infamous twice now, once good and once evil, I have to say that I both love the game, and at the same time I'm disappointed by it.

It is a great game with great gameplay, an enjoyable story, and is a great experience for any gamer. However, my complaint comes from the moral choice system. I have already said in this post what my idea moral choice system for any modern superhero game would be, so I won't go into that.

Infamous's moral choice system makes the common mistake of "Good" or "Evil", no real middle ground involved. However the vast majority of the story ignored which choice you made. The only impact your goodness or evilness had was the power upgrades available (which, of course, is gameplay rather then story), a couple of brief mentions, how the public reacted to you, and one or two cutscenes. The entire rest of the game's story ignores the fact that you're either an asshole or a saint and reacts the same way. The only real story factor that is influenced by your good or evil nature is how your girlfriend reacts to you.

That to me was disappointing. I wanted to feel some kind of difference on my second play through, when the only appreciable change was there were more explosions, evil-side.

Building on the explosion factor and moving in a completely different direction for point 2: Something I found unusual is that the evil side had a genuinely easier time with the final boss fights. Indeed most things, with only one real weakness at all.

You see, the common theme among comparisons between good and evil characters is that good characters get little bonus' to health, healing, etc etc, and evil characters blow shit up. That is followed to the letter in Infamous, with the good upgrades all being about precision attacking and with every hit of your basic lightning bolt attack giving you more energy and health, and all the evil upgrades consisting of "Here is an explosion".

I'm not exaggerating, pretty much every evil power upgrade adds an explosion somehow, or makes a pre-existing explosion more likely to happen and stronger. Basically this means that evil characters do a great deal more damage at the cost of getting less energy and health. However seeing as Infamous takes place in a city chock-full of electricy and you can drain the stuff for health and energy, this really doesn't matter much. In fact, the only time the evil side is weaker then the good side is when there is no electricy to drain, which happens very rarely and usually is only so you feel threatened while getting from point A to point B, rather then actually fighting things.

When I fought the final boss as the good side, precision meant jack shit all since he was genuinely tougher then an armoured truck, and the health and energy boosts are rendered irrelevant by the excessive amount of energy drain power cables conveniently sticking out of the earth. So it took a few goes but I beat him.

Fighting the final boss with the evil side rolls around and suddenly the excessive amount of explosions are ridonkulously useful. In fact I got through the fight in a single go. And I don't attribute this to me being better the second time through, since I don't believe I had appreciatably improved since finishing the game the first time. Apparently being able to stick 7 miniature explosive electrical charges on someone's face was enough to slow them down appreciatably, as opposed to the good option, where I was able to precisely put a single explosive charge in their face, which made them scratch their nose but otherwise had little impact.

Long story short: There needs to be more difference between good and evil for it to really be a selling point for the game. And the game is too easy for evil people.

Logic puzzles in games

As a long term computer-game-player of various types and genres, it is quite easy to notice patterns that follow in the stories and challenges of various types of game. However there is one precise puzzle I have seen so much that it genuinely bothers me now. Yes, I understand it is one of the few types of mathematical and logical problems that can be represented with ease visually, but the number of times I have seen it renders the puzzle moot and pointless.

This is the puzzle. You have three sections of a vaguely triangular shaped object stacked on top of each other, forming the aforementioned vague triangle. This object is located on a single signifier, usually a pole forming a solid physical anchor for the object (which usually has a hole in the middle to fit the pole). There are two more anchors to one side of this. The player must, without stacking a 'larger' section of the triangle on top of a 'smaller' section, or moving a larger section if there is a smaller section on top of it, transfer the entire object to the far anchor.

Usually there are only three sections, sometimes they try to confuse it with four, but it never makes it harder. Assuming there are three sections, this is the (or maybe just a) solution.
1. Top section to far anchor
2. Middle section to middle anchor.
3. Top section to middle anchor
4. Bottle section to far anchor.
5. Top section to beginning anchor
6. Middle section to far anchor
7. Top section to far anchor

It's a seven step puzzle, and I've done it so many times in various games and other situations that I know the solution off by heart.

Why is this puzzle so common? Like I mentioned before, it is a logic puzzle that can be represented pictorially, without the pictorial representation making it ridiculously easy at first glance.

However this leads me on to a tangentially related point: Where is the decision for logic puzzles in games made? Either a game's designer goes "Shit, we need something to lengthen this point" and tries to come up with something, or there's a meeting somewhere where a large number of men in suits (and, let's be equal opportunity, a small number of women in suits) sit around and debate if there should be a logical puzzle linking point A to point B, and what particular puzzle they should use.

So, what inspired this rant? In the first expansion of Neverwinter Nights, there's a riddle section. I friggin' hate riddle sections. Once you know a riddle, you know it, and you can't unknow it. Riddle sections (just like some logic puzzles) just kill replayability. That one section you spent twenty minutes and three pieces of scrap paper (as well as a lifetime of frustration) is now suddenly gone in a matter of minutes.

Even with a strategy guide, some action and timing challenges can be a pain in the ass. The moment you catch a brief glimpse of a logic puzzle section anywhere on the internet, you get that ONE clue you need to ruin it forever. Yahtzee has quicktime events, I have logic puzzles. They ruin the replay value of the game, they're either breathtakingly, balls-achingly hard or so easy you don't even NOTICE the friggin' things, and worst of all, worst of friggin' all... Actually I can't think of a third thing to neatly round off that rant, but they're bad, ok.

Service-bot based homebrew RPG

I apologise for the lack of posts. Illness followed by alcohol is my only excuse.

So, as apologies, I share with you this: A homebrew RPG based on small service robots.

As near as I can tell, it's based on a heavily modified Storyteller system (the kind used for Vampire: The Masquerade, and other White Wolf products).

As much as I hate to admit it, this is leagues better then either of the RPG systems I've tried to make. The main reasons is that it has it's niche, and it's doing it well. Plus it's building on pre-existing concepts, ideas and systems, which means it's already been through several decades of trial-and-error before it's even been created.

All in all, despite the fact that most of you RPG players who I've met face to face freak me the hell out, I would play this game if I had the opportunity. It looks awesome and enjoyable.

Super hero MMOs

Champions Online

As I have mentioned previously, I was a regular player of City of Heroes. Despite knowing it was the right move to abandon the game when I did, I still occasionally feel pangs of longing to return to the pixelated spandex and beat up two dimensional characters, and that's just the PvP (HA HA, I kid, City of Heroes PvP was atrocious).

To those of you not in the know, at one point during the maintaining of City of Heroes, Cryptic, the lead developers, sold the game to NCSoft, the publishers, and went off on their own. Except they didn't, not really, they instead decided to make Marvel Online, a rival Super-hero based MMO from the ground up, using the feedback they'd received about City of Heroes but had been unable to use because of engine limitations.

But then Marvel pulled their sponsorship, so all would be right in the field of fair-play. So Cryptic changed it from Marvel Online to Champions Online, and once more things were not right in the field of fair-play.

So now here I am, stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock? Potentially enjoyable online superhero gaming. The Hard Place? Pain in the arse arbitrary morals. I know I owe NCSoft nothing, they're as much a faceless corporation as Cryptic is. It just bugs me that Cryptic split off to make their own game in the exact same area their previous game is based, using information gained from their previous game. It doesn't feel right or ethical to me.

But holy shit, they have a specially designed pre-conceived character type about Technology Suits. Holy shit. I have a nerdrection.

Futurama recast?

My apologies, I've been distracted by RL, and so haven't had the chance to put up a good post or two.

In return, here is rage-inducing crap.

Fox is going to recast Futurama in their rebirth of the show.

Yeah. Holy crap, huh?

How they should make a superhero game

I'm currently playing Infamous, and really quite enjoying it. However there's something sticking out about it to me, best summarised in a Yahtzee quote about the good/evil moral choice system. "It's not letting you roleplay because you're either Cole McNice or Cole McDick."

This stuck in my mind, and linked with something I saw in the past. Reading about people's opinions of Fallout 3, I came across a rather bizarre argument. It was an argument over if the 'evil' main character was that evil, focusing on a particular event where there are a bunch of Ghouls trying to get into an apartment building that's still standing and willing to pay for it, but can't because the evil guy in charge is racist and doesn't like them. Long story short, it's not exactly an ideal result if the Ghouls do get in, but the game judges it to be the 'morally good' choice.

So, all this has festered in my mind like the bacteria currently festering in my throat, the main difference between the two being my throat festerings haven't eventually fermented into a thought-beverage I'm quite content with.

Let's take the following hypothetical scenario. A good developer has created a sandbox Action-RPG superhero game in which your character is a blank slate you fill in, choosing powers, appearance, voice, and most importantly moral choice systems determining his/her heroism/villainy. In my personal view, this game would be so awesome it would leave me forever walking around with an erection, but enough about my blood filled penis, onto the thought-beverage I mentioned.

Some people might say "moral choice system? You just agreed with Yahtzee that those things were pointless!" Yes, I did, but they can be made far, far superior by the introduction of additional axis on the graph, eventually making it into a seven sided pandimensional graph only visible to aliens.

Instead of a simple objective-morality-decided-by-developers-good-evil axis, let's consider what would happen if it were instead to rely upon a number of different axis grouped into three groups: Hero/Villain, Super-powered Perception and Public Perception.


The Hero/Villain side of it is a two axis graph, the up-down axis dealing with Crime-stopping vs Crime-committing, and the left-right axis dealing with life preservation. The more the character stops criminal acts, the further north they drift, while if they commit overt criminal acts (such as robbing a bank) they drift south. The life-preserving axis deals with how willing they are to kill. If they get into fights without killing the other side, they drift to the right, if they show willingness to kill they drift to the left.

Put those two axis together and you get one of four (maybe eight if the game wants to be complex) possible titles for the character. Sociopath (bottom left, someone like Doctor Doom), Burgler (bottom right, someone like Cat Woman), Vigilante (top left, someone like the Punisher), or Hero (top right, someone like Spiderman).


Superpowered Perception, once again divided into two axis. First, the up down axis is the character's scale, ranging from local (Daredevil kind of stuff, helps mostly a small area), through national (deals with stuff that affects a whole country, primarily), all the way up to Interplanetary (deals with stuff affecting one or more planets) with a few more levels in the middle. The Left-right axis is the characters "loner" rating, how willing they are to deal and work with others.

Put those together, and this axis influences gameplay. It alters how often submissions might come to you, how often you might be able to call on help (but have to split any pay off, if you're a villain), and what sort of level your help will be called on. The up-down axis will probably move as the character increases in power.


Finally, Public Perception, again into two axis. The up-down axis is media reporting, while the left-right is public view. The brighter the indicator on the up-down axis, the more media reporting you're getting, while the more north it is the more positive it is. This axis would influence the right-left axis, which is public perception. Public perception is how the normal person on the street sees you. This axis would be easiest for the player to manipulate. Doing alot of good acts in public view increases public view of you, while doing them in front of cameras increases the media reporting of you. Alternatively a rich character could pay for positive media coverage to try and increase their perception. In this way a character like Lex Luthor could be a villain in the first group of axis, by through appropriate manipulation to both the public and the media could be seen as neutral, possibly even good.


All in all, this would be awesome. The first of the groups of axis would influence how good/evil they actually are, from a relatively objective standpoint, the second influences gameplay, while the third influences how accepted they are.


Yeah, I'm excited about this. Hopefully some game designed will read my blog and steal the idea.

New Mechwarrior game - GLEEEE

Whoops, I've let the blog wither slightly. Not much to report, been quite busy in real life with assignments and uni work.

Here's a follow up on the previous post: A full blown New Mechwarrior Trailer. Be sure to watch it in HD. Ok, let's get a brief blow-by-blow look at it.

Just looking at the beginning, it does look like the Mechs have a sense of size, now. It feels like you're piloting a massive 60 ton behemoth right there in the intro. I'll admit it took me a little while to work out it was a Warhammer. An interesting concept is the use of unmanned drones to gain updates on the battlefield rather then just "Radar does all". The Developers have stated they want to try and give all weights of 'Mech a use, so I imagine light 'mechs will function as scouts effectively.

Despite the Jenner being massively outclassed by the Warhammer, the pilot is worried and makes a point of ducking behind cover. This says alot about how dangerous the combat will be. Plus, I have to admit I'm excited about the damage to the buildings. When the Jenner lands on the building you can see the windows shatter, showing how much pressure the building is under. A good missile launch and it collapses. Not to mention the building the Warhammer used for cover gets damaged by the shots fired at it.

In enters the Atlas. I admit I cheered when I first saw that. The Atlas feels genuinely MASSIVE, and watching it move carries across this feeling. I'll admit I'm disappointed that the Autocannon seems to be a single shot weapon, but what can ya do? The PPCs seem to be a weapon to genuinely fear, a couple of good shots from them and the Atlas is in trouble. Note after the PPCs fire, you can see the barrels glowing red, showing the heat build up. Perhaps most important, watch the Warhammer when it gets hit by an AC/20 shot, it gets knocked around massively. While I could understand the reason for this in Mechwarrior 4, it still bugged me a bit. Still, it'll add another element of difficulty to the game.

All in all, I am excite. I am very excite.

Oh. Oh god. Oh my god. Oh my god AWESOME.

Mechwarrior 5, maybe? I don't know if it's just an awesome CGI movie someone pumped out, or if it's an actual teaser as the title says, but this is AWESOME.

If you're not aware that I'm a major mech-and-giant-robot fan, you're obviously not a long time reader.

Having seen Transformers 2:

I'll put a few first-impressions up about the new Transformers movie, rather then an actual review or anything like that. Before I start I'll just say this: Michael Bay, I am disappoint. I say this as a fan of the original Transformers movie you made, I am genuinely disappoint (tense mistake done deliberately). There was so much potential in this movie, and it has been actively squandered. WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS. FURTHER WARNING: This was written in bits and pieces, some things may be poorly written.


1. The Underworld/Matrix problem: When you're making a fictional story of any kind in any media format you're asking the audience to suspend their disbelief about the story itself, and accept the presented story as a potential event.

This is rendered impossible when you're openly changing things. You may not think we'll notice, but we do. The NEST General? Yeah, he was in the first movie in the attack on the US base which was declared to have NO SURVIVORS. Maybe this was dealt with in a comic or something, but that does not help us movie goers. All I saw when he came on screen was "Wait, he's meant to be DEAD."

This is only one of a number of things. The whole "Last of the Primes" thing, "Only a Prime can kill me"? If you're going to throw that stuff in, at least EXPLAIN what a Prime is in the movie. In the original movie it was presented that Megatron and Prime were on equal footing, now apparently Megatron is the servant of a more powerful one of Prime's predecessors? You might want to try and clarify things, because the background you added in this movie just didn't mesh with what I could glean from the original movie. It just broke the immersion.


2. In the first movie there was no problem with the humans being the primary characters, it was expected. Excessive Transformer presence would just cost WAY too much to film, plus you needed to make the main character someone we could empathize with easily and understand, I.E. A human.

However, we now KNOW who the Transformers are, and your budget is way bigger so you can have more special effects shots. To me that just screamed "More personality to the Transformers", but instead you went the opposite way. You added more Transformers, the vast majority with absolutely NO personality, and filled even more screen time with humans or - at best - human-scale transformers. Yes, I get that it's good to have enemies it's possible for the humans to defeat, but they weren't interesting.

When we shouted "We want more Transformers in our Transformers!", we weren't talking about quantity, we were talking about Quality. Even those Transformers with previously established personalities (Ironhide and Rachet) were pretty much ignored for the vast majority of the movie outside of scenes where they're shooting stuff. Then the new Autobots introduced (there were new Decepticons introduced, but since they were just dragged in to Numbers-Up the final fight, it's kinda forgivable they're not characterised) were just used to show off new cars you had access to. Who was the dude with wheeled feet and blade hands? He looked awesome, he killed a Decepticon, and he only had ONE line in the entire movie. I didn't even get his name. Ar-Cee was apparently three motorbikes, but we never saw a scrap of personality on her (P.S. Having a human sized Transformer then NOT using her for human-sized interaction? Lost opportunity, just like point 3 mentioned below).

That University guy alongside Sam and Mikhala? Drop him. I have no interest in him having panic attacks. YES, I understand that he's meant to show how most people would react in that situation so Sam is made to look all the braver, but he was annoying, in the story he was pointless. The ONLY thing he did was fail at an attempt to ground how unbelievable the events of the movie are, and point them at the ex- Sector Seven guy. If you removed him, there would be no change. In fact, the movie could potentially be improved by there being more time to add character to more Transformers.

While on this topic, I would be remiss if I did not thank you for adding Jetfire. While his role was reasonably small and his character wasn't INCREDIBLY deep, he is a good example of what the movie needed. He was a newly added Transformer with CHARACTER. It didn't take much, just a couple of scenes showing what he could do, a chance to actually talk, and a return to the screen later on to remind us of him. That's all it took, and you could have made us WANT the Transformers to win.

Final point in this... well... point. The excess of humans is felt nowhere more then in the final fight scene. It didn't feel like Transformers, it felt like US Millitary Vs Decepticons (with the Autobots making an appearance).


3. The Twins. I wouldn't harp on about the 'hilarious' antics they engaged in or the negative stereotypes, I'll summarize my dislike with this: They are a wasted opportunity.

Here we have two relatively small Transformers who have an extended sequence in the company of humans, and yet they have NO personality beyond offensive racial stereotypes. Here was a chance for some actual personality, for some actual character and historical development. Make them smart-ass characters (preferably actually AMUSING ones), but keep in mind these people have been through a civilization-destroying CIVIL WAR. They're going to be hiding scars. This was a perfect opportunity, during their traveling sequences or while they're camping out, for Sam to talk with the twins about Cybertron or the war and learn more about them. HUMANISE them, make us want the Autobots to win for reasons other then self interest. We need to want the good guys to win for more reason then simple "The bad guys will kill us if they emerge victorious."

They could have had genuine personality, so their scene opposite Devestator would be actually be interesting rather then just making me think "just get on to the proper fight". Yes, comic relief is important, but this movie went overboard with reasonably poor attempts at it. Did we need to have scenes of one dog humping another? No. It had no purpose. Did we need to have scenes of Sam getting attacked by transmogrified cutlery and his mother having a breakdown at the house? No. They could have shaved five minutes and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars off the budget by removing those scenes, and possibly used that money/time to add to actually purposeful events in the movie.


4. The Robo-human. Yes, I know it's a "tribute" to the Pretender Transformers, but did it have ANY purpose other then trying to add a quickly forgetable "Is Sam going to cheat" subplot? (SPOILER: It turns out Sam ISN'T going to cheat on his girlfriend. There's a shocking surprise). There were a large number of things like this. Really it was just an excuse to add another hot chick to the movie, and to be honest I found her quite unappealing. If you removed that character from the movie and replaced her with, oh, I don't know, an actual FULL sized transformer, it would seem more interesting and threatening. Her presence didn't add anything to the movie, if anything it detracted. Surely if the Decepticons were capable of making their alternative forms passable as humans, they'd do it for more then Infiltrating a university they have no interest in.

Yes, I know Sam's there so they MUST have interest in it, but if you listen to the dialogue you see she's already at the University for a day or two before Sam arrives, or Sam even knows he has the McGuffin.


5. Optimus Prime power up? Really? Bay, you're moving a bit towards the side of Transformers that's complete crap. I realise the idea of silicon based life having defined 'rules' we can understand is a bit of a cop-out to reference, especially when it's shown they can alter their structure so radically, but the idea of Prime WEARING THE WEAPONS of another Transformer and suddenly becoming more powerful just seems like crap to me.

Just to add insult to injury, that final fight sequence was incredibly badly paced. Optimus comes back, the big bad evil guy teleports in, steals McGuffin, starts end of World, Optimus 'powers up', handles it in a matter of half a minute, relaxes and has a smoke. There was nothing to establish just how fearsome the Fallen WAS aside from people going on about it, and a few fuzzy smack-downs. If you MUST have Prime power up, have Prime try to handle him unaugmented first, to show just how powerful this bastard is. Having Prime suddenly come back with weapons from another robot attached and easily handle

On the topic of Prime, sometime more I want to say. His dramatic sacrifice fight scene was quite impressive to watch, but the end of it was quite poor in my view.

Prime has fought like a Demon against three or four Decepticons for a good couple of minutes to allow Sam the chance to escape. Good! Awesome! That's the Prime we know. Then he dies to a sneak attack from behind by Megatron. No, sorry but it lacks drama. Yes, it establishes that Megatron is a sneaky prick, we know that already though, so it doesn't need establishing. What would be more impressive is Prime fighting like a Demon against the Decepticons present (except Megatron) and emerging victorious but damaged, then an undamaged Megatron kicking the crap out of him. Keep in mind, in the first movie we watched a Megatron recovering from centuries of freezing kick the crap out of Prime, after tearing an Autobot in two. Megatron is meant to be TERRIFYING, the moment the Autobots saw him hanging around in the first one they started shouting about falling back

6. The Fallen is the weakest main villain I've seen in a long time. Despite Megatron seeming all subservient (friggin' MEGATRON being subservient! Actually, to get more personality out of it I would have liked to have seen more push and pull in that relationship, Megatron sees it as a partnership, Fallen disagrees, that sort of thing) the Fallen never seems like a genuine Villain. It's obvious they were going for a Darth Vader/Emperor thing, with Megatron being the Darth Vader fought so often through the series, and the Fallen being the Emperor who's so dangerous at the end. But they missed, it just felt like he wasn't DOING anything. He shows up at the end to be essentially a video-game boss fight and to show how badass Prime is. We've spent all this time supposed to be fearing Megatron, and now this rather unfearsomely designed Robot swans in with his stupid beard and we're supposed to be afraid of him?

When he was beaten (SPOILER: THE BAD GUY DIES) I feel no elation, no joy that the threat is passed. I really feel nothing like that, all I feel is disappointment.

Disappointment. I suppose that's where I'm going with ALL of these points. I was just disappointed by the movie. I had high hopes, and I was let down.


Wow, this ended up alot longer then I imagined.

This blog is dying

Not really, it's just looking a bit emaciated after I haven't been feeding it the required number of weekly posts. I'm going to continue starving it on account that I'm a lazy prick, but for now have a short post.

JADE EMPIRE

One of the games Bioware have pumped out after I jumped heavily on their bandwagon post-Neverwinter Nights 1, and with the dubious honour of being the one I haven't played. Until NOW, that is.

Let's get one thing out of the way. The character advancement system seems... dull. Like, really, REALLY dull. There's NO meat to it, differentiating between characters isn't easy, since there are only three stats (the all-inclusive 'Body', and the rather baffling 'Mind' and 'Spirit') and the only other customisation is for martial arts styles which is more like generic upgrades. The lack of equippable weaponry and armor is sort of mind-scratchingly bewildering as well.

However, for a game with such dating graphics it's aged well. Like, REALLY well. There's a unifying artistic theme that just strikes the right note. A sort of 'Magi-punk china' feel that just draws you in and immerses you quite well. When one of the Big Bad Evil Guys (The 'Black Hand') violates the aesthetic (he looks like a black clad samurai) he stands out and seems otherworldly, but he still looks like he BELONGS. It's not like dumping a medieval Knight in the middle of a street, as anachronistic artistic styles in a game can sometimes look like.

Although I would like to see ONE RPG where your village doesn't get destroyed. Seriously, if I'm ever in a quiet harmless town and I see a protagonist walking past, I am getting the fuck out of dodge.

Assassin's Creed

Well, I have been neglecting this lately, haven't I? Don't worry, this isn't all I've been neglecting. E.G. My Honours work.

As I was playing Assassin's Creed, I came to two conclusions

1. I REALLY enjoyed the 'meaningless tasks' in between Assassination missions that everyone else seemed to hate. I might just be weird, though, but I really liked having to pick-pocket information from people, punish guards taking advantage of civilians, etc. Even more fun was when I buggered it up and had to escape.

2. The more important conclusion for this blog: Assassin's Creed could be made into an AWESOME movie.

Sure, the game takes X many hours, and the movie could take up, at best, a fraction of that, but look at what the game is at it's basic level, and you'll see how much of the game would be removed from a movie. Ignoring the boring traveling scenes (they'd be montaged down, at best), for obvious reasons, let's look at what would actually BE in a movie. You'd probably end up with a movie that consists of maybe four sequences of Desmond outside the Animus, along with a couple of quick scenes inside the memories where he is getting confused as to his own identity (along with some soft science reason as to why he is 'controlling' the memories, probably using the explanation of the 'size of the fish that got away changes').

Inside the Animus there would be the initial failure scene that inspires the whole quest, of course. This would be followed by, I'd say, two assassinations, one where he lets arrogance get the best of him and he's wounded in the escape, the other where he is appropriately patient and successfully manages the assassination. In preparation for both of which he learns more about the McGuffin. This is an optimistic guess, in all likelihood the middle of the movie would be one assassination, at best, possibly even none.

The finale of the movie would have the attempted assassination of the big bad guy, that fails because he's smarter then the others involved, but eventually he's killed after a dramatic sword fight. Afterwards he finds out about the traitor using the McGuffin for his own ends inside the Assassin's group, gets the forgiveness of the dude injured in his failure and expertly assassinates the traitor after the revelation of the McGuffin's power. He probably uses the newly forgiving friend to help out (E.G. Gets the friend to wear his costume and approach the guy from the front, getting his attention, while he sneaks round back and knifes him in the bollocks).

... Man, I really want to see that movie now.