Invalid characterset or character set not supported This drove me insane. See if you can figure it out.





This drove me insane. See if you can figure it out.
November 29, 2010

I beat Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood about a week ago, but I've been spending some time doing side quests, hunting for items and generally getting all of the achievements that I missed during my playthrough. Brotherhood, like the last game, has a subplot where you search for glyphs left by Subject 16 and solve vaguely Dan Brown-inspired puzzles to unearth a conspiracy. One of the most frequent recurring puzzles, in both games, is the code wheel. Here's the one that appeared in the tenth and final rift:



If you haven't played the Assassin's Creed games and don't understand how this puzzle works, let me make it incredibly simple: you need to look at the sequence of numbers represented in the outer wheel, figure out the pattern, and use that to determine the two missing integrals. So, the sequence is as follows:

2 3 5 8 13 21 24 45 ? ?

So... what the hell is the pattern? The first six numbers seem to represent the Fibonacci sequence, in which the next number in the sequence is determined by adding the previous two. It's a little weird that it's missing the two ones at the beginning, but what's even weirder is that the pattern goes haywire after 21, jumping forward by only 3 and then making the massive leap to 45.

I studied this forever and couldn't figure it out, and I'd made it this far in both games without ever looking up a solution online. Finally, I caved. See if you can figure it out before I reveal the answer.

...

Are you ready for this?

The pattern is to multiply the tens digits in the previous two numbers, and then add the ones digits. So how do we get 24? Look at the previous two entries, 13 and 21. Multiply the tens digits. 1 x 2 = 2, therefore the next entry will start in the 20s. Then add the ones digits. 3 + 1 = 4. Hence, 24. Continue to apply this pattern and you get your solution:



I think what I ultimately don't like about this puzzle is its use (intentional or not) of the well-known Fibonacci sequence as misdirection. I get the sense that most players, like myself, will focus largely on how the numbers from 24 onward relate to the Fibonacci sequence rather than whether or not this just happens to be an entirely separate pattern. It's a very tricky puzzle, to be sure, but I kinda feel like Ubisoft was trying to be a little too clever for their own good. I don't feel guilty for looking up the solution.

Most recent blog posts from Mike Suskie...

Feedback
CoarseDragon CoarseDragon - November 29, 2010 (05:43 PM)
Would those last two numbers be 69 and 114?
Suskie Suskie - November 29, 2010 (07:24 PM)
Heh, so I take it you didn't read the whole post? That's cool, but no, those aren't the answers. The solution's in the second picture, but I should probably refrain from saying it out loud in case you still want to try and figure it out yourself.
zippdementia zippdementia - November 30, 2010 (11:59 AM)
That's a little too arbitrary for my tastes. The number zero holds a flaky place in cryptic mathematics.
CoarseDragon CoarseDragon - November 30, 2010 (12:54 PM)
Heh, so I take it you didn't read the whole post? Not really I sort of skipped the last paragraph.

I would think then the second to the last number is 89 and the last number is probably 334.

Suskie Suskie - November 30, 2010 (01:19 PM)
That is correct.

That's a little too arbitrary for my tastes. The number zero holds a flaky place in cryptic mathematics.

I completely agree. I had fun solving all of the code wheel puzzles before this (you should see the code chart I came up with for the last one in Assassin's Creed II), but like I said, this is the first time I looked up a solution online and I don't feel guilty about it.
zippdementia zippdementia - November 30, 2010 (02:02 PM)
On the plus side, it's an intriguing idea. I didn't have the money to pick up the last couple of Assassin's Creed games, but I think it's got to have dropped to something reasonable by now. Suskie, EA should be paying you for your advertising of this series.
WilltheGreat WilltheGreat - November 30, 2010 (02:32 PM)
They could certainly afford it.
Suskie Suskie - November 30, 2010 (02:50 PM)
Yeah, they could totally afford to pay me for recommending a game they didn't publish! Har! (It's Ubisoft, not EA.)
zippdementia zippdementia - November 30, 2010 (03:04 PM)
Ah, dammit. And I hadn't made a fool of myself all day.
WilltheGreat WilltheGreat - November 30, 2010 (05:28 PM)
oshi
dementedhut dementedhut - November 30, 2010 (05:52 PM)
Hmm, I figured Activision as the new EA, considering they like to drop-kick developers and development teams (like Bizarre Creations) after one or two releases.
honestgamer honestgamer - November 30, 2010 (06:42 PM)
Yeah, I'd say that most people tend to look at Activision as the new EA, not Ubisoft. Also, I think EA has something like a 30% stake in Ubisoft, so that's kind of like saying that EA is the new EA.
joseph_valencia joseph_valencia - November 30, 2010 (09:35 PM)
42?
zippdementia zippdementia - December 01, 2010 (01:49 PM)
Actually, that 30% might be why I said EA. I could have sworn the EA logo appeared somewhere in relation to Assassin's Creed while I was looking up prices the other day.

eXTReMe Tracker
© 1998-2024 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors.