Why isn't Bayek's ring finger removed for the hidden blade?

As far as I know the primitive hidden blades in Assassin's Creed needed the removal of the finger to accommodate its use. That was what was shown in the first Assassin's Creed game - the one featuring Altair for the first time.

Then in Assassin's Creed 2 it is shown that with the specific design of Leonardo da Vinci, a hidden blade could be crafted for Ezio that would avoid dismemberment.

So chronologically Bayek is much more ancient that Altair and by that very fact the hidden blade is supposed to be much more ancient and should in fact need the removal of the ring finger for its accommodation.

But this is not the case as shown in AC Origins.

Isn't that a plot hole?

8

1 Answer

Without exposing any spoilers, your concerns are explained during cutscenes in the game. Namely, during the Aya and End of the Snake main quests.

If you don't mind spoilers, here is a full explanation:

When Bayek obtains the hidden blade at the end of the Aya main quest he has all of his fingers. There is a cutscene whereby Bayek is testing out the blade. Aya opens Bayek's hand to prevent self-injury when using the blade. Bayek loses his finger during End of the Snake. It is the main quest after Aya. You will see a cutscene when assassinating Eudoros whereby the hidden blade cuts Bayek's finger off.

This YouTube clip shows the End of the Snake mission. Skip to the third minute to see the key cutscene.

1