I think the ambiguity point made by the ACIII designer is a crucial point. Do you know who the most successful Assassin in history was (defining successful as having a long career)? Neither do I, because we've never heard of them as they've never been exposed. Of course we have outliers like Booth and Brutus who either got caught or wanted it known that they were involved, and that's why we're able to talk about them. Do we know who assassinated Bin Laden? No, and it'll likely stay that way for a long time, because their network keeps their cover intact. In all three of those games, getting caught equals failure, and illustrates the huge difference between one-offs like Booth, Brutus, and Oswald (who for all we know was framed successfully by the real Assassin) and Connor, Corvo, and Agent 47: if you get caught after you assassinate your mark, you're of no use to your handler/organization in the future, and therefore unable to assassinate any more targets. The Ninja of feudal Japan used disguises, obscure tools that were the high technology of the time, and blades/projectiles to complete hit after hit without revealing their identity. They are probably the closest historical precedent to the Assassins of today's games. Also, the political ramifications are an interesting consideration as well, something that is explored well in the AC franchise, especially in Liberation where (SPOILERS) killing the governor just leaves you with more problems from the next governor who you must then go after (END SPOILERS) Something that wasn't considered is the nature of the target. Killings by Mafia hit men and by privately contracted modern hit men are normally of people with no political importance, such as businessmen and cheating spouses with good life insurance. They are also performed by individuals who don't know the target well, and the hit men are often disguised in one way or another because they aren't trying to get recognition, they're doing it for cash or for personal gain within their organization.