Assassin's Creed Shadows

[TaintedSquirrel]

please can we talk about fucking games and not this ape-brained bullshit? goddamn it's BEYOND tiring

Alright, did anyone notice Naoe is using the sideways blade from AC3?

https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-shadows-pivot-dagger-blade-history-ac3-explained/

 

[Blade-Runner]

Ubisoft doesn't need Sweet Baby. They literally have been doing the same thing in house for 15+ years. No need to get your pitchforks out, this is an Ubisoft game.

I don't doubt that. IMHO apart from a few exceptions, most of what Ubi has released post Assassin's Creed 2 and Farcry 3 has been hot garbage, but the fact that there is photo evidence confirming Kim Belair's involvement is enough confirmation for me to steer clear of this flaming DEI turd.

 

[Armenius]

So, what exactly is the line here, like where is it drawn immersion wise? Because in Assassin's Creed we have:

• Literal magic artifacts that they use as a MacGuffin constantly
• Alternative history involving the crusades and numerous other historical figures - Ben fucking Franklin in one of them invents the grenade launcher
• The hyper-advanced predecessor to humankind living under the Vatican who tells you the future after you punch the pope
• The lost city of Atlantis is real according to the newer titles, and so are mythological creatures
• World War 2 was actually a knights templar scheme
• 500 other random bits of goofiness

The entire series is bonkers story wise and actual history is but the slightest suggestion.

Please explain to me how we're just now jumping the shark

This is the first AC game where they put a real person in one of the main character roles. And they picked the one person in the historical record during this era in Japan's history who happens to be black. In the other games the MC fit into the universe of their respective games and could thus blend in to be an effective assassin. I will give the benefit of the doubt and predict that Naoe will be the main character and you'll play Yasuke just in side missions helping her out, unlike recent games where you choose one or the other to play through the game with. The first reveal trailer for the game shows the shinobi/kunoichi as the lone character. That would make more sense and I wouldn't take issue with it.

It wouldn't necessarily be a huge deal until Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and other "legitimate" sources of information began editing their articles on Yasuke and Nobunaga the day the trailer came out. That kind of coordinated effort to rewrite history implicates an agenda, and that is what people take the most issue with. Nioh put William Adams into the MC role for that alternate history game, but nobody was all of the sudden saying he really did all those things in the game.

 

[Blade-Runner]

So, what exactly is the line here, like where is it drawn immersion wise? Because in Assassin's Creed we have:

• Literal magic artifacts that they use as a MacGuffin constantly
• Alternative history involving the crusades and numerous other historical figures - Ben fucking Franklin in one of them invents the grenade launcher
• The hyper-advanced predecessor to humankind living under the Vatican who tells you the future after you punch the pope
• The lost city of Atlantis is real according to the newer titles, and so are mythological creatures
• World War 2 was actually a knights templar scheme
• 500 other random bits of goofiness

The entire series is bonkers story wise and actual history is but the slightest suggestion.

Please explain to me how we're just now jumping the shark

Can't disagree that historical accuracy is of secondary importance, especially if Ubi is relying on historical consultants like Sachi Schmidt-Hori

Don't be surprised if they manage to squeeze in some pedo side quests.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Can't disagree that historical accuracy is of secondary importance, especially if Ubi is relying on historical consultants like Sachi Schmidt-Hori

View attachment 655014

Don't be surprised if they manage to squeeze in some pedo side quests.

holy fuck this is so stupid i sat here for 5 minutes and i can't even think of how to string together words to reply to this.

goodbye [h], or should i say [4]chan

 

[Furious_Styles]

holy fuck this is so stupid i sat here for 5 minutes and i can't even think of how to string together words to reply to this.

goodbye [h], or should i say [4]chan

I think it will be a departure from the norm from here on out if we have a game thread where someone isn't freaking out over DEI, or a female character's face being too fat, etc.

 

[Flogger23m]

I think it will be a departure from the norm from here on out if we have a game thread where someone isn't freaking out over DEI, or a female character's face being too fat, etc.

If it is relevant to the game, which it often is these days, it should and will be discussed on a game by game basis. Although Ubisoft is one of the first to jump on this bandwagon and it runs deeper than most game companies, and it isn't just DEI. There is a reason why people sarcastically call them "Ubisoft games" or use that as a word to disparage other games that are bland and HR department designed.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I think most people comment on this because DEI kills fun. Games should be all about fun. Games that focus on preaching or shaming or virtue signaling (instead of gameplay) are not fun. I am still pissed that DEI pretty much guarantees I will never experience proper Duke Nukem 3D sequel (or equivalent) that I enjoyed so much in 1996. I am sadden at how so many franchises are killed catering to this mind virus - like Saints Rows for example. It sucks that so many game studios that were amazing got internally destroyed because of this mind virus (such as Arkane studios). And honestly, I ordinarily could care less about DEI / SJW self-righteous cultists and how many minds they convert in their inquisition quest. We can all have different thoughts and believe in different things. I could care less - whatever floats your boat. But gaming is like the only hobby I truly enjoy - and they have been doing their best to kill the joy of gaming. So yeah, I can understand why so many gamers had enough of this and are starting to call so much attention to this. So it hopefully stops - and we return back to normalcy where games can be just games and not some Maoist re-education tool that reduces complexity of human experience into simplistic agenda.

"DEI" isn't killing your enjoyment in gaming. what's killing your enjoyment of gaming is allowing yourself to fall for the constant stream of outrage mongers on social media who NEED to farm engagement (clicks/views/comments/likes/shares) to make money. the angrier and more outraged they can make people feel, the better they do. because it's all designed specifically to create an emotional response from you, it's easy to fall for it and start believing... well, all the bullshit you just typed out.

nobody's ever going to change your mind, it's clearly too late for that now. you are now one of the 'regulars' on these influencer's channels/accounts and hey, you might even help convince some of your peers (yay, echo chambers!) to join in the "fun" now, too. even MORE money to be made!

if i could ask one thing of anyone who is fully onboard with the "the woke mind virus is ruining gaming" circlejerk, it's PLEASE have a big enough pair to stop cowering like fucking pussies behind words like DEI and woke and say this shit with your chest. just say you fucking hate the gays and queers and blacks in your games and other media. stop being so fucking afraid to just SAY WHAT YOU MEAN. don't use a secondary excuse of "well i'd be fine with the gays and queers and blacks in my games if they would just not shove it down our throats!!!1" which is also a stupid fucking crybaby tactic.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I am not on social media, I spend most of my time with my family and close circle of friends and quite a few good books (when I am not traveling around the world). I just listed examples of how cultural norms fueled by DEI agenda have been destroying my hobby. Yet you just assume things about me without knowing anything of me. I wonder who lives in an echo chamber? Anyway, this thread is about AC game so I will refrain from commenting on this topic from now on. You need to get outside of your head a bit and realize the world is much a bigger and more complex place than you think.

what an utter lie

 

[polonyc2]

CD Projekt Red Senior Lead Weapon Artist Apologizes for Noting Criticism About ‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ Is Valid

CD Projekt Red Senior Lead Weapon Artist Michal Kalisz apologized for claiming that the criticisms Ubisoft and its development team are receiving for Assassin’s Creed Shadows are valid...initially, Kalisz took to X and wrote, “The concerns and criticism around Assassin’s Creed Shadow are valid and I personally think it might disrespect Japanese culture with the provided historical inaccuracy. People, especially Japanese people, have full right to oppose trends like this”

Kalisz apologized for these comments on May 19th...he wrote, “I’ve noticed criticism regarding my recent comment about AC Shadows...after reflecting on it and reading your responses/retweets, I realize I owe you an apology”

He continued, “First of all, I acknowledge that I am not qualified to share statements or discuss such topics. Your feedback has highlighted the importance of being more informed and respectful in my opinions. It has also shown me that we should be more open to new ideas and not restrict ourselves too much while creating new worlds. We all draw inspiration from a wide range of media, and that’s great. I appreciate your patience and understanding. I’ve learned something valuable and will strive to do better in the future”

 

[Blade-Runner]

holy fuck this is so stupid i sat here for 5 minutes and i can't even think of how to string together words to reply to this.

goodbye [h], or should i say [4]chan

Cry harder, or use the ignore function instead of crying?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Cry harder, or use the ignore function instead of crying?

aww, are you upset that i popped your little filter bubble for a few moments?

 

[Blade-Runner]

aww, are you upset that i popped your little filter bubble for a few moments?

I see you opted for crying harder.

 

[Armenius]

Children, I advise you use the Ignore function to not incur Kyle's wrath.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Children, I advise you use the Ignore function to not incur Kyle's wrath.

if i ignored everyone making idiotic posts about DEI and the woke mind virus i wouldn't have more than a post or two per day to read and respond to.

but in all seriousness, no. i've been here for 23 years, i'm not just going to stick my head in the sand because there's an overwhelming bias and people get upset when dissenting opinions come into play. we aren't arguing about whether open world games are good or bad or what's the most exciting release coming out, we're talking about whether certain groups of people should be allowed to be represented in games, or if REAL people from those groups should be allowed to make those games. it's fucking insane and i'm tired of pretending like we're not talking about vile, dark shit when you examine what the end goal is of rightoid gamergaters.

 

[Comixbooks]

I bet the 1,500 people let go really looking forward to this game on the Division Homeland .

 

[RanceJustice]

if i ignored everyone making idiotic posts about DEI and the woke mind virus i wouldn't have more than a post or two per day to read and respond to.

but in all seriousness, no. i've been here for 23 years, i'm not just going to stick my head in the sand because there's an overwhelming bias and people get upset when dissenting opinions come into play. we aren't arguing about whether open world games are good or bad or what's the most exciting release coming out, we're talking about whether certain groups of people should be allowed to be represented in games, or if REAL people from those groups should be allowed to make those games. it's fucking insane and i'm tired of pretending like we're not talking about vile, dark shit when you examine what the end goal is of rightoid gamergaters.

Just in the same way that simply claiming everything is a big DEI/ESG woke conspiracy handed down from on high is an inaccurate narrative, its good not to fall into simple yet incorrect framing in the "opposite direction". Someone criticizing this decision for AC Shadows is not necessarily making a judgment on "whether certain groups of people should be allowed to be represented in games" or "REAL people from those groups allowed to make those games" and I think that suggesting the only reason anyone could have a problem with the AC Shadows decision is because of being an evil racist chud rightoid is what tends to push people towards those viewpoints.

GamerGate was itself a good example of this, where a lot of people ended up sliding down an ideological pipeline (many of whom were not particularly politically adept or interested beforehand) because there were relatively few voices taking their concerns about certain content creators' attacks on gaming and gamers as "problematic" seriously, leaving it to a waiting cadre of those who had a vested interest in saying "Weren't we right about gaming? Now let me tell you about the other problems of the world...". Its disappointing the way it has been split into a culture war narrative looking back upon it that's highly biased and equally inaccurate framing that either GamerGate was either some evil harassment campaign who just hated women and anyone non white and the people being critiqued were totally right about gamers and gaming as an evil incel boys club in every way, or it was some sort of lofty journalism critique that was targeted by woke game-haters and any harassment or bad behavior was simply made up by a group of anti-white misandrists who wanted to ruin gaming, by means of their industry connections, if it wan't some sort of queer-centered walking simulator. Neither are accurate and it was possible to both object to the prescriptions, accuracy of claims, and framing of Sarkeesian et al and point out issue with games journalism without thinking that harassment or just rage filled trolling was a good response or that the whole thing blighted any policy that could be described as progressive or left leaning etc.

Lets not make the same mistakes over and over again. From both pragmatic and ideological perspectives, its better to argue against badly made arguments rather than reduce the whole thing to culture war stereotypes and expect everyone to fall neatly onto one side or the other.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Just in the same way that simply claiming everything is a big DEI/ESG woke conspiracy handed down from on high is an inaccurate narrative, its good not to fall into simple yet incorrect framing in the "opposite direction". Someone criticizing this decision for AC Shadows is not necessarily making a judgment on "whether certain groups of people should be allowed to be represented in games" or "REAL people from those groups allowed to make those games" and I think that suggesting the only reason anyone could have a problem with the AC Shadows decision is because of being an evil racist chud rightoid is what tends to push people towards those viewpoints.

GamerGate was itself a good example of this, where a lot of people ended up sliding down an ideological pipeline (many of whom were not particularly politically adept or interested beforehand) because there were relatively few voices taking their concerns about certain content creators' attacks on gaming and gamers as "problematic" seriously, leaving it to a waiting cadre of those who had a vested interest in saying "Weren't we right about gaming? Now let me tell you about the other problems of the world...". Its disappointing the way it has been split into a culture war narrative looking back upon it that's highly biased and equally inaccurate framing that either GamerGate was either some evil harassment campaign who just hated women and anyone non white and the people being critiqued were totally right about gamers and gaming as an evil incel boys club in every way, or it was some sort of lofty journalism critique that was targeted by woke game-haters and any harassment or bad behavior was simply made up by a group of anti-white misandrists who wanted to ruin gaming, by means of their industry connections, if it wan't some sort of queer-centered walking simulator. Neither are accurate and it was possible to both object to the prescriptions, accuracy of claims, and framing of Sarkeesian et al and point out issue with games journalism without thinking that harassment or just rage filled trolling was a good response or that the whole thing blighted any policy that could be described as progressive or left leaning etc.

Lets not make the same mistakes over and over again. From both pragmatic and ideological perspectives, its better to argue against badly made arguments rather than reduce the whole thing to culture war stereotypes and expect everyone to fall neatly onto one side or the other.

you can say "well let's not oversimplify things, nor forget the extremes go BOTH ways!" bullshit all you want. the simple fact is, when you boil it down, one side wants certain people to not be present/exist, another side says actually that's fine, they can exist.

the actual problem is that those in the former group have been very carefully manipulated to think it's NOT as simple as "i hate certain groups of people and don't want them to exist." the biggest method employed to do this (at least as of the past 5 years or so) has been to use a pre-existing universally despised thing, child sex abuse/diddling kids/whatever you want to call it. if you can make someone believe they're not just hateful bigots but conscientious citizens standing up in the defense of the children, you've turned them into righteous zealots who see the "enemies" that have been served to them on a silver platter, not just groups of people they fear or feel uncomfortable about because they're ignorant (using ignorant in the literal sense of being uninformed, not "stupid." although there's also a lot of crossover there.)

 

[Colonel Sanders]

You are so wrong and stuck in your own head it's not even funny. I am all for inclusion and representation being an ethnic minority myself. I have nothing against diversity, in fact I am all for it. But using DEI as a tool to limit artistic freedom leading to subpar gaming experience is what I am against. You have a certain binary view of things, and are arguing from a position of self centered vacuum.

my guy, WHO the fuck is "using DEI as a tool to limit artistic freedom?" do you have even an inkling of how full blow fucking whackaloon that sounds? you are the *pitch perfect* example of what i just described above. i mean you said it virtually verbatim. "i'm all for diversity, but not the way these evildoers are twisting it for their nefarious motives!!!1"

i don't suppose you have, by any chance... a YouTube link that explains in detail how evildoers are twisting the knife of DEI into straight male gamers' backs?!? DUN DUN DUN

and surely said link would not be from a YouTuber with many dozens of videos whose motive can be instantly derived with one overarching view of their thumbnails? DUN DUN DUN

MUST CONSUME CONTENT ABOUT DEI AND THE WOKE MIND VIRUS

 

[RanceJustice]

you can say "well let's not oversimplify things, nor forget the extremes go BOTH ways!" bullshit all you want. the simple fact is, when you boil it down, one side wants certain people to not be present/exist, another side says actually that's fine, they can exist.

This is kind of what I was talking about. First, the assumption that anyone who has an objection to choices in AC Shadows development "wants people to not exist" is to say the least inaccurate. This is wrapped into hyperbolic framing of existential threat which leads to culture war "with us or against us, the other side is EVIL" alignment and leads to a thought-terminating cliche - "you don't have to listen to these people, they don't want ______ to EXIST. WE ARE THE ONLY BULWARK AGAINST _______", and a reference to "enlightened centrism" as a way to discount anyone who critiques a position by someone on their same "side", or just isn't in lockstep with the prescribed views.

So if some random person says "Yeah, you know what I understand why people might be upset about the choice of AC Shadows protagonist for a number of reasons" and is met with "YOU IGNORANT RACIST BIGOT DROP THE MASK YOU AND YOUR ILK CANT WAIT TO THROW EVERYONE IN THE CAMPS YOU FUCKING NAZI CHUD GAMERGATE INCEL", from your "side" because you assume that people must fit into that "box", yet prominent voices on the other ideological side with vested interest say "Oh yes, I understand what you mean. Let me tell you why they reacted this way..." is it any wonder that people are more amenable to the latter, allowing you ideological enemy to recruit? Even if you don't care about treating the people as individuals with their own views and motivations that don't always fit into an imagined mold, its a tactical error and a wasted opportunity- we've seen it for over the past decade just in a gaming-focused iteration.

Nobody is saying there aren't people who actually feel or act the way you're describing, but assuming that anyone discussing a choice in game development somehow a strawman for for an ideological enemy is both inaccurate and counterproductive.

the actual problem is that those in the former group have been very carefully manipulated to think it's NOT as simple as "i hate certain groups of people and don't want them to exist." the biggest method employed to do this (at least as of the past 5 years or so) has been to use a pre-existing universally despised thing, child sex abuse/diddling kids/whatever you want to call it. if you can make someone believe they're not just hateful bigots but conscientious citizens standing up in the defense of the children, you've turned them into righteous zealots who see the "enemies" that have been served to them on a silver platter, not just groups of people they fear or feel uncomfortable about because they're ignorant (using ignorant in the literal sense of being uninformed, not "stupid." although there's also a lot of crossover there.)

I grant this is an issue, but it can and should be handled independently and in a constructive manner when it arises. The same to what I wrote above applies - its nothing new for someone to wrap themselves in moral certitude as the defender of righteousness which means the ends justify the means and anyone who objects is abetting evil. The most effective counter to these sorts of arguments are to engage them without falling into the many pitfalls that can come from acting in ways that feel very emotionally satisfying for everyone already on your side, but make you look unhinged to outside obsevers trying to decide who is is more reasonable, as well as unlikely to allow the person making the bad argument a chance for their viewpoint to evolve in time as opposed to them becoming more recalcitrant. There was a discussion about ESG/DEI in gaming awhile ago and I spent a considerable amount of time addressing the individual arguments being made; does it mean that everyone is going to instantly believe as I do? No of course not, but I know that its something a good bit more effective to both those to whom I was speaking and to those who may be reading, then if I just decided to rage on assumptions about their character, politics and a variety of other circumstances that would incorrect and actively counterproductive .

 

[Colonel Sanders]

This is kind of what I was talking about. First, the assumption that anyone who has an objection to choices in AC Shadows development "wants people to not exist" is to say the least inaccurate. This is wrapped into hyperbolic framing of existential threat which leads to culture war "with us or against us, the other side is EVIL" alignment and leads to a thought-terminating cliche - "you don't have to listen to these people, they don't want ______ to EXIST. WE ARE THE ONLY BULWARK AGAINST _______", and a reference to "enlightened centrism" as a way to discount anyone who critiques a position by someone on their same "side", or just isn't in lockstep with the prescribed views.

So if some random person says "Yeah, you know what I understand why people might be upset about the choice of AC Shadows protagonist for a number of reasons" and is met with "YOU IGNORANT RACIST BIGOT DROP THE MASK YOU AND YOUR ILK CANT WAIT TO THROW EVERYONE IN THE CAMPS YOU FUCKING NAZI CHUD GAMERGATE INCEL", from your "side" because you assume that people must fit into that "box", yet prominent voices on the other ideological side with vested interest say "Oh yes, I understand what you mean. Let me tell you why they reacted this way..." is it any wonder that people are more amenable to the latter, allowing you ideological enemy to recruit? Even if you don't care about treating the people as individuals with their own views and motivations that don't always fit into an imagined mold, its a tactical error and a wasted opportunity- we've seen it for over the past decade just in a gaming-focused iteration.

Nobody is saying there aren't people who actually feel or act the way you're describing, but assuming that anyone discussing a choice in game development somehow a strawman for for an ideological enemy is both inaccurate and counterproductive.

I grant this is an issue, but it can and should be handled independently and in a constructive manner when it arises. The same to what I wrote above applies - its nothing new for someone to wrap themselves in moral certitude as the defender of righteousness which means the ends justify the means and anyone who objects is abetting evil. The most effective counter to these sorts of arguments are to engage them without falling into the many pitfalls that can come from acting in ways that feel very emotionally satisfying for everyone already on your side, but make you look unhinged to outside obsevers trying to decide who is is more reasonable, as well as unlikely to allow the person making the bad argument a chance for their viewpoint to evolve in time as opposed to them becoming more recalcitrant. There was a discussion about ESG/DEI in gaming awhile ago and I spent a considerable amount of time addressing the individual arguments being made; does it mean that everyone is going to instantly believe as I do? No of course not, but I know that its something a good bit more effective to both those to whom I was speaking and to those who may be reading, then if I just decided to rage on assumptions about their character, politics and a variety of other circumstances that would incorrect and actively counterproductive .

but we're years... and years... and years into this shit. when is it ever getting beyond "hey you can't just ignore the merits of this one specific instance, there's really something to it, and just calling people racist hateful bigots isn't going to achieve anything!" this gets stated every fucking time the next "thing" comes along. absolutely i grant you that things happen that can be criticized even if it's a genuinely goodhearted attempt at representation. but after the 163rd fucking time, we're just past pretending that's all this constant furor is about. your brain is broken if you're honestly telling yourself that, here in 2024.

i happened to be scrolling twitter when i saw a tweet about the AC Shadows characters reveal posted maybe 5 minutes earlier, so zero "discourse" had happened yet, and instantly i thought "here we fucking go, the next big controversy is here." i didn't need to think for three seconds about it, it was just obvious it was going to happen.

 

[RanceJustice]

but we're years... and years... and years into this shit. when is it ever getting beyond "hey you can't just ignore the merits of this one specific instance, there's really something to it, and just calling people racist hateful bigots isn't going to achieve anything!" this gets stated every fucking time the next "thing" comes along. absolutely i grant you that things happen that can be criticized even if it's a genuinely goodhearted attempt at representation. but after the 163rd fucking time, we're just past pretending that's all this constant furor is about. your brain is broken if you're honestly telling yourself that, here in 2024.

Viewing every single person weighing in on this is on behalf of some hardline ideological culture war is just misguided though. Those who are heavily invested, especially in online culture war political elements, knows and is immersed in all the various content creators and influencers and personalities who are on their side and those that oppose them, can very easily get into a distorted viewpoint. Its not much different than when I was playing Helldivers 2 the other day and had an opinion on a particular weapon (the airburst rocket launcher's apparent inability to takedown the dropships and fighters) and someone assumed I must have been some acolyte of a streamer who apparently discussed the same thing and they unleashed a torrent of bile over their distaste for that streamer and their community and whatever else and to them, I MUST have been an extension of that community - how else could I ever come to that conclusion if I wasn't some Discord raiding supporter of the streamer they hated? I have never heard of that streamer or knew anything of their community, but in their mind I must have been lying to disguise my evil Discord raiding, streamer community ways.

Don't you think its a bit of a distorted perspective to see every gaming controversy ("every" being subjective of course to those in which you're aware and interested regarding) as being one long series of "things" where everyone must align beside one side or the other according to a narrow concept of online culture war ideology? There are individuals who really are seriously engaged in "constant foror" about the same things, but we're not talking about the behavior of one particular content creator or whatever and the legitimacy of their viewpoints, but rather the extrapolation that discussion of any controversy in gaming that certain interests frame as part of this "struggle" must enlist, inform, and equip a person with pre-fab views of their chosen side? I just don't think it works that way, but its hard to see especially for those who are heavily invested in such involvement; a factor common to many forms of social media that give distorted perceptions of the importance, prevalence, and more regarding any issue to foster engagement. It is this circumstance that has led to a lot of of the negative effects on the gaming industry, where companies start making decisions because of interactions with social media are treated as representative, PR manipulation (including rage-vertising which has become increasingly prevalent in the past few years. If people are talking about the controversy, they're talking about your game -and you've also weaponized a die hard group of defenders to buy and talk about the title as a way to strike at the other side,!), and much more.

There's a lot more complexity and other elements worthy of discussion, but I can't see the logic in this sort of bulk social media culture war adherence being the start point for any discussion of something one finds controversial.

 

[Flogger23m]

"DEI" isn't killing your enjoyment in gaming.

It certainly does which it breaks immersion, which is often the case in modern games. If it affects quality/immersion/story writing/character design, it matters. I have little interest in whatever clickbait articles you're referring to. I can watch game trailers, gameplay and play the games myself to get an opinion. It is quite easy to see when a game forces some SJW type material in there to checkoff a box. If you enjoy that stuff good for you. But many don't, and will point it out when it clashes with a game setting/theme. I know many don't care about themes, setting, art direction or time setting and think all games should be bland and look the same. We're seeing how popular that is in multiplayer games with micro/macro transactions for out of theme cosmetics. It saddens me that the majority of gamers have the taste of a 9 year old in multiplayer games, running around with skeleton men, clown soldiers, and chorme-pink tanks/guns. And I'm disappointed that is seeping into single player games.

 

[w35t]

It certainly does which it breaks immersion, which is often the case in modern games. If it affects quality/immersion/story writing/character design, it matters. I have little interest in whatever clickbait articles you're referring to. I can watch game trailers, gameplay and play the games myself to get an opinion. It is quite easy to see when a game forces some SJW type material in there to checkoff a box. If you enjoy that stuff good for you. But many don't, and will point it out when it clashes with a game setting/theme. I know many don't care about themes, setting, art direction or time setting and think all games should be bland and look the same. We're seeing how popular that is in multiplayer games with micro/macro transactions for out of theme cosmetics. It saddens me that the majority of gamers have the taste of a 9 year old in multiplayer games, running around with skeleton men, clown soldiers, and chorme-pink tanks/guns. And I'm disappointed that is seeping into single player games.

That female bartender with the Johnny Cash voice in Hogwarts slapped the immersion right out of my mouth. Can’t think of a better example.

Plus wasn’t that voiceover only in the NA release?

 

[Blade-Runner]

It certainly does which it breaks immersion, which is often the case in modern games. If it affects quality/immersion/story writing/character design, it matters. I have little interest in whatever clickbait articles you're referring to. I can watch game trailers, gameplay and play the games myself to get an opinion. It is quite easy to see when a game forces some SJW type material in there to checkoff a box. If you enjoy that stuff good for you. But many don't, and will point it out when it clashes with a game setting/theme. I know many don't care about themes, setting, art direction or time setting and think all games should be bland and look the same. We're seeing how popular that is in multiplayer games with micro/macro transactions for out of theme cosmetics. It saddens me that the majority of gamers have the taste of a 9 year old in multiplayer games, running around with skeleton men, clown soldiers, and chorme-pink tanks/guns. And I'm disappointed that is seeping into single player games.

It is also fascinating observing some people use pretzel logic to argue that the garbage stories, characters, game mechanics and art found in modern games has nothing to do with the weirdos working on them who just happen to hate their core audience and the products produced for them.

 

[Flogger23m]

That female bartender with the Johnny Cash voice in Hogwarts slapped the immersion right out of my mouth. Can’t think of a better example.

Plus wasn’t that voiceover only in the NA release?

That was supposed to be a trans character. Ironically there was some weird trans game reviewer that gave the game something like a 2/10 for "trans problems" despite featuring such a character. Which brings up a good point, they will never be satisfied. So why bother? They're a tiny amount of the population and the amount of them buying a game is going to be small. Save the money, spare the rest of us from cringe, and work on making a good game instead.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

It certainly does which it breaks immersion, which is often the case in modern games. If it affects quality/immersion/story writing/character design, it matters. I have little interest in whatever clickbait articles you're referring to. I can watch game trailers, gameplay and play the games myself to get an opinion. It is quite easy to see when a game forces some SJW type material in there to checkoff a box. If you enjoy that stuff good for you. But many don't, and will point it out when it clashes with a game setting/theme. I know many don't care about themes, setting, art direction or time setting and think all games should be bland and look the same. We're seeing how popular that is in multiplayer games with micro/macro transactions for out of theme cosmetics. It saddens me that the majority of gamers have the taste of a 9 year old in multiplayer games, running around with skeleton men, clown soldiers, and chorme-pink tanks/guns. And I'm disappointed that is seeping into single player games.

can you give me some examples where the "SJW type material" is in a game "properly" in a way that doesn't "affect quality/immersion/story writing/character design?"

 

[Flogger23m]

can you give me some examples where the "SJW type material" is in a game "properly" in a way that doesn't "affect quality/immersion/story writing/character design?"

I can't, because it is impossible to do so. If it was normal and natural it wouldn't be social justice warrior virtue signaling in the first place.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I can't, because it is impossible to do so. If it was normal and natural it wouldn't be social justice warrior virtue signaling in the first place.

so why don't you just say what you mean instead of using words like SJW, woke, DEI etc?

 

[Flogger23m]

so why don't you just say what you mean instead of using words like SJW, woke, DEI etc?

SJW = Social Justice Warrior. These are virtue signalers.
DEI = Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. This is policy in government or corporations.
Woke = Misappropriation of a term/word used by African Americans, which SJWs use to describe themselves without realizing how silly they sound.

For example, you would be an SJW. And you might claim that you are "woke" to others to elevate your perceived social status.

That is a crash course in the terminology. Not really worth discussing it more here as it is off topic if not being discussed in relevance to the game.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

SJW = Social Justice Warrior. These are virtue signalers.
DEI = Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. This is policy in government or corporations.
Woke = Misappropriation of a term/word used by African Americans, which SJWs use to describe themselves without realizing how silly they sound.

For example, you would be an SJW. And you might claim that you are "woke" to others to elevate your perceived social status.

That is a crash course in the terminology. Not really worth discussing it more here as it is off topic if not being discussed in relevance to the game.

no, what i mean is, why do you hide behind words like that instead of saying black people, the queers, stuff like that?

 

[Flogger23m]

no, what i mean is, why do you hide behind words like that instead of saying black people, the queers, stuff like that?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Almost every complaint about the black protagonist in the game set in Japan acknowledges he is black. That is where the disappointment comes from; an Assassin's Creed game set in Japan will split the play time between a black protagonist and a Japanese one. People wanted to play exclusively as a Japanese character. Did you even read what you wrote?
Like I said, you're an SJW. You're going out of your way to virtue signal without knowing why. It is clear you probably never played these games because you'd realize there have been black main characters in past Assassin's Creed games before. Origins had Bayek:

Liberation had this black lady:

The third game had Connor, a half native American guy:

Black Flag's expansion had this black guy as a main character in the expansion:

Egyptian game had an Egyptian looking guy. American games had a native American, and a black woman. Greek game had a Greek guy/woman. English game had an English brother/sister. French game had a French guy. Japanese game... splits the game time with a non-Japanese character. Can you comprehend the difference? Fans finally got the Assassin's Creed game they wanted in Japan but won't spend the whole time playing as someone local to the area.

I suppose we'll see how it pans out for Ubisoft. Between Ghosts of Tsushima and Rise of the Ronin we already have two recent games which follow the same formula, set in Japan, with Japanese main characters.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

*snip*

lol, you missed my entire point in a way that is actually kind of comical.

you said "people wanted to play exclusively as a japanese character." you don't see what's just plain weird about that statement and that couldn't make my point any clearer. people don't play AC games because you get to play as a black guy or a white woman or an asian guy or whatever. who the fuck actually thinks about the race of the player character when it comes "do i want to play this game or not?" (before anyone types out a reply, i address the culture vs race thing below)

your logical retort is going to be "but it's a game heavily focused on the setting/location/era/history! how can you have a black guy be a main character in feudal japan?!" i mean didn't they already explain that it's loosely based on some actual african guy who was granted samurai status or some shit? and even if that part wasn't the case, just for the sake of argument, then you can be damn sure it would be a part of the story because the choice is so obviously "against the grain" that the writer(s) intended it to be addressed during the game.

you next retort would probably be something along the lines of "yeah, even if there was that ONE black samurai guy, did they have to choose that ONE guy in the setting we all associate with asian people from japan?" to which i would reply, are we really going to pretend it's incomprehensible that the writers thought "hmm, there's like a whole sea of games lately with samurai guys set in feudal (or fantasy-feudal) japan, we need to think of ways we can add interesting perspective to the story so we're not immediately slammed with 'it's just another samurai game, kinda boring tbh'?" i mean people were literally saying this in the months leading up to the official announcement.

but all of that is almost irrelevant given what you said about "everyone wanted to play a japenese character." it's interesting to note that japanese is (without turning this into an even weirder discussion bordering on phrenology or some shit) really more of a reference to someone's cultural background and not racial, which i'm sure you would agree with, which ALSO furthers my point because obviously this black character, based on everything we know at this point, has been part of the culture (as portrayed by the game) long enough to be considered a samurai which means he's done something to earn that distinction - thus being japanese. of course there's room for different takes on that plot thread; if it was like, guy gets off boat on the shore of japan, kills a japanese guy who is attacking some other japanese guy, and then the guy he saved goes "wow so cool my guy, you're officially a samurai now." that would be stupid and even i would argue that's a weirdly random thread that feels out of place. but (and i imagine this is way more likely the case) if it's a background where this guy, either by choice or by force, was immersed in the culture, learning it over years and gaining the respect of his peers, that's actually interesting, cool, and sensible.

 

[Safe and Effective]

I just want to know if the game play will be more of a throwback and not a boring grind run around in a big empty world. Valhalla was big but ultimately boring without much challenge. There were a lot of tasks that were just meh. I want secret puzzles, challenges and stealth that are engaging and not meh.

In other stupid news, Japanese people have been know to be polite but xenophobic, so why should ubisoft make a game based in Japan, they aren't inclusive enough. A fish out of water has been a trope forever in entertainment. Tom Cruise was The Last Samurai and that movie came out in 2003. The 'message' is stupid and the people for and against it are short sighted. Identity politics is purposefully divisive to pit regular people against each other. I could go further but really all I want is a fun game.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I just want to know if the game play will be more of a throwback and not a boring grind run around in a big empty world. Valhalla was big but ultimately boring without much challenge. There were a lot of tasks that were just meh. I want secret puzzles, challenges and stealth that are engaging and not meh.

In other stupid news, Japanese people have been know to be polite but xenophobic, so why should ubisoft make a game based in Japan, they aren't inclusive enough. A fish out of water has been a trope forever in entertainment. Tom Cruise was The Last Samurai and that movie came out in 2003. The 'message' is stupid and the people for and against it are short sighted. Identity politics is purposefully divisive to pit regular people against each other. I could go further but really all I want is a fun game.

yeah, identity politics IS really stupid, but that doesn't mean someone taking a stance against a particular viewpoint that is based on identity politics means that person is ALSO playing identity politics. it's ok to take a stand against ignorant bullshit.

 

[Safe and Effective]

yeah, identity politics IS really stupid, but that doesn't mean someone taking a stance against a particular viewpoint that is based on identity politics means that person is ALSO playing identity politics. it's ok to take a stand against ignorant bullshit.

Fair enough and that ignorant BS covers both sides. It is a challenge to navigate these subjects because of how generalized the terminology and ideas are without regard for nuance and direct experience being considered. We are pitted against each other with an ultimatum of you agree with this view or that view and nothing else. And we often just argue and disagree being influenced by the 'message' from the 'two' sides of right or left.

I'm an asscreed game fan and I want this game to just be fun to play and not a generic bore.

 

[Flogger23m]

lol, you missed my entire point in a way that is actually kind of comical.

you said "people wanted to play exclusively as a japanese character." you don't see what's just plain weird about that statement and that couldn't make my point any clearer. people don't play AC games because you get to play as a black guy or a white woman or an asian guy or whatever. who the fuck actually thinks about the race of the player character when it comes "do i want to play this game or not?" (before anyone types out a reply, i address the culture vs race thing below)

your logical retort is going to be "but it's a game heavily focused on the setting/location/era/history! how can you have a black guy be a main character in feudal japan?!" i mean didn't they already explain that it's loosely based on some actual african guy who was granted samurai status or some shit? and even if that part wasn't the case, just for the sake of argument, then you can be damn sure it would be a part of the story because the choice is so obviously "against the grain" that the writer(s) intended it to be addressed during the game.

you next retort would probably be something along the lines of "yeah, even if there was that ONE black samurai guy, did they have to choose that ONE guy in the setting we all associate with asian people from japan?" to which i would reply, are we really going to pretend it's incomprehensible that the writers thought "hmm, there's like a whole sea of games lately with samurai guys set in feudal (or fantasy-feudal) japan, we need to think of ways we can add interesting perspective to the story so we're not immediately slammed with 'it's just another samurai game, kinda boring tbh'?" i mean people were literally saying this in the months leading up to the official announcement.

but all of that is almost irrelevant given what you said about "everyone wanted to play a japenese character." it's interesting to note that japanese is (without turning this into an even weirder discussion bordering on phrenology or some shit) really more of a reference to someone's cultural background and not racial, which i'm sure you would agree with, which ALSO furthers my point because obviously this black character, based on everything we know at this point, has been part of the culture (as portrayed by the game) long enough to be considered a samurai which means he's done something to earn that distinction - thus being japanese. of course there's room for different takes on that plot thread; if it was like, guy gets off boat on the shore of japan, kills a japanese guy who is attacking some other japanese guy, and then the guy he saved goes "wow so cool my guy, you're officially a samurai now." that would be stupid and even i would argue that's a weirdly random thread that feels out of place. but (and i imagine this is way more likely the case) if it's a background where this guy, either by choice or by force, was immersed in the culture, learning it over years and gaining the respect of his peers, that's actually interesting, cool, and sensible.

You again missed the point and also moved the goal post because you don't really have an argument. You're likely just regurgitating what you've read online.

People have been wanting a game set in Japan for a while. And part of having a game set in Japan is playing as a Japanese protagonist. The one game that happens to be set in Japan splits play time with a non-Japanese character. As you can tell people got less enthusiastic once they heard the news. Your argument that gamers are inherently racist is quite wrong because as I pointed out you can play a number of black and non-white characters in previous entries. People didn't have a problem with those games. If the main character was a white guy in Japan, or a white guy in Mirage's Baghdad, people would be equally annoyed because it doesn't quite fit the setting.

 

[Safe and Effective]

You again missed the point and also moved the goal post because you don't really have an argument. You're likely just regurgitating what you've read online.

People have been wanting a game set in Japan for a while. And part of having a game set in Japan is playing as a Japanese protagonist. The one game that happens to be set in Japan splits play time with a non-Japanese character. As you can tell people got less enthusiastic once they heard the news. Your argument that gamers are inherently racist is quite wrong because as I pointed out you can play a number of black and non-white characters in previous entries. People didn't have a problem with those games. If the main character was a white guy in Japan, or a white guy in Mirage's Baghdad, people would be equally annoyed because it doesn't quite fit the setting.

The sad thing is that there is a fake battle here that never needs to happen. Asians from India to Japan are on the side lines for identity politics in the west and only show up when the left wants to call the right racist. From India to Japan to China or Korea they can be homogeneous because they aren't 'western' and no one on the left cares. Just stop with the mental twisting of history, it doesn't matter, tom cruise shouldn't be the Last Samurai any more than some barely known black guy from the 1500s should be a main character in a video game based in japan. This clown town I can't think for myself but I need to force my view of the how broken the world is on you needs to stop.

 

[AVATARAT]

I think, that the most effective way against paid trolls is just to not buy the game, as many players did.

 

[Blade-Runner]

Going full mainstream now.....probably panic stations at Ubi, expect to see lots of articles in the next day or so from GAME "journalists" *cough* activists *cough* proclaiming Musk to be a right wing bigot/troll/something-phobe.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1794019942167191602