Jesus Christ g*mers are the most easily offended people in existence, what a bunch of whiny losers, goddamn
Also, I want to add the fact that I'm huffing a major dose of copium to deal with the fact that ever since I played the first AC game, I always thought - like everybody else - that an AC game set in Japan would be just perfect... but now that it's finally coming out, I have no more interest in AC games lmao
Also, I want to add the fact that I'm huffing a major dose of copium to deal with the fact that ever since I played the first AC game, I always thought - like everybody else - that an AC game set in Japan would be just perfect... but now that it's finally coming out, I have no more interest in AC games lmao
Oof, same. I stopped playing after....assassin's creed 2 I think? The one in Italy. After that they made so many AC games and I have not kept up, and now I don't want to get back into it after the story's progressed so much.
And making the MC Yasuke? Missing out kinda stings.
I wish Ubisoft hadn't gone into using Assassin's Creed as a "sell more shit" button. A Black Flag game just about pirates and doing Cool Pirate Shit would've sold really well but nah, had to add AC to it to sell more copies
2's the best one still. Brotherhood was a direct sequel set in Rome and arguably of equal quality. Then you had Revelations, which didn't hit as hard as the previous ones, but had a good setting (16th Century Istanbul) and I thought was a decent conclusion to the Ezio Auditore arc.
3 was really dull, I felt, and never finished it back in the day, but it did end Desmond's story arc.
They could have stopped there, but they didn't. 4 is the famous pirate one, which is a good pirate sandbox but a bad AC game and the consistent descent into endless spinoffs and cashgrabs. They could make one set in Moscow in 1917 and I still wouldn't be interested (funnily enough, I think they actually did - one of the 2D ones?) for the Ubisoft sandbox model sucks, the writing is trash and the abomination of what they did to Karl Marx in Syndicate (he's a reformist lib in it) is about what one could expect in these supposedly historical settings.
Don't forget about Unity between Ezio and 3. There was still a little bit of juice left in the fruit at that point but on release it was a dumpster fire so it doesn't get the love it would have otherwise.
Nah, it released after 4 actually.
I got it for free when Notre Dame was burning, but never played it.
I played it some and thought it was good. More difficult than the other games and leaned away from the simplification of the controls 4 had. I could have just sucked at the combat but it was balanced so that you actually had to be sneaky because guards could kill you.
The Ezio trilogy was nice but you can really tell that after AC3 (which I disliked on release but actually quite enjoyed when I replayed it years later) there was a sort of "Well, shit. Now what do we do?" moment at Ubisoft where they were stuck between a rock and a hard place of "Keep doing basically the exact same thing over and over again like we have been for a while but with different settings and tacked-on mechanics and incremental improvements in the graphics and parkour" or "Try something totally different and hope the fans don't hate us", because of course the idea of just letting the franchise die and starting something fresh is impossible in an era of endless sequels, reboots, remasters, etc.
AC4 almost feels accidentally successful because while they failed to create an Assassin's Creed game, they definitely made a pretty great pirate game, and so it gets to coast (heh) by on that. They basically copy-pasted AC4 (but this time you're a TEMPLAR!) in Rogue. And then they cleared wanted to go back to the traditional formula and made Unity and then Syndicate, which made some genuinely really cool additions like the parkour system in Unity and it's finally a game about, like, Assassins again, but the faults were glaring enough that they then flip-flopped back and then miraculously managed to create two (maybe three, idk how good Valhalla is) well-received games and enjoyable games in a row that were even further away from Assassin's Creed than AC4 was, and then flip-flopped again with the new game which is set in the Middle East I think and kinda back to the AC1 days, aka a soft reboot of the series. So in a couple game's time they'll once again go back to the open world formula I predict.
The biggest issue I have with these games isn't really that the exemplify the typical Ubisoft formula that they do with fucking everything, though there's a discussion to be had about that too, it's basically just that you could have released AC4+Rogue and Origins+Odyssey+Valhalla off as entirely different franchises and remove any mention of the Assassins and just have them be entirely their own thing, and keep the Assassin's Creed franchise about goddamn assassins. It's part of the much larger problem in entertainment right now where literally like 90% of what is released right now is part of existing franchises because of the fear of taking a risk, so you have movies that were originally about something else entirely and then the directors go "Man, this would be great as Movie #32942 in the Blorbo Franchise! Change the script up a bit and tie it in!" or whatever the hell is going on in those companies
AC4 could have been "Local pirate man goes on a drunken adventure for a magical/nonmagical treasure and learns to become a less shitty person with morals after seeing all his friends die" without any mention of a templar and it would be like, 5% different. Origins could have been "Medjay man goes on revenge quest with his wife because his child was killed by a group of powerhungry assholes, helps local community along the way" and there would be no need to show an apple of eden. Same thing goes for the other similar games. you can't do the same for Altair or Ezio or Connor (well, maybe you could do the same for Connor actually but I don't think Ubisoft is based enough to make a game where you're a native American going sicko mode against settler-colonists, especially given that they did anti-French-revolution propaganda in Unity) or Arno and Jacob/Evie because those games are, top-to-bottom, about being a shady stabby dude with knives trying to build/rebuild/fix their order against a group of bad guys while funky magical objects help and hinder them
Who cares about the clusterfuck larger story? Just go on context clues for the modern section, the historical sections are relatively self-contained in each period.
I played bits of the one with Kassandra but they're so far from what interested me about the first couple of games now, and there are better open world rpgish games. Plus how did they go from roughly historical stuff to the viking one not having any one handed swords or spears?!
The other Ezio games are totally worth playing. I dropped off after 2 for the same reason as you, but i went back and played those a year ago and loved them. The overarching story is complete bullshit and barely holds together game to game, so its not a big deal especially after ac3, so its not a big deal to not know about thise things to enjoy the games
If you're gonna set a Creed game in Japan obviously you're gonna set it during the Sengoku period and who is one of the main characters of the era? Oda Nobunaga, and who is standing right behind him during the most intense period of his life; the fuckin black samurai Yasuke!
It just fuckin racism pure and simple
Also skyrim vikings play into their weird white supremacist shite cos they glorify the false image of vikings in media.
these people need some real history lessons, so that they can learn that Yakub created white people way after Black people existed
Imagine being upset at historical accuracy in Assassin's Creed, the game series where you get to kill a Pope for an alien enlightenment artifact.
Honestly some of my favorite green texts come from the assassin's Creed series and how insane it would be to watch as a common person, a dude climb up a bell tower, jump into a bail of hay, and then sprint off like a madman.
Imagine being upset at historical accuracy in Assassin's Creed, the game series where you get to kill a Pope for an alien enlightenment artifact.
No that part was real, it's all the assassin/templar stuff that's made up.
Do these people just think nobody ever left their homeland for any reason besides war before Ellis Island opened on January 1, 1892
Historical accuracy is clearly a dogwhistle to a myth of a white continental ethnostate past, clearly focusing mostly on Northern Europe and ignoring the integration of multiple civilizations through the Mediterranean and union of three continents in Asia Minor. All of which is a long way of just saying that people who complain about historcal accuracy are just people who think: "people who are not my skin complexion scare me".
You can see it with the infantile reactions to the reactions to Rings of Power & Witcher, where the insistence that because it is based in fantasy Poland or England , the settings must be white ethnostates.
G*mers getting mad at Yasuke like how mayos got mad at Green Knight for being "historically inaccurate" with Dev Patel as Gawain and PoC in general in the film when in the expansive canon of Arthurian stories there were characters outside of Europe as far as India, Baghdad and Babylonia
Yet another case of g*mers and "Historical Accuracy" whiners continuing to project their racism on media "inaccurate to the source material" but not actually knowing the source material.
I'm furthest from a "this has to be completely 'period and canon accurate' piece"-kinda media person, get wild and fun with it, twist things in new ways and create new perspectives in pre-established western media, especially if it makes these sort of culture war chuds mad, but even within their own flawed parameters of 'acceptable' media creation they did not do the homework.
E: Oh wait, I forgot about my favorite of these examples which would cause CHUDs to shit themselves: Gurman the Gay from Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristan or Gormund in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae who, depending on the sources was the son of an African king (Tristan) or a king himself (Historia Regum Britanniae) who conquered and held lands in Ireland
E2: And there was a pretty unambiguous gay character and relationship from the Vulgate-Lancelot cycle through Galahaut/Galeholt, a half-giant ruler who fought against Arthur, faced off against a anonymously clad Lancelot, and was so amazed at his prowess he gives up in the middle of the battle that he was winning just to be with Lancelot who accepts his close companionship. And at the end of his life, Lancelot is buried at his castle in a grave next to Galahaut, who died earlier after hearing (falsely) that Lancelot was killed. The grave was specifically built to eternalize the two's companionship.
You say you value historical accuracy, yet all of the medieval English characters speak with a post-GVS dialect of English. Curious, very curious.
Unless the Arthurian media piece in question has like a run-on list that introduces 50 different dudes who each appear in one vignette then promptly get killed unceremoniously in the same or a future escapade (or in the case of Sir Colgrevance in Le Morte D'Arthur killed twice in 2 separate vignettes) then I really don't consider it a faithful Arthurian adaptation close to the source material and can be discarded thusly
This is cool, Yasuke is neat and most depictions of the black samurai in Japanese media are just one off goofs like the afro samurai in way of the samurai for the ps2, to see a serious take on him is good. ofc G*mers flip their lid because they're racist mouth breathing cretins.
I loved Way of the Samurai. I wish the sequels had been as good as the first one
Played the hell out of it too back in the day, fun game.
How many of these dickheads got mad at Valhalla for just doing Skyrim vikings rather than "accurate history" or whatever?
How many got mad that half the 'nords' in Skyrim had strong American accents?
Dragon Age making the Dwarves have American accents instead of the generic fantasy British accents most of the world had was funny, ngl.
destroying workers lives to make shittier and shittier games, squeezing the stone until every ounce of blood is its own separate transaction, I sleep
digital avatar has too much melanin, real shit
reverse assassin's creed where you instead thwart all the CIA (Templar) attempts at killing Castro
"Historical accuracy," according to
, only means excluding "political" 
people and excuses for over-emphasized and sensationalized 
yeah the magic secret societies somehow aren't an issue for historical accuracy
Neither are dimensional rifts in the Witcherino.
Or ice zombies and dragons in Gambo.
Witcher and Game of Thrones aren't even set in a real historical setting. It would be exactly as accurate if they made every character black
a black Richard the third is far more accurate than giving the Plantagenets a dragon
Witcher and Game of Thrones aren't even set in a real historical setting. It would be exactly as accurate if they made every character black
I know that, but in both cases I got "HISTORICAL ACCURACY" trotted out in front of me to excuse any criticism of either setting.
A lot of
got excused because DAE LE AUTHENTIC POLISH FOLKLORE with dimensional travel and contemporary magic systems and costuming and architecture that's all over the place and anachronistic and le epic modern cussing. 
One grandiose claim was "all the
in Gambo is just a recreation of the War of the Roses and isn't being glorified or emphasized for entertainment purposes whatsoever."Suuuuuure. It was that big a franchise because that many people have scholarly interest in
specifically in the War of the Roses period, with nothing else emphasized except feasts which implies nothing else happened worth talking about in the War of the Roses, but also dragons and ice zombies. I ws particularly annoyed by Kingdom Come because even in a backwater area like that you are at the least going to have a bunch of Turkish traders rolling around.
The head of that game being a giant chud didn't help, and neither did the accent/culture randomness or the weird bullshit like killing a guard means 2 weeks in prison, not actual medieval punishments (CW if you look those up), or the silly save game magic potion nonsense.
"Historical accuracy" almost invariably means some blend of
with a big spoonful of
Game of thrones also did have a pretty decent drama in the early seasons with some well written intrigue
I enjoyed some other HBO shows of similar presentation like Rome, but for me, subjectively, Gambo's drama fell flat and was too nihilistic and gimmicky for me to continue caring.
GRRM killing off characters just to show how edgy and subversive his fiction is then hypocritically building up his hidden Mary Sue ego insert (fucking Jon Snow) is too much for me. Also, if there's no one in the fiction to serve as a story anchor that I actually care about, why should I care about the smirking quippy murderfuckers left alive with agency and presence and lines?
Well it was based of the wars of the roses everyone being a murderous psychopath is not pulled from nowhere.
I do have to agree though game of thrones did what a lot of American tv does and just coasted of a good early series. The boys is worse it only had a good pilot and has been coasting since with episodes that only imply something is going to happen later without anything ever happening. This is why tv should be mapped out in how many seasons it will be to begin with
Well it was based of the wars of the roses everyone being a murderous psychopath is not pulled from nowhere.
A lot more happened in the War of the Roses than
, let alone having a special excessive narrative/camera focus to "historically accurately" entertain the audience and what that audience typically talked about and remembered afterward.The books were worse when it came to detailed and graphic
descriptions of children in sexual violence situations, too. No history text would need, or want, that. So again, the "historical accuracy" claim once again just sounds like an excuse for feeding hogs.Ice dragons and zombies and anachronistic costumes and corporate-hierarchy-LARPing-as-feudalism anachronisms and the quasi-modernized made up names for people, houses, and regions were all pulled from proverbially nowhere, by comparison (and some were laughably lazy, like "Drogo" of the "Dothraki") without the slightest real parallels with the War of the Roses except the
focused on by the narration/camera.Because of all of the above, I really can't think of many better examples of very selective "historical accuracy" excuses than Gambo.
Yeah, they didn't whine when Nioh had Cracker McWhitey as protagonist.
Maybe they'll have him going around wearing full Kabuki makeup all the time
I guess they're scrapping the 'blending in' mechanics?
Honestly hasn't been a thing in a long while. I always thought it was a stupid mechanic anyway, people in crowds notice things.
Time to see which semi-historical Sengoku era action game is better: this or Nioh (spoilers: it's Nioh).
Actually the answer is uhhhh Sengoku Basara where Date Masamune is a six-sword-wielding engrish speaking westaboo and his whole gang uses horse reins that look like motorcycle handlebars and Nobunaga has a demonic Stand and a semi-auto shotgun
Hmm but in Nioh Date Masamune has two stands, one of which is a high old man. Nobunaga also has two, despite being a ghost.
