Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 325 posts

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#31

Post by throwanem »

notahacker wrote: post #29
MatekCopatek wrote: post #11

Lovely article. The conflict between making a videogame (or any bit of popculture really) enjoyable and inclusive vs. historically accurate often comes up and both sides have a fair point. My personal solution is to both enjoy the content and then try to educate myself through articles like this one.

It's also one in which the side Ubisoft picked is pretty clear. We're talking about a game series whose central conceit is that an obscure Islamist sect noted mainly for murdering religious figures they disagreed with is actually a secret society acting to preserve an Enlightenment-style libertarian ethos for centuries before the Enlightenment (yet staying curiously neutral during the French Revolution!) Every design…

No one takes the Simpsons Movie as representative of real history, though. You absolutely do find people doing that with games in the Assassin's Creed series. Whether the developer intends that or not - and I'm sure they don't; whatever the intentions of anyone working there, Ubisoft collectively cares only for money - that it happens still makes it worthwhile for someone to criticize the work from a perspective knowledgeable of history.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#32

Post by watwut »

raxxorrax wrote: post #15
sergj wrote: post #3

This is the problem with historic games. Either you acknowledge the bad and good things, or you white wash the past. As the author notes at the end: „As I have argued here many times, fiction is often how the public conceptualizes the past and that concept of the past shapes the decisions we make in the present.“

I disagree with this conclusion because it disregards agency of players. I see more similarities to warnings about the dangers of books in contrast to how it might display historic events too critically or too uncritically. One mistake might be that we try to patronize people too much and that enlightenment might favor a relaxed approach. I am sure if historic depictions nurture interest in an era, people would searc…

Player or reader agency is not in contradiction with "fiction is often how the public conceptualizes the past and that concept of the past shapes the decisions we make in the present."

People do conceptualize past based on entertainment they have seen voluntary, whether consciously or subconsciously. Majority of people engaging with fiction wont rush to read about real history. Which is not even complaint, it is just a fact.

Which is why blog posts and writings that compare the two from people who actually know history do have value for minority of those who are curious or interested to fact check fiction. Cause even curious minority wont be necessary interested in reading massive historical book about vikings or England just because they played game.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#33

Post by himinlomax »

hackerbabz wrote: post #26
himinlomax wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel excluded by samurai games?

No because I’m white and I can play a million games with white protagonists. I don’t need to be included in every game. If I were nonwhite I think I’d want to be included in some games, yes.

I must point out two problematic assumptions in your reply:

First, you're assuming "minorities" (and just that word is a problem, as it's utterly US-centric) are insecure and hypersensitive, which is quite patronizing.

Second, this is the line of thinking that has led privileged American influencers to accuse slavic developers of neo-colonialism when they just wanted to represent their own otherwise underrepresented culture. See the reactions to CD Projekt Red's The Witcher 3 or Warhorse Studio's Kingdom Come: Deliverance. This is particularly infuriating when considering how Poland or Czechia have been victims of imperialism themselves, and quite recently to boot.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#34

Post by hackerbabz »

mansion7 wrote: post #30
hackerbabz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No because I’m white and I can play a million games with white protagonists. I don’t need to be included in every game. If I were nonwhite I think I’d want to be included in some games, yes.

Are nonwhites incapable of making games to represent themselves?

Yeah lets just racially segregate game development.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#35

Post by dagw »

himinlomax wrote: post #21
MatekCopatek wrote: post #11

Lovely article. The conflict between making a videogame (or any bit of popculture really) enjoyable and inclusive vs. historically accurate often comes up and both sides have a fair point. My personal solution is to both enjoy the content and then try to educate myself through articles like this one.

Why do they need to be inclusive? Do samurai games need to include red-haired Celts and curly-haired Bantus, you know, for diversity? What's the point of this? Lying about history to make some people feel better?

That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate. The 'problem' (if you believe it is a problem) is once game companies are happy to "lie" about one aspect of history without any concern while at the same time refusing to "lie" about another part of history because it would 'ruin the historical accuracy'.

If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't add something because it wouldn't be historically accurate. You have to use a better excuse, like you felt it would be dumb or that you didn't feel like it.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#36

Post by gherkinnn »

boudewijnrempt wrote: post #18
raxxorrax wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this conclusion because it disregards agency of players. I see more similarities to warnings about the dangers of books in contrast to how it might display historic events too critically or too uncritically. One mistake might be that we try to patronize people too much and that enlightenment might favor a relaxed approach. I am sure if historic depictions nurture interest in an era, people would searc…

As a player you cannot do _anything whatsoever_ to change the setting and rules of the game: you cannot be nicer or less nice to the indigenous people, you have to loot and destroy their religious centers, you have endure having their religion mocked by your compatriots, you cannot convert to the local religion... You have to play a Aryan colonial invader who disdains the local culture and religion because your own c…

Spec Ops: The Line [0][1] puts a nice spin on just that. You have agency. Just stop playing [2]. It might just be the most harrowing game I've ever played.

[0] - https://store.steampowered.com/app/50300/Spec_Ops_The_Line/ [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dzstxE_5Rc [2] - https://i.imgur.com/VSi8EOG.jpg

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#38

Post by xalava »

The most relevant point of this article is not about historical accuracy, but on the contradiction of claiming cultural sensitivity by including gender and origin diversity while totally missing the point on deeper issues.

I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity. With proper education anyone can compensate and treat them as pure simplistic fiction, but I do think that those new debates, if nuanced and not reduced to representation, could bring quality to pop culture items.

Particularly in the video game industry, and this company, that have proven to have flawed IRL corporate cultures.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#39

Post by imdsm »

boudewijnrempt wrote: post #18
raxxorrax wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this conclusion because it disregards agency of players. I see more similarities to warnings about the dangers of books in contrast to how it might display historic events too critically or too uncritically. One mistake might be that we try to patronize people too much and that enlightenment might favor a relaxed approach. I am sure if historic depictions nurture interest in an era, people would searc…

As a player you cannot do _anything whatsoever_ to change the setting and rules of the game: you cannot be nicer or less nice to the indigenous people, you have to loot and destroy their religious centers, you have endure having their religion mocked by your compatriots, you cannot convert to the local religion... You have to play a Aryan colonial invader who disdains the local culture and religion because your own c…

Surely people are aware of this before they buy a game? And I mean, at the end of the day, it's a video game. There are also video games about killing aliens, killing other players, killing monsters, capturing animals and making them fight other animals, and more. You could likely pick any game created and find someone that it upsets.

Nobody plays a game and suddenly becomes the character in the game, no more than anyone reads a book and becomes the character in the book. If someone disagrees with it after purchasing it, then they don't play it.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#40

Post by watwut »

himinlomax wrote: post #21
MatekCopatek wrote: post #11

Lovely article. The conflict between making a videogame (or any bit of popculture really) enjoyable and inclusive vs. historically accurate often comes up and both sides have a fair point. My personal solution is to both enjoy the content and then try to educate myself through articles like this one.

Why do they need to be inclusive? Do samurai games need to include red-haired Celts and curly-haired Bantus, you know, for diversity? What's the point of this? Lying about history to make some people feel better?

It is fascinating argument give that the article has much bigger complains about much bigger historical inaccuracies in the game. And giving those much bigger inaccuracies, the gender thing is completely moot.

In any case, game developers are trying to break the cycle where games primary cater to one demographic, where all inaccuracies put in are so that one demographic feels better about themselves. And then lesser engagement of demographic that is not catered to (instead the games sometimes insert inaccuracies that makes them feel even worst) is then chalked on "they naturally cant be interested, lets cater to other demographic even more".

Post reply on HN