> I think the problem can be neatly summed up in just one thing about the game: the game will ‘desyncronize’ you (meaning produce a game over) if your character kills civilians While I agree this broke immersion completely for me, I don't think you want 10 year olds killing civilians.
Do you think many 10 year olds play AC? I would have thought their target group is much older. I'm also not quite sure what you're insinuating by bringing up kids and computer game violence?
Target group might be older but there is definitely a large group of children playing these games.
Personally, I don’t care. Violent video games argument is pretty old. The historical part being so inaccurate is probably more damaging.
> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity. Same, and as unpopular it may be, i firmly believe it's kind of better to not care. Because the opposite is precisely what happens here, which is caring only about a specific set of 'aspects' that are currently fashionable in the society, while failing to cover for the large majority of inequalities that are not "visible". It's…
>> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity. >Same, and as unpopular it may be, i firmly believe it's kind of better to not care. As a white dude, I've found that "not caring about it" means "only white male characters are allowed" I've noticed that folks who "don't care about it" actually care A LARGE AMOUNT, A VERY VERY LARGE AMOUNT, when a non-male or non-white protago…
As another white dude, I call BS. The world has changed. Even in the backwards semi-rural area where I live there is enough diversity to beat it into my head that "people are just people". Let alone connecting to the internet, where you have no idea what another commenter looks like. So, it boggles my mind that people still care about this so much. It's self evident to me that people need to be treated based on what they do or say and not oddities of their genetic structures. I tend to think that if people stopped pointing out those differences, the problem would eventually grow much smaller. Some people are always going to not like each other for trivial reasons at some level, but why point out such differences to them?
> > Inspired by historical events and characters, this work of fiction was designed, developed, and produced by a multicultural team of various beliefs, sexual orientations and gender identities. > This statement is making ... implicit [claims] (our diverse team means this game was produced in a careful, sensitive way) Ah, I think that's a misunderstanding of why the statement is there. It's not to claim that the gam…
Considering the anti-christian tone of the game I think they were completely missing Christians. (I haven't played the game, so I'm taking the article's word on how it portrays Christians as fact, which might or might not be true) You cannot claim diversity if you are missing a faction - even if the faction is one you consider against your beliefs.
The Assassin's Creed series has had a very anti-Christian and anti-Religion tone from the very start, so it's not surprising it continued with this game.
> That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate See, that makes some sense if you're doing high fantasy and shit that's set in a wholly fictional world. But just because some parts of a game are not realistic does not mean you should just forget about even trying. It makes no sense. > If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't…
You realize that the premise of this series is that, in a distopian near future, scientists unlock the ability for people to access their genetic memories and inhabit the bodies of their ancestors, who were guided by alien forces and augmented with powerful technological relics. The AC series really never asks you to take it very seriously. To the extent that actual history is present, it's almost like fan service.
Well, the first game wanted to be taken seriously. That went out the window with the second game.
What do you mean by "English", in a modern day sense or in a 10th century sense? I'm not even sure there was a concept of "English" in the 10th century.
What he means is that you can't expect a mostly French Canadian talent pool to create a work of fiction that isn't at least slightly biased against the English. Everyone has their biases.
This is just untrue. Most French Canadian don't have anything against the English and most certainly did not use a video game to express their "anger" of events that happened more than 300 years ago.
9th century England had very little in common with the British empire of the 18th century that crushed the French in America. If you want to argue that they have biases against the English because they are "French" Canadian, then I think you need to avoid making claims on the Internet on topics of which you know nothing.
> > Inspired by historical events and characters, this work of fiction was designed, developed, and produced by a multicultural team of various beliefs, sexual orientations and gender identities. > This statement is making ... implicit [claims] (our diverse team means this game was produced in a careful, sensitive way) Ah, I think that's a misunderstanding of why the statement is there. It's not to claim that the gam…
Considering the anti-christian tone of the game I think they were completely missing Christians. (I haven't played the game, so I'm taking the article's word on how it portrays Christians as fact, which might or might not be true) You cannot claim diversity if you are missing a faction - even if the faction is one you consider against your beliefs.
Not sure if the game has an "anti-christian" tone, but I think in a secular society that should not be a problem, even if true.
Considering the anti-christian tone of the game I think they were completely missing Christians. (I haven't played the game, so I'm taking the article's word on how it portrays Christians as fact, which might or might not be true) You cannot claim diversity if you are missing a faction - even if the faction is one you consider against your beliefs.
Not sure if the game has an "anti-christian" tone, but I think in a secular society that should not be a problem, even if true.
The article notes that if the same portrayal was done to any other religion besides Christianity, then there would probably be an uproar.
In today's society, with emphases on unconscious bias, race theory and egalitarianism, we are generally not okay with this kind of tone.
Because games are supposed to be fun and it’s more fun if the player feels included.
> Because games are supposed to be fun [...] I'm gonna have to disagree with you here and reiterate a point from a "Co-optional Podcast" episode from years ago: Games don't _have to be_ "FUN", they have to be "compelling" / "engaging". The thought that games can only be fun is a relic from video games's infancy stage much the same as once upon a time when films/movies were new and there were only short slapstick flic…
I wish the games that aren't meant to be fun would state this plainly in their promotional material.
"Buy our new awkward conversation asset flip; it's NOT FUN!!"
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 th…
> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity.
I don't think such a period ever existed. Hollywood had the Hays code, comics had the comic code etc. Popular culture always have to navigate the hangups and sensitivities of society.
It is possible that these concerns were invisible to you because they corresponded to your own values. When they change because society changes, you suddenly notice them.
You're supposed to see the world through the memories of a 9th century Viking (who also happens to be a great figure of the Nordic mythology), of course the invasion of England will be portrayed in a positive light and Anglo-Saxons would be seen as inferior people. It's a Triple-A game featuring gods, diverse Vikings, and a dude with an axe in his head; if one takes it as a reputable historical source, I say the prob…
By the logic of showing you the warped perspective of a 9th century Viking, slavery should be presented in a positive light, not minimized.