Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #201

throwaway894345 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In light of the parent comment, we should presume that the team had Christian representation and those Christians were fine with it, not that there were no Christians. There’s a lot of media that uses caricatures to vilify Christians (“Easy A” comes to mind), but there is relatively little uproar from Christians about it. They don’t seem to be very sensitive apart from a small handful that our society cherry-picks as…

Let's try your formulation in a different context and see if it works. Imagine someone saying this in the '50s: > There's a lot of media that uses caricatures to vilify [Blacks], but there is relatively little uproar from [Blacks] about it. They don't seem to be very sensitive apart from a small handful... I assure you, Christians are aware of how poorly they're portrayed by the media, and aren't happy about it. It s…

> Let's try your formulation in a different context and see if it works. Imagine someone saying this in the '50s

There are a number of enormous, relevant differences between these two groups, but more importantly I don't see any good, enlightening dialog coming out of a comparison between the plights of Jim Crow era Blacks and anyone else. It's like the converse of Godwin's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law).

> I assure you, Christians are aware of how poorly they're portrayed by the media, and aren't happy about it. It seems to me that this is one of many factors that led many Christians to support Trump.

I don't think they're "happy" about it, per se, but rather they're not offended enough to object publicly to it. And to be clear, I'm merely observing that Christians aren't as offended (or don't express offense as much) as I think other groups would be. I'm leaving it up to the readers to interpret this as thick-skin or weak-will or something else (I'm certainly not intending to imply any particular interpretation).

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

#222

Post by krapp » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #203

bluGill wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, for that you'd first have to find a Christian. Christianity is a unique religion in that there's a lot of people who claim to be Christians, but who hardly practice their religion or follow what is prescribed.

>Christianity is a unique religion in that there's a lot of people who claim to be Christians, but who hardly practice their religion or follow what is prescribed.

This isn't unique to Christianity. Hypocrisy and indolence are common facets of human nature, so they're bound to be common to the adherents of any particular religion.

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

#223

Post by AniseAbyss » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

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.“

An historically accurate game isn't much fun. For one you can't play as a female protagonist.

Videogames can be an inspiration for someone to read up on the real history so its not all bad.

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

#224

Post by wruza » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

siltpotato wrote: post #153

criley2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

That sexuality of a character in a game is even known is problematic; this implies the sexuality is being acted on. I wish developers would stop exploiting the four Fs to induce us to buy, and sadly my minimal consumption of video games is only a splash against the tide.

Some (many/most?) rp-games do not fix sexuality, allowing to choose any option available at playtime. The earliest that I remember is fallout 2 where you can play both guy and girl and marry/engage with both.

But it's unclear why you see that "sexuality being acted on" is problematic. It depends and is very situational, imo.

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

#225

Post by charwalker » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

quietbritishjim wrote: post #6

> > 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…

All characters and events in this [media type], even those based on real people, are entirely fictional.

Pretty sure all voices are impersonated as we didn't have the same recording tech about 1000 years ago.

I think you have the right idea with this claim. It's a statement of the diversity of the development team not a promise the content is perfectly PC or historically accurate to the smallest detail.

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

#226

Post by danbolt » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

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?

Don't use Assassin's Creed as a history lesson!

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

#227

Post by bradlys » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

bhaak wrote: post #211

bradlys wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm not sure about if the historical part being incorrect is really damaging. Personally, games like Pirates, Civilization and Colonization sparked an interest in history in me that continues until this day. And especially Colonization is ridiculously white-washed even though it tried a little bit to show some of the problematic historical situations.

> I'm not sure about if the historical part being incorrect is really damaging.

I think the article itself highlights the issues with making colonialism look like it wasn't a bad thing. This game perpetuates that idea and that colonialism was like, "oh, you know, just finding unexplored land! No one has ever been here!" When the reality of the situation was far different. Perpetuating historical inaccuracies might lead to people having faulty ideas because they're based on incorrect information.

Just because you grew an interest in history when the games had incorrect information doesn't mean everyone will.

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

#228

Post by mcphage » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

lambdadmitry wrote: post #212

Here is what the game's creative director has to say: “The history of the invasion itself in this time period is, of course, a critical part of the journey,” Ismail said. “What did it mean for the Vikings of the Norse to land in England and to cohabitate?” Ismail enunciated that last word carefully. He said the historians that his team worked with suggested that the “Viking approach to this invasion was cohabitation.…

> I'm truly baffled by how ahistoric and whitewashing it is. What for?

Because most players don't want to play as someone who captures people for slavery, or invades a monastery by slaughtering all of the monks inside.

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

#229

Post by lambdadmitry » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #228

lambdadmitry wrote: post #212

Here is what the game's creative director has to say: “The history of the invasion itself in this time period is, of course, a critical part of the journey,” Ismail said. “What did it mean for the Vikings of the Norse to land in England and to cohabitate?” Ismail enunciated that last word carefully. He said the historians that his team worked with suggested that the “Viking approach to this invasion was cohabitation.…

> I'm truly baffled by how ahistoric and whitewashing it is. What for? Because most players don't want to play as someone who captures people for slavery, or invades a monastery by slaughtering all of the monks inside.

I hoped it doesn't mean the creative director has to actively whitewash the period in an interview quite ahead of the release.

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

#230

Post by frazbin » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

This is a pretty high effort article, let's take a deep breath. I enjoyed it because it uses Assassin's Creed as a lense to teach us a bit about history. No culture war related baggage is required for admission into this article IMO; the narrative compromises necessary to make a playable game out of a 9th century setting are kind of hilarious, and this article helped me process the cognitive dissonance that comes from playing such games.

The bit about christian churches being decorated like abandoned shacks, with all the gold in a chest in the middle, I thought was funny. Making game worlds that feel 'used' by their inhabitants is a really interesting one.

idk, games are different things to different people; they're escapism and we don't all escape the same way. Some of us enjoy pillaging inaccurate churches, and some of us like chortling about how silly it is while we do it.