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

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

#131

Post by Fnoord » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #76

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.“

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past… The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records, and in equally full control of the mind…

> Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past… [...]

As quoted in the original Command & Conquer!

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

#132

Post by chongli » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

Lev1a wrote: post #88

hackerbabz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That’s a great point. If someone panned Schindler’s List because it doesn’t include Larry, Moe, or Curly, we’d rightfully tell the person to revisit their ground-level assumptions about what makes for good cinema. The fact that we still have this problem in video games really points to their immaturity as a medium.

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

#133

Post by cptnapalm » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

gherkinnn wrote: post #36

boudewijnrempt wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My experience of that game was quite different. I found it to be the heaviest handed, hypocritical virtue signaling of any game I have ever played. "Just stop playing"? Are the developers going to give me my money back?

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

#134

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #71

rosmax_1337 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about letting storywriting itself be the most important thing for games in fictional or pseudofictional settings. Adding racial quotas or gender quotas does not improve the writing of the story (or gameplay for that matter) automatically at all.

Bold of you to imply that quality of story is something AAA game companies ever care about, like, at all.

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by clankyclanker » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

veddox wrote: post #126

Bishonen88 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it's still better than not having such a person around at all.

I find the two pretty orthogonal...

Exactly. The statement is designed to be a meaningless deflection, a mental “nothing to see here, move along,” for cultural awareness.

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

#136

Post by bluedino » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

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?

This comment is being downvoted, but I'll reply to it.

In the 90's there was a short-lived company called Motown Software (who's parent company was Motown Records), created to make video games for African-American players. They released two video games: Bebe's Kids and Rap Jam: Volume One.

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

#137

Post by darwinwhy » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:45 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…

I saw it as a trigger warning for the small but strangely vocal contingent of gamers who still reek at the presence of non white-male characters in video games.

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

#138

Post by SamuelAdams » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:48 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?

They need to be more inclusive to get more sales, which is the entire point of making video games. To make money.

Gamers in particular are notorious for "cancelling" (ie, refusing to buy / play a game) due to one or two small issues. For example, see loot boxes in recent games.[1] How much these small vocal groups impact sales is still up for debate, but gaming publishers would probably try to avoid bad press if they can help it.

So, rather than spending months of time and resources trying to explain to 12 year olds' parents why there's slaves in a game, it's easier to simply omit that part of history, or rewrite it to be modern-day-friendly. It's a "work of fiction" after all.

[1]: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-21-call-of-duty-b...

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

#139

Post by cptnapalm » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:48 PM UTC

himinlomax wrote: post #52

mansion7 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are nonwhites incapable of making games to represent themselves?

That's really not the point; Ghost of Tsushima is based in Japan with Japanese and Mongolian characters but was made by a US developer.

Some of the stuff outside the game was amusing. There were all these white progressives complaining about cultural appropriation, on one hand, and on the other a bunch of Japanese people celebrating how awesome the game was.

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

#140

Post by mam2 » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 1:51 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #90

mam2 wrote: post #44

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. 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…

Its not really true.. 99% people will not care if you play a black guy or woman.

People made the same argument about women representation in video games but hey have you heard of "tomb raider" ?

There's other: "Urban chaos" with a black female, some character of unreal tournament were poc...

Most people dont care and when they do they find diversity cool. The point is that as a political fight its useless and may actually be on the side of harmful for society.