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

81–90 of 325 posts

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

#81

Post by raxxorrax »

mam2 wrote: post #44
xalava wrote: post #38

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. 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…

It also undermined the ideal of people being treated fairly. Some HR departments currently fail to uphold these basic tenets in my opinion.

I am aware that ideals aren't enough for policies. Example is accessibility. Everyone who hasn't a bad day right now is for it, but can you make sure you always hold up to your own expectations? Probably not, so there is a need for mechanisms that ensure that.

But the impetus to "positively" discriminate in HR actually stems from a feeling of superiority that isn't warranted at all. And it is also lacking elegance and understanding and I don't even have high expectations. I just don't work with them.

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

#82

Post by seibelj »

Kaze404 wrote: post #69
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…

Sorry, but you're just not looking for it. I'm personally a part of many social circles that talk about discrimination and diversity from Marxist lenses and it seems to be exactly what you're talking about. The people tweeting about More Female CEOs might be the majority in the US but fortunately they're far from the only group that talks about these issues.

I’m the opposite of a Marxist but they get class critique correct as the major difference between people. A privileged white male who went to private school and the Ivy League has tons in common with a privileged black woman who went to private school and the Ivy League than he does to a poor white man in a rural area. Celebrating success based on identity means a lot less through the class prism.

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

#83

Post by shusson »

stupidcar wrote: post #5

> Now, do I think that the developers set out to create a sanitized defense of colonialism (much less an apologia for Nazi race ideology)? Of course not. But they ended up doing it anyway. I agree with the article's main points, but I think the author gives the game's creators too much credit here. You could tell from the first trailer that this game was going to engage in historical revisionism of the "the Vikings w…

> but this game is an entirely intentional attempt to defend _Viking_ colonialism specifically. And they will have been perfectly aware that this played into neo-Nazi tropes.

I think they just optimized for a wide audience. They romanticised the viking age from the perspective of a modern day person in the shoes of a viking. I don't think they had an agenda to defend viking colonialism.

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

#84

Post by seer »

I think what people are missing is that this is a work of fiction. Any work of fiction is entitled to do whatever it wants really.

So what if it white washes stuff for the masses, maybe thats a good thing. If people experience the past only as a fictional place where people are gentle and sensitive, if there is wide acknowledgment of race and gender, in the way that we actually want from our society today, isn’t that for the better?

Whenever I played Civilization as a kid and had “Mongolians build the pyramids” I never thought thats a historical fact, It just inspired me to read up some real info about it.

Assassins creed series that I’ve played had a similar effect (just the ones up until Italy, haven’t played the newer ones). I read up a ton about the warring families of the renaissance and when I actually visited the historical places it was all the more interesting for it.

I’m glad AC exists even in its current corporate PC form, the world is better for it than without I’d wager. Even the fact that people are discussing that there are inaccuracies means there is a conversation.

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

#85

Post by kungito »

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…

I'd say they chose pretty early in the series to show that neither side is good or later in the series even acting in good faith. I'd say somewhere after Assassins Creed 2 they tried to portray the 2 factions mostly as political factions favoring a type of rule. The insurgent/partisan/kinda communist vs the aristocratic/oligarchic. I think only in AC1 they actually portrayed the Assassins as good guys because they took the most simplistic look and even then the problem was rotting in the core of their order. Later on they increased the alien/old race bullshit which doesn't really make sense for the series as a whole and now it really just seems like they want to create an action adventure game in various settings and sprinkle some backstory on top

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

#86

Post by spoopyskelly »

rosmax_1337 wrote: post #51

[flagged]

> Most developers don't care about this stuff anyway, the industry needs to go back to the time when developers just made the games they liked

This won't happen anytime soon because outsiders are chasing clout by injecting identity politics into everything.

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

#88

Post by Lev1a »

hackerbabz wrote: post #22
himinlomax wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 flicks. The medium film matured to where a film can be about utterly horrible things/ideas but it's still seen as a good piece of media because it was "engaging" on some level.

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

#89

Post by Kaze404 »

seibelj wrote: post #82
Kaze404 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but you're just not looking for it. I'm personally a part of many social circles that talk about discrimination and diversity from Marxist lenses and it seems to be exactly what you're talking about. The people tweeting about More Female CEOs might be the majority in the US but fortunately they're far from the only group that talks about these issues.

I’m the opposite of a Marxist but they get class critique correct as the major difference between people. A privileged white male who went to private school and the Ivy League has tons in common with a privileged black woman who went to private school and the Ivy League than he does to a poor white man in a rural area. Celebrating success based on identity means a lot less through the class prism.

I personally don't think it means less, it just leads to different conclusions. While I still see class as the predominant factor, I still believe everyone would benefit from seeing "different" people in more spaces, regardless of class. For example, a rich black man still has things to add that a white man doesn't, for example, simply because of how being black influenced their own experiences which in turn mold the person they are now.

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

#90

Post by criley2 »

mam2 wrote: post #44
xalava wrote: post #38

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. 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 protagonist is the only option. And heaven forbid we not let you play a straight character...

Just saying, in my experience, "don't care about it" is literally identical to "marginalize everyone but me", as that's our history.

Post reply on HN