Super Left/Super Right Bias in Gaming Media

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Catnip1024:

Something Amyss:
If you're thinking of the same contributor I am, the irony is that her fanbase turned on her really fast for saying that cosplay options sucked for curvy women. Oh my god, did she turn into an "SJW" overnight, and it killed me. The insults and histrionics were hi-lar-ious.

So that perception seems to work both ways.

Yeah, I think the whole thing is driven by overly touchy people on both sides (which probably drives towards the perceived polarisation). And superficial judgements made without actually thinking about stuff.

I have a slightly different read in that certain people (which do exist on both sides) demand 100% partisanship from everyone on "their side." There's a certain level of purity required, and to be fair, this probably exists to some extent in everyone. It's just that in some cases, that purity is 100% or so close ass to make no practical difference.

The folks that screech "SJW" at the drop of a hat are the ones most obvious to me, because of my own personal and political stances, but I've become disillusioned by many groups due to existing with them. I once watched someone be accused by ultiple people of not being a feminist because she wouldn't tolerate another feminist ranting about some Jewish conspiracy theory. In this case, it wasn't even relevant to the issue (feminism), but not supporting "my" beliefs that Jewish people secretly rule the world meant she was an anti-feminist and we won't sit with you at lunch!

I don't know how common this is, and it'd be interesting to see a breakdown, but it seems to come down to whether or not you are in lock step with the crowd.

Saelune:
Straight people bitching about having to deal with LGBT characters as if LGBT people don't have to constantly deal with a never ending parade of straight characters.

99% of fiction has hetero romance, and a lot of it is not necessary at all. Oh, what a surprise, the main guy and the main girl are the last survivors and are gonna bone, like I haven't seen THAT a billion times before.

Or their eyes accidentally met once and they're gonna bone.

Or they both have vowels in their name and they're gonna bone.

Or it's the second Tuesday of the fourth month of the year of Ragonthorginand they're gonna bone.

One of the things that frustrates me about writing is that if there are two people of different genders in a story, they will want romance and likely sex. If you have two straight characters who aren't the same sex in genre fiction and they aren't getting it on by the third act, or at least heavily flirting for sequel bait, you are treated as though you've done something wrong.

It's weird, because I don't think I've ever written an explicitly gay or bi lead in my life. When I sit down to write something, i have a story in mind. And spoilers: that story probably isn't "will they or won't they?" so...uhhh...yeah. In a sense, I'm writing to my personal tastes, because I think there's enough sex out there and it annoys me when a gripping thriller turns into fanfic-level erotica for 20 pages.

ObsidianJones:
This argument has always confused me.

"Why do you have to make this character gay/a minority/a woman? I mean, if you strip that away from them, they are just a character who is doing something in the world! So why is it important that they are gay/a minority/a woman?!"

And the flip side is also true: if you write that gay/minority character/woman who in any way explores what it's like to be gay/a minority/a woman, you're too political and shoving your views down muh throat.

votemarvel:
The ending of second Legacy of the First Blade episode may have been poorly written but it did make sense to me. Part of the main story is about keeping their bloodline going. Myrrine for example has sex at least once with another guy while married to Nikolaos, in order to produce the younger of the siblings, so Kassandra or Alexios also wanting to keep the bloodline going worked in the context of the story...for me at least.

The thing is, you don't need to settle down with someone to make a baby. Especially if you're talking Alexios, because sperm is quite easy to "fire and forget" as it were. A little trickier with a lesbian character, but...lesbians can have children. It's just they'll probably know they had offspring, barring some really weird memory wipe thing.

Given the time period, abandoning your child was practically a rite of passage, so it doesn't even have a historical element holding it in place.

But I think as more important point to this is that, gay or straight, having hooked up or not, or whether you reject the character's advances or not, you end up with that character. You can literally rebuff the character and end up with them, to my understanding. That Myrrine slept with someone else isn't a justification for why your character, who may by your choices simply not like the character, hooks up anyway.

That's bad writing and contrary to the advertised player choice. If they wanted a fixed narrative, they shouldn't have advertised something else.

Gordon_4:
*Googles Liana Kerzner* Fat? They were calling her fat? Fuck me running with bells on some people are just stupid.

The only reason I even know what she looks like is because the complaints were on here in the comments section, too. As a rebuttal. someone posted her picture.

I don't remember the name of the article, so I don't remember how prevalent it was here as opposed to in general, but yeah. The kneejerk response was "fat". Several people came back with "no fat chicks".

undeadsuitor:
Hooo damn talking about knocking a casting choice out of the park. I couldn't think of a better choice.

I hope she sticks around long enough to become a regular.

Or better yet, transfers over to Legends of Tomorrow. A better show for better characters.

I've really liked her bonding with Kara, but dear Beebo yes, put her on Legends.

Absolutely. Ya gotta have balance. Personally I think dragon age (just going with it since it's brought up the most here) strikes a good balance. And even dorian's backstory has more layers to it than dreiko wants to admit.

I really need to play the game some day. I even bought it because my ex told me it was really good, but then we ended up splitting up and I just sort of avoided things and forgot about it.

It's one of the most prominent examples used by both sides of the LGBT argument, though, so I should probably experience it. Thogh I'm always curious how much of this does come down to the relative scarcity of LGBT characters in gaming media. I'm trying to name the last game I played with an explicitly gay character, and unless you count player romance options (because I played about a quarter of ACO before the grindy damage spongy MT crap finally beat me), I'm honestly having trouble with it. I mean, I'm happy for player choice options, but I don't consider those characters canonically LGBT. Hell, ACO doesn't even tell us which sibling canonically had this epic adventure.

erttheking:
...I'm sorry, the fuck? Talking about the historical context of the era and...how full homosexual people were like unicorns and there were only bi people or something? What?

Also, Assassin's Creed giving a shit about historical context. PFFFFFFFFFFT! Yes, please, let's talk about historical context in the game where magical alien technology has apparently been present throughout all of history.

And istorically speaking, just because having sexual partners who were men and women doesn't mean that it dictates you had to, or that you would settle down in an ostensibly heterosexual relationship. Gay people pop up even in cultures that execute them. Gay people live in parts of the world where being gay is an effective death sentence. Why wouldn't people with exclusive same-sex relations exist just because the social norm was bisexuality?

I mean, that's an overly simplified look at history, but still.

As Dalisclock pointed out, the AC series has a weird flirtation with historical accuracy. My dad's degree is in history, and I think the franchise would probably turn him to drinking, but it nails a lot of points big and small.

I think an interview from the ACO developers, however, pointed out something particularly relevant. It may have been the Origins team instead...don't know if they're the same people. But they pointed out that they always focused more on the story, characters and fun. I can't remember if "fun" was explicit or not, but I think this kind of violates the first two. The story gave us freedom to rebuff the character. The character has the potential to show no interest asd a result. But you get railroaded into his relationship.

Even if it was the most historically accurate game ever, I'm of the opinion that this makes no narrative sense.

And, I mean, I'm repeating myself here, but I think fewer people (maybe none) would care if they hadn't given us and advertised player freedom. Why? Because numerous games get released each year without any significant fanfare.

Video games are rarely purely historical presentations. They're narratives. So are a lot of historical texts.

Saelune:
Straight people bitching about having to deal with LGBT characters as if LGBT people don't have to constantly deal with a never ending parade of straight characters.

99% of fiction has hetero romance, and a lot of it is not necessary at all. Oh, what a surprise, the main guy and the main girl are the last survivors and are gonna bone, like I haven't seen THAT a billion times before.

Maybe the ratings board needs to add a new category. Maybe Q for queer? G for General is taken. L for Language.

Then all those adults who are offended by two men in a relationship in media wont be so affected. Or maybe a warning at the start like the epilepsy warning.

And just to be clear, this is a joke.

trunkage:
Maybe the ratings board needs to add a new category. Maybe Q for queer? G for General is taken. L for Language.

Then all those adults who are offended by two men in a relationship in media wont be so affected. Or maybe a warning at the start like the epilepsy warning.

And just to be clear, this is a joke.

My vote is "S" for "Snowflake."

I don't even care if S is taken, I'm just tired of all the blubbering from people who claim everyone else are easily triggered snowflakes but lose their heads if they might have to encounter someone different from them.

Something Amyss:

votemarvel:
The ending of second Legacy of the First Blade episode may have been poorly written but it did make sense to me. Part of the main story is about keeping their bloodline going. Myrrine for example has sex at least once with another guy while married to Nikolaos, in order to produce the younger of the siblings, so Kassandra or Alexios also wanting to keep the bloodline going worked in the context of the story...for me at least.

The thing is, you don't need to settle down with someone to make a baby. Especially if you're talking Alexios, because sperm is quite easy to "fire and forget" as it were. A little trickier with a lesbian character, but...lesbians can have children. It's just they'll probably know they had offspring, barring some really weird memory wipe thing.

Given the time period, abandoning your child was practically a rite of passage, so it doesn't even have a historical element holding it in place.

But I think as more important point to this is that, gay or straight, having hooked up or not, or whether you reject the character's advances or not, you end up with that character. You can literally rebuff the character and end up with them, to my understanding. That Myrrine slept with someone else isn't a justification for why your character, who may by your choices simply not like the character, hooks up anyway.

That's bad writing and contrary to the advertised player choice. If they wanted a fixed narrative, they shouldn't have advertised something else.

I've been trying not to comment on the AC:Odyssey:Bloodlines thing because I haven't played the base game yet and thus also haven't played the DLC in question. I know the series and the liner notes well enough to have some idea what's going on here but without seeing how the game handles romances or the specific scenario(being railroaded into a baby. Oh god, that came out wrong. Railroaded into having a baby) I'm hesitant to talk about execution. By the time I actually start playing the game and get far enough to start the First Blade DLC, the DLC will probably be done and whatever changes they plan to make to bloodlines will have likely already been patched in.

Without going into the playing the romance angle of the game for the moment , the idea of being forced into a relationship with someone regardless of how you as a player feel comes across as....I'll just go with poorly executed and leave it there for now.

What I can point out is that there's at least one more part to this particular DLC and a whole completely new DLC on the way, so the odds of the baby being a continuing part of the storyline in any notable fashion is minimal at best. Even if it's kassandra, clearly she's not done adventuring yet so the whole idea of "I'm gonna settle down with the babbby for the rest of my life"(as is my understanding) is so transparently temporary I have to wonder just what's coming down the pipe.

And having played this series since it's inception a decade ago, I'm pretty sure we're being primed for tragedy here. There's barely an AC protagonist that doesn't have a dead family member of some sort. Ezios brothers, uncle and father, Conners Mother, Edwards wife(offscreen) and kids(between AC3 and AC4), Arnos Dad, Jake and Evies Dad, Bayeks Son, etc(I'm sure I've missed one or two along the way). So either this kid is gonna get sent to live with a babysitter for the rest of the DLCs so Mom/Dad can go off to kill more proto-templars or something really terrible is gonna happen to that baby real soon.

trunkage:

Saelune:
Straight people bitching about having to deal with LGBT characters as if LGBT people don't have to constantly deal with a never ending parade of straight characters.

99% of fiction has hetero romance, and a lot of it is not necessary at all. Oh, what a surprise, the main guy and the main girl are the last survivors and are gonna bone, like I haven't seen THAT a billion times before.

Maybe the ratings board needs to add a new category. Maybe Q for queer? G for General is taken. L for Language.

Then all those adults who are offended by two men in a relationship in media wont be so affected. Or maybe a warning at the start like the epilepsy warning.

And just to be clear, this is a joke.

People who complain about safe spaces and people being offended are usually the ones who are the most offended and most wanting of safe spaces.

There is a reason hypocrisy is one of my biggest crusades I fight against.

ObsidianJones:
This argument has always confused me.

And don't get me started about people who complain that there are minorities in space. If they are human, they will have different melanin counts base on the climate and geography of the planet they are on. There's no special radiation in Africa that makes black people... other than solar. Methinks that radiation will find analogs in limitless space.

We'd probably be talking thousands of years before people living on different planets would result in correspondent evolution with their melanin count, if at all - like, what part of the planet? How ethnically diverse is the settler community of that planet? Would it even be evolutionarily beneficial to result in a shift in melanin when they already had the technology to get there (lack of natural selection)?

I've seen various sci-fi worlds deal with how ethnicity might play a role in human colonization of space, but in the way you're describing? Not so much. The Expanse, for instance, has "Belters" be taller and ganglier than Earth/Mars humans, but that's down to low gravity rather than evolution per se - ethnic identities are still alive and well in the setting.

Amyss:

Or their eyes accidentally met once and they're gonna bone.

Or they both have vowels in their name and they're gonna bone.

Or it's the second Tuesday of the fourth month of the year of Ragonthorginand they're gonna bone.

One of the things that frustrates me about writing is that if there are two people of different genders in a story, they will want romance and likely sex. If you have two straight characters who aren't the same sex in genre fiction and they aren't getting it on by the third act, or at least heavily flirting for sequel bait, you are treated as though you've done something wrong.

Sex sells. Romance is one of the most popular genres out there. Throw in romance in other genre fiction, and you're going to increase your readership.

It's weird, because I don't think I've ever written an explicitly gay or bi lead in my life. When I sit down to write something, i have a story in mind. And spoilers: that story probably isn't "will they or won't they?" so...uhhh...yeah. In a sense, I'm writing to my personal tastes, because I think there's enough sex out there and it annoys me when a gripping thriller turns into fanfic-level erotica for 20 pages.

I'm fairly similar, but then, I'm writing for the sake of it rather than for a living, so I'm at liberty to just write how and what I want rather than having to do stuff that appeals to a wider audience. I actually got into a discussion about this, about fanfic being purely romance, and while that's a stereotype that comes from a place of truth, I actually did a filter on what I'd written - only about 3% of everything I'd written had a romance tag.

Something Amyss:
Hell, ACO doesn't even tell us which sibling canonically had this epic adventure.

Canonically, it's Kassandra (novelization establishes it as such).

Saelune:
People who complain about safe spaces and people being offended are usually the ones who are the most offended and most wanting of safe spaces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIqTgGsl9YM

Maybe some people are "offended" by safe spaces. Maybe people who criticize safe spaces want their own safe spaces.

Or maybe people are wary about infantalization of individuals who are legally considered adults who are going to step out into a world that isn't puppies and rainbows.

Dalisclock:
What I can point out is that there's at least one more part to this particular DLC and a whole completely new DLC on the way, so the odds of the baby being a continuing part of the storyline in any notable fashion is minimal at best. Even if it's kassandra, clearly she's not done adventuring yet so the whole idea of "I'm gonna settle down with the babbby for the rest of my life"(as is my understanding) is so transparently temporary I have to wonder just what's coming down the pipe.

What we know is that Ubisoft has announced they will now be addressing this in he upcoming DLC. What was implied is that, like the trophy title and current plans to alter the content, this was not originally planned.

And having played this series since it's inception a decade ago, I'm pretty sure we're being primed for tragedy here. There's barely an AC protagonist that doesn't have a dead family member of some sort. Ezios brothers, uncle and father, Conners Mother, Edwards wife(offscreen) and kids(between AC3 and AC4), Arnos Dad, Jake and Evies Dad, Bayeks Son, etc(I'm sure I've missed one or two along the way). So either this kid is gonna get sent to live with a babysitter for the rest of the DLCs so Mom/Dad can go off to kill more proto-templars or something really terrible is gonna happen to that baby real soon.

It's quite possible, but a the same time it seems horribly redundant. Then again, the first DLC for Origins was also horribly redundant, creating an origin for the Hidden ones that wasn't significantly different from what we got in the game, and it was still a decent DLC.

But the baby dying doesn't help matters, because this is supposed to tie up the ends of how your bloodline carries on. Per ubosift:

"The intention of this story was to explain how your character's bloodline has a lasting impact on the Assassins, but looking through your responses it is clear that we missed the mark."

I don't think they missed the mark, as the second part points out, but after telling us they didn't want to force players into relationships they were uncomfortable with last year, to do so this year is kind of dumb. I mean, it could mean the bloodline has an impact by being wiped out, but that still carries problems within it and none of the comments sound to me like hat was the intent.

I mean, part of me just doesn't even care anymore. They decided they wanted to sell lootboxes and other premium items ast the expense of the game, so I'm don with the franchise. But there is no level of this that doesn't strike me as dumb, and no explanation I've seen that addresses the whole of why.

I think the larger problem is this:

Our goal was to let players choose between a utilitarian view of ensuring your bloodline lived on or forming a romantic relationship. We attempted to distinguish between the two but could have done this more carefully as we were walking a narrow line between role-play choices and story, and the clarity and motivation for this decision was poorly executed.

I think they wanted to have it both ways: to advertise player freedom, but to tell a fixed story with a concrete ending, and there was no way to leave us the choices they promised and still tell that story, because having a concrete ending undermines player choice (in this instance). Had they done this in another year, I don't think there'd be the same outrage, but they hyped how big a deal it was that we weren't forced to romance anyone that made us uncomfortable.

I don't remember there being an outcry over the part where you play as Jacob Frye's daughter in AC Syndicate, even though it establishes a canon child from a straight relationship. It cold be because the game sold poorly, but I think it's more likely people didn't care because it was telling a fixed story. It's especially a letdown in a game that already had multiple endings.

But most importantly, it took three responses from Ubisoft before they even understood the criticism.

Hawki:

Canonically, it's Kassandra (novelization establishes it as such).

I don't know that the novels are canon. Supposedly, they've contradicted the games numerous times.

Why didn't they just have the non selected sibling have the kid

Seems like it would have solved a lot of problems

undeadsuitor:
Why didn't they just have the non selected sibling have the kid

Seems like it would have solved a lot of problems

I mean, this bloodline thing literally isn't even important anymore. Nobody has to have a kid, because you're not reading your ancestors' memories through your DNA anymore, you can inject anyone's DNA (I assume it has to have Isu magic) into Layla's Animus and use it. This is even how they frame the boy/girl choice in the game: there are two strands of DNA on the spear, whose do you explore?

As such, neither of them needs to have a kid per se.

However, a couple of things come to mind on this, which I will poiler.

Something Amyss:

It's quite possible, but a the same time it seems horribly redundant. Then again, the first DLC for Origins was also horribly redundant, creating an origin for the Hidden ones that wasn't significantly different from what we got in the game, and it was still a decent DLC.

But the baby dying doesn't help matters, because this is supposed to tie up the ends of how your bloodline carries on. Per ubosift:

"The intention of this story was to explain how your character?s bloodline has a lasting impact on the Assassins, but looking through your responses it is clear that we missed the mark."

I don't think they missed the mark, as the second part points out, but after telling us they didn't want to force players into relationships they were uncomfortable with last year, to do so this year is kind of dumb. I mean, it could mean the bloodline has an impact by being wiped out, but that still carries problems within it and none of the comments sound to me like hat was the intent.

Yeah, that's one of the things that bothers me about this. If they do follow this up with "Oh No! Templars have/killed your babbies", it doesn't really jive with the whole "preserve the bloodline" thing they apparently built this entire scenario around.

To be fair, some really good writing could do something really interesting with this, but AC as a whole has writing that tends to be all over the damn place in quality. Some writing is pretty good(at least, pretty engrossing) while a fair amount of it is not particularly good so I don't have much hope for this right now.

Oh Well, there's always the Atlantis DLC, which promises to be interesting and full of fun over the top, quasi-supernatural shit(like the Pharoahs DLC from Origins or the King Washington DLC from AC3).

Something Amyss:

I think the larger problem is this:

Our goal was to let players choose between a utilitarian view of ensuring your bloodline lived on or forming a romantic relationship. We attempted to distinguish between the two but could have done this more carefully as we were walking a narrow line between role-play choices and story, and the clarity and motivation for this decision was poorly executed.

I think they wanted to have it both ways: to advertise player freedom, but to tell a fixed story with a concrete ending, and there was no way to leave us the choices they promised and still tell that story, because having a concrete ending undermines player choice (in this instance). Had they done this in another year, I don't think there'd be the same outrage, but they hyped how big a deal it was that we weren't forced to romance anyone that made us uncomfortable.

I don't remember there being an outcry over the part where you play as Jacob Frye's daughter in AC Syndicate, even though it establishes a canon child from a straight relationship. It cold be because the game sold poorly, but I think it's more likely people didn't care because it was telling a fixed story. It's especially a letdown in a game that already had multiple endings.

I think the whole Lydia thing doesn't come up because that whole section was off in an optional side area of Syndicate that you never had to visit and doesn't really contribute anything to the overall story(other then Juno telling you that they called themselve the ISU after berating you for playing violent video games). Also, from what I've gathered from the admittedly small sample size of people commenting on these forums, Syndicate seems to be one of the least played games in the series after everyone was burned by Unity. Granted, Syndicate doesn't really contribute anything to the series even if it cannonically the last story before Desmonds sections

Anyhow, It's kind of the inherent problem of choice vs. story, where the more freedom you give the player, the harder it tends to be to have those choices affect with the storyline(as there is one) and still work as a coherent story. Odyssey sounds like it plays up the "This is your Journey/Odyssey and you can choose your fate" angle but then contradicted it with "But you have to have a babbby because in 2500 years those genes need to make it to Desmond/Layla/Assassins".

There's also the weirdness that Odyssey seemed to be taking full advantage of the fact it's set centuries before the assassins even exist as an organization so most of the story is freed from the constraints of that particular plot thread but again, drags in the "Have an assassin Babbby!" thing even though there doesn't seem to be any real reason for it right now.

Unless they plan to pull some kind of weird plot twist that Alexios/Kassandra is the source of the assassin strong genes in the west and/or something something Layla is using the Animus to change the past because ISU machines in Origins answering machine messages cryptically hinted this if you went through all the trouble of following that side-quest in Origins Something Something Ocelot's Clone Arm breathes through her skin Something Something.

Dalisclock:
Yeah, that's one of the things that bothers me about this. If they do follow this up with "Oh No! Templars have/killed your babbies", it doesn't really jive with the whole "preserve the bloodline" thing they apparently built this entire scenario around.

To be fair, some really good writing could do something really interesting with this, but AC as a whole has writing that tends to be all over the damn place in quality. Some writing is pretty good(at least, pretty engrossing) while a fair amount of it is not particularly good so I don't have much hope for this right now.

Oh Well, there's always the Atlantis DLC, which promises to be interesting and full of fun over the top, quasi-supernatural shit(like the Pharoahs DLC from Origins or the King Washington DLC from AC3).

Yeah, I guess part of it comes down to trust and how much you expect from the creative team behind it, and I don't put much stock in them to begin with. AC titles have generally been fun games, but the quality has varied greatly and the fact that they were surprised at this outcome after hyping YOUR Kassandra/Alexios so hard.

It's sort of an interesting side note, bute also somewhat relevant to the perception of far left/far right gameds coverage: when I went looking for the ending to the DLC, I found a lot of the same voices who were previously up in arms that you could play YOUR Alexios/Kassandra YOUR way because it was pandering and wrong suddenly okay with Ubisoft because of the DLC ending and then some of those same people furious that they were apologising. Ubisoft is basically a bunch of alright dudes or evil SJWs depending on what day it is.

I think the whole Lydia thing doesn't come up because that whole section was off in an optional side area of Syndicate that you never had to visit and doesn't really contribute anything to the overall story(other then Juno telling you that they called themselve the ISU after berating you for playing violent video games). Also, from what I've gathered from the admittedly small sample size of people commenting on these forums, Syndicate seems to be one of the least played games in the series after everyone was burned by Unity. Granted, Syndicate doesn't really contribute anything to the series even if it cannonically the last story before Desmonds sections

I forgot it was optional, TBH. ACS did sell poorly, but not so poorly it avoided controversy, though.

Maybe a better example would be the flashbacks in AC2 where we see the conception of Altair's kid. Or Revelations where we see a more fully-formed relationship with the kid.

Anyhow, It's kind of the inherent problem of choice vs. story, where the more freedom you give the player, the harder it tends to be to have those choices affect with the storyline(as there is one) and still work as a coherent story. Odyssey sounds like it plays up the "This is your Journey/Odyssey and you can choose your fate" angle but then contradicted it with "But you have to have a babbby because in 2500 years those genes need to make it to Desmond/Layla/Assassins".

There's also the weirdness that Odyssey seemed to be taking full advantage of the fact it's set centuries before the assassins even exist as an organization so most of the story is freed from the constraints of that particular plot thread but again, drags in the "Have an assassin Babbby!" thing even though there doesn't seem to be any real reason for it right now.

And all of this is weird because this is the second game where you don't have to be carrying the DNA of the person in general. Layla's Animus can use a DNA sample, which is how you played as both Bayek and Aya in the prior game and Either protag in the new one. This is the second time that the main character doesn't need to have offspring. Or maybe more. Didn't 4 do something similar? Or were they still using Desmond somehow? I can't remember. There's a lot of weirdness and rule changes to the franchise....

Unless they plan to pull some kind of weird plot twist that Alexios/Kassandra is the source of the assassin strong genes in the west and/or something something Layla is using the Animus to change the past because ISU machines in Origins answering machine messages cryptically hinted this if you went through all the trouble of following that side-quest in Origins Something Something Ocelot's Clone Arm breathes through her skin Something Something.

Which is why this wouldn't surprise me.

This is a good example of my faith in their writing, by the way. I like the idea behind the messages for the future, but it's silly that they're so cryptic, because they want you to break the cycle. It's also silly that they semi-claim responsibility for every major mystery. "We are Bloop. We are Cicada. We sank the Titanic. We invented the remix."

Saelune:
Straight people bitching about having to deal with LGBT characters as if LGBT people don't have to constantly deal with a never ending parade of straight characters.

99% of fiction has hetero romance, and a lot of it is not necessary at all. Oh, what a surprise, the main guy and the main girl are the last survivors and are gonna bone, like I haven't seen THAT a billion times before.

Well, if you want to get your movie/tv show released in India, China, Russia, and the Middle East, homosexual relationships are pretty much out of the question. I'd wager that a lot of the time, it just doesn't make commercial sense to include them if you want to operate in those markets, and not seeking to access those markets would mean leaving huge amounts of money on the table.

Something Amyss:
Ubisoft is basically a bunch of alright dudes or evil SJWs depending on what day it is.

Not to give those people a pass but Ubisoft doesn't help themsleves in this department. The AC games have had a surprising amount of diversity in Protagonists(A presumably Muslim Arab, A Native American(albeit with a British Dad), A Welshman(sure, white but not common), A Caribbean Black guy, A Mixed Race Black Woman, A North African Black man, A mixed Egyption/Greek Woman, A British Man who is likely bisexual(Jacob), Two more English Women, and A Greek Woman who may or may not be Bi/Gay depending on playthrough.

What bothers me is that Ubisoft seems to want to play the "Look at us, we're diverse! Appreciate us for that!" angle up like it's something new for them, conveniently forgetting they had POC/female PC's years ago.

Or the fact they'll start with an interesting premise and then just ignore it. Game about the French Revolution? It's mostly a love story and most of the Revolutionary stuff happens off screen, with the Revolution villainized as a Templar plot as opposed to the rather nuanced and complex political situation it was with a lot of tragic consequences on all sides that rippled across Europe for the next century.

Syndicate starts off with the Premise of Templars essentially being Evil Capitalists who run the British Empire behind the scenes through control of industry and capital, which feels very relevant both for the time period and today. Sadly, Ubisoft can't be assed to explore it any further then "We're Capitalists and we're dicks. Also Colonialism something something" because apparently it would make them uncomfortable being a major corporation and all(having links to the microtransaction store in the menu feels strangely appropriate but not in the way ubisoft probably meant).

And I've griped many, many times over the years on this forum about how the Templar/Assassin war feels ludiciously black and white most of the time with a majority of the templars being power hungry dicks with no particular greater goal in mind other then...world conquest? World Peace? The assassins are occasionally "balanced" by making them shortsighted murder happy idealists(sometimes) when it isn't just someone getting back at the Templar who killed their love ones. The entire war feels like one very long repeating cycle of two groups being assholes towards each other for no particular reason which is why it's hard as hell to feel invested in it at this point.

Something Amyss:
I forgot it was optional, TBH. ACS did sell poorly, but not so poorly it avoided controversy, though.

Most of the controversy I remember was regarding having a lot of female gang members and surprisingly attention to the one side character who is a woman dressing like/pretending to be a man who plays almost no role in the story at all other then to act as a quest giver(Ned Wynert). Which I found it hard to see why people got so worked up when it's just kinda there. That and 4 did pretty much the same thing except a major plot character and practically nobody cared.

Something Amyss:

And all of this is weird because this is the second game where you don't have to be carrying the DNA of the person in general. Layla's Animus can use a DNA sample, which is how you played as both Bayek and Aya in the prior game and Either protag in the new one. This is the second time that the main character doesn't need to have offspring. Or maybe more. Didn't 4 do something similar? Or were they still using Desmond somehow? I can't remember. There's a lot of weirdness and rule changes to the franchise....

4 updated the new models of Animus don't require you to be related to the person whose memories you're playing around in, so the unnamed camera with an ipad you play as can relive Edward Kenway's memories. It's shown that desmonds body was left in the grand temple after he died in 3 and apparently abstergo found his body and collected "samples". AKA it's implied they have Desmonds brain in a jar somewhere at Abstergo/Ubisoft plugged into the game company mainframe pumping out new AC games for the Unity/Syndicate person to play through on their animus gamestation console so the templars can outsource their historical datamining for....Profit I guess. It's never said if all those memories are Desmonds or not but since Desmond is apparently the gold mine of assasin ancestory all meeting up in the present......

I've kinda lost track exactly what the Templars are doing anymore which is different then any large corporation. As far as I can tell, it's pretty much "Using memories to make videogames for monies" which feels both meta and mundane at the same time. The Templars are evil because they use memories to make videogames for monies while ubisoft...wait a minute....UBISOFT ARE TEMPLARS! I KNEW IT!

Something Amyss:

Which is why this wouldn't surprise me.

This is a good example of my faith in their writing, by the way. I like the idea behind the messages for the future, but it's silly that they're so cryptic, because they want you to break the cycle. It's also silly that they semi-claim responsibility for every major mystery. "We are Bloop. We are Cicada. We sank the Titanic. We invented the remix."

It's hard to get excited about the machinations of a people who have extinct for 700,000 years, despite how "Superior" they believe themselves to be(and still pull this "Holier then thou" crap in their messages). I was kinda annoyed by the "You must wake up and do what we could not. Something something time something something universe" messages considering the whole presmise that the ISU could build technology that's akin to goddamn magic and presumably see the future with a crazy amount of clarity but couldn't save themselves from a goddamn solar flare but man, they expect the guys 700,000 years down the line to "Something something time wake up bad moon rising something something". Eyup.

Still, I don't mind the ISU stuff except that it's clear it's not going anywhere. After 3 they had this cool idea to have Juno as the looming threat....which they dragged out and did pretty much nothing with in the main games. Sure, it got resolved in the comics but that just feels like a letdown because presumably this was all supposed to lead into AC5 being "Find a way to use the animus to stop Juno", not "Buy the comics to see how that storyline was finished. Also, it's no longer part of the games and we're not gonna mention it anymore. Buy the comics!"

Either the writers don't know how to integrate the ISU thing with the present day story(and only limited in success with the past stuff) or the higher ups won't let them actually build proper conclusions to said plot arc due to being one of their cash cow franchises. It's rather sad considering AC is all but guaranteed to have releases for the foreseeable future thus have plenty of runtime to have plot arcs stretching mutiple games in phases(kinda like marvel and their movie phases) but somehow it's just not happening(either due to fear of continuity lockout or they don't want to "end" the franchise by giving the impression the story is concluding).

I can honestly see why they wanted to jump into the ancient world after syndicate so they could effectively soft reboot, ignore a lot of the Assassin stuff they clearly couldn't/wouldn't develop and try something kinda new for this franchise.

Bilious Green:

Saelune:
Straight people bitching about having to deal with LGBT characters as if LGBT people don't have to constantly deal with a never ending parade of straight characters.

99% of fiction has hetero romance, and a lot of it is not necessary at all. Oh, what a surprise, the main guy and the main girl are the last survivors and are gonna bone, like I haven't seen THAT a billion times before.

Well, if you want to get your movie/tv show released in India, China, Russia, and the Middle East, homosexual relationships are pretty much out of the question. I'd wager that a lot of the time, it just doesn't make commercial sense to include them if you want to operate in those markets, and not seeking to access those markets would mean leaving huge amounts of money on the table.

You say this as if that is supposed to make it ok. It doesn't.

Dalisclock:
Not to give those people a pass but Ubisoft doesn't help themsleves in this department. The AC games have had a surprising amount of diversity in Protagonists(A presumably Muslim Arab, A Native American(albeit with a British Dad), A Welshman(sure, white but not common), A Caribbean Black guy, A Mixed Race Black Woman, A North African Black man, A mixed Egyption/Greek Woman, A British Man who is likely bisexual(Jacob), Two more English Women, and A Greek Woman who may or may not be Bi/Gay depending on playthrough.

What bothers me is that Ubisoft seems to want to play the "Look at us, we're diverse! Appreciate us for that!" angle up like it's something new for them, conveniently forgetting they had POC/female PC's years ago.

You're not wrong, but that didn't change when they made this DLC, whether the ending was intentional or just clumsily handled (which, to be fair, I'll give them the benefit of doubt on this one and say they really didn't think this'd be a problem). It's not like they pulled off their mask and revealed they were secretly Davis Aurini all along and proclaim "fuck the gays" or something.

The thing that puzzles me is this "we were always at war with Eurasia" mentality. Ubisoft was a villain--a monster--for forcing SJW virtue signaling into my games!

...until they weren't, and all it took was one heterosexual romance that appeared to stiff LGBT individuals to change it.

Then Ubisoft went on their apology tour, and they were SJW fiends again. We must shake our fists at them for they have dared to...uhhh...line?

For that matter, you made me think of one of AC's earliest controveries--the "whitewashing" of Altair. And back then it was all GUISE UBISOFT CAN MAKE THE GAME THEY WANT WHY DO YOU HATE FREE SPEECH? And now it's more like "why are you using your free speech?"

I thought the merging of Desmond and Altair's features was interesting. And admittedly, I'm white enough that I'm not going to be the injured party in such a scenario, so it's possible I don't "get" it, but I didn't think it was such a big thing. And as far as diversity goes, AC has been pretty good at it. I was pretty excited, for example, for ACIII having a Native American character, because my non-Scottish roots are Native American.

To be clear, I don't expect any of this is done for any virtuous reason. I don't think Ubisoft is trying to do much more than tell interesting stories, and I honestly expect them to be pandering. Because that's what companies do. They pander to a market. And that's exactly why Ubisoft pointing giant arrows at their games and going "look! a woman! A black man! Aren't we progressive?" neither surprises nor bothers me. This is literally the free market in play.

So it's more that they're good! they're bad! they're good again! or however it goes.

Or the fact they'll start with an interesting premise and then just ignore it. Game about the French Revolution? It's mostly a love story and most of the Revolutionary stuff happens off screen, with the Revolution villainized as a Templar plot as opposed to the rather nuanced and complex political situation it was with a lot of tragic consequences on all sides that rippled across Europe for the next century.

Syndicate starts off with the Premise of Templars essentially being Evil Capitalists who run the British Empire behind the scenes through control of industry and capital, which feels very relevant both for the time period and today. Sadly, Ubisoft can't be assed to explore it any further then "We're Capitalists and we're dicks. Also Colonialism something something" because apparently it would make them uncomfortable being a major corporation and all(having links to the microtransaction store in the menu feels strangely appropriate but not in the way ubisoft probably meant).

And I've griped many, many times over the years on this forum about how the Templar/Assassin war feels ludiciously black and white most of the time with a majority of the templars being power hungry dicks with no particular greater goal in mind other then...world conquest? World Peace? The assassins are occasionally "balanced" by making them shortsighted murder happy idealists(sometimes) when it isn't just someone getting back at the Templar who killed their love ones. The entire war feels like one very long repeating cycle of two groups being assholes towards each other for no particular reason which is why it's hard as hell to feel invested in it at this point.

I think it's a wasted premise overall. It seems like the only reason the games can happen is because the Assassins are the CONTROL to the Templars' KAOS...or maybe the other way around. The Assassins get the benefit of being the "heroes" and as such, having slightly more development to their motives, but they're so dumb it's no surprise they made a game starring Jacob and Evie. Clearly, Jacob could run the Assassins. Well, as long as Evie was around to clean up his biggest mistakes.

Or even Ezio, who is crucial to the plans of the Assassins. He's an idiot, and the biggest saving grace is that he's a loveable idiot who grows into the role...about two stories after he should have been unceremoniously killed.

The games keep me going in them because they're fun, but...they're dumb fun.

Most of the controversy I remember was regarding having a lot of female gang members and surprisingly attention to the one side character who is a woman dressing like/pretending to be a man who plays almost no role in the story at all other then to act as a quest giver(Ned Wynert). Which I found it hard to see why people got so worked up when it's just kinda there. That and 4 did pretty much the same thing except a major plot character and practically nobody cared.

Don't forget the biggest one...that you might be forced to spend a quarter of missions plahying as a girl.

4 updated the new models of Animus don't require you to be related to the person whose memories you're playing around in, so the unnamed camera with an ipad you play as can relive Edward Kenway's memories. It's shown that desmonds body was left in the grand temple after he died in 3 and apparently abstergo found his body and collected "samples". AKA it's implied they have Desmonds brain in a jar somewhere at Abstergo/Ubisoft plugged into the game company mainframe pumping out new AC games for the Unity/Syndicate person to play through on their animus gamestation console so the templars can outsource their historical datamining for....Profit I guess. It's never said if all those memories are Desmonds or not but since Desmond is apparently the gold mine of assasin ancestory all meeting up in the present......

I've kinda lost track exactly what the Templars are doing anymore which is different then any large corporation. As far as I can tell, it's pretty much "Using memories to make videogames for monies" which feels both meta and mundane at the same time. The Templars are evil because they use memories to make videogames for monies while ubisoft...wait a minute....UBISOFT ARE TEMPLARS! I KNEW IT!

You'd think they'd have a better plan. Sjurely development costs aren't so high that an Animus is cheaper....

I couldn't remember if the Animus from 4 was powered directly by Desmond or not. I know Layla said she built her Animus to relive anyone's memories, not just her ancestors, so I wonder if Ubisoft forgot.

It's hard to get excited about the machinations of a people who have extinct for 700,000 years, despite how "Superior" they believe themselves to be(and still pull this "Holier then thou" crap in their messages). I was kinda annoyed by the "You must wake up and do what we could not. Something something time something something universe" messages considering the whole presmise that the ISU could build technology that's akin to goddamn magic and presumably see the future with a crazy amount of clarity but couldn't save themselves from a goddamn solar flare but man, they expect the guys 700,000 years down the line to "Something something time wake up bad moon rising something something". Eyup.

Still, I don't mind the ISU stuff except that it's clear it's not going anywhere. After 3 they had this cool idea to have Juno as the looming threat....which they dragged out and did pretty much nothing with in the main games. Sure, it got resolved in the comics but that just feels like a letdown because presumably this was all supposed to lead into AC5 being "Find a way to use the animus to stop Juno", not "Buy the comics to see how that storyline was finished. Also, it's no longer part of the games and we're not gonna mention it anymore. Buy the comics!"

Either the writers don't know how to integrate the ISU thing with the present day story(and only limited in success with the past stuff) or the higher ups won't let them actually build proper conclusions to said plot arc due to being one of their cash cow franchises. It's rather sad considering AC is all but guaranteed to have releases for the foreseeable future thus have plenty of runtime to have plot arcs stretching mutiple games in phases(kinda like marvel and their movie phases) but somehow it's just not happening(either due to fear of continuity lockout or they don't want to "end" the franchise by giving the impression the story is concluding).

I can honestly see why they wanted to jump into the ancient world after syndicate so they could effectively soft reboot, ignore a lot of the Assassin stuff they clearly couldn't/wouldn't develop and try something kinda new for this franchise.

Part of the problem is it's a boilerplate ancient aliens storyline, and the longer it goes on, the more I'm reminded of Stargate SG-1/Atlantis. You even have the Ancients...errr, ISU...interacting with us from the past, we share a form due to engineering purposes, and we're somehow going to save the universe from what they couldn't with human pluck and bailing wire. Even then, SG-1 is the first to come to mind because I enjoyed it, not because it was some sort of revolution.

I think at some point they're going to have to do more than a soft reboot to get themselves out of a hole.

Something Amyss:

undeadsuitor:
Why didn't they just have the non selected sibling have the kid

Seems like it would have solved a lot of problems

I mean, this bloodline thing literally isn't even important anymore. Nobody has to have a kid, because you're not reading your ancestors' memories through your DNA anymore, you can inject anyone's DNA (I assume it has to have Isu magic) into Layla's Animus and use it. This is even how they frame the boy/girl choice in the game: there are two strands of DNA on the spear, whose do you explore?

As such, neither of them needs to have a kid per se.

However, a couple of things come to mind on this, which I will poiler.

Oh yeah. It's quite silly. At this point I took it more as the protagonist was one of the few ~heroes~ with high amounds of ISU dna or whatever left not killed by the cult or something. since alien or whatever dna is basically what allows them to jump off really high places and that's what quantifies assassins in these games.

idk im like halfway through.

Saelune:

Bilious Green:

Saelune:
Straight people bitching about having to deal with LGBT characters as if LGBT people don't have to constantly deal with a never ending parade of straight characters.

99% of fiction has hetero romance, and a lot of it is not necessary at all. Oh, what a surprise, the main guy and the main girl are the last survivors and are gonna bone, like I haven't seen THAT a billion times before.

Well, if you want to get your movie/tv show released in India, China, Russia, and the Middle East, homosexual relationships are pretty much out of the question. I'd wager that a lot of the time, it just doesn't make commercial sense to include them if you want to operate in those markets, and not seeking to access those markets would mean leaving huge amounts of money on the table.

You say this as if that is supposed to make it ok. It doesn't.

Business is in business to make money, not change social attitudes. Here is a quote from Michael Eisner, the CEO of Disney from a 1991 internal memo to staff - "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."

What I am saying is that its all well and good to want to make social change, but expecting business to put abstract ideological goals before the bottom line is just unrealistic.

Something Amyss:

You're not wrong, but that didn't change when they made this DLC, whether the ending was intentional or just clumsily handled (which, to be fair, I'll give them the benefit of doubt on this one and say they really didn't think this'd be a problem). It's not like they pulled off their mask and revealed they were secretly Davis Aurini all along and proclaim "fuck the gays" or something.

The thing that puzzles me is this "we were always at war with Eurasia" mentality. Ubisoft was a villain--a monster--for forcing SJW virtue signaling into my games!

...until they weren't, and all it took was one heterosexual romance that appeared to stiff LGBT individuals to change it.

Then Ubisoft went on their apology tour, and they were SJW fiends again. We must shake our fists at them for they have dared to...uhhh...line?

For that matter, you made me think of one of AC's earliest controveries--the "whitewashing" of Altair. And back then it was all GUISE UBISOFT CAN MAKE THE GAME THEY WANT WHY DO YOU HATE FREE SPEECH? And now it's more like "why are you using your free speech?"

I thought the merging of Desmond and Altair's features was interesting. And admittedly, I'm white enough that I'm not going to be the injured party in such a scenario, so it's possible I don't "get" it, but I didn't think it was such a big thing. And as far as diversity goes, AC has been pretty good at it. I was pretty excited, for example, for ACIII having a Native American character, because my non-Scottish roots are Native American.

To be clear, I don't expect any of this is done for any virtuous reason. I don't think Ubisoft is trying to do much more than tell interesting stories, and I honestly expect them to be pandering. Because that's what companies do. They pander to a market. And that's exactly why Ubisoft pointing giant arrows at their games and going "look! a woman! A black man! Aren't we progressive?" neither surprises nor bothers me. This is literally the free market in play.

So it's more that they're good! they're bad! they're good again! or however it goes.

Yeah, admittedly I'm honestly kinda tired of the back and forth about this sort of stuff from both sides and how opinion can change at the drop of a hat. Not because I think corporations can do no wrong(I've said plenty about how Ubisoft annoys me about certain things) but because it feels like a lot of missing the forest for the trees. Which is another reason I'm hesitant to jump on this sort of stuff the moment it happens and would rather get some decent context before bringing the hammer down.

I'm also reminded the corporations aren't your buddies or your friends even if they occasionally do stuff you approve of. They're concerned about good PR and profits and it pretty much ends there.

Something Amyss:

Don't forget the biggest one...that you might be forced to spend a quarter of missions plahying as a girl.

I don't even remember that, but it doesn't surprise me considering. Honestly, I was more annoyed to have to play as Jacob the Lunkhead for most of the story missions, whose sole purpose was to mess things up and have his sister clean up his mess.

Which does highlight a related issue Yathzee pointed out (paraphrased)"You can play a man or a woman. One of them is kinda an oaf who charges right in and uses brute force and the other one is smart and sneaky. If you can guess which one is which, you've got a pretty good idea of the level of writing in play here"

Something Amyss:

I couldn't remember if the Animus from 4 was powered directly by Desmond or not. I know Layla said she built her Animus to relive anyone's memories, not just her ancestors, so I wonder if Ubisoft forgot.

IIRC, the big deal about Layla's animus is not needing to use genetic memories via bloodlines, but rather you can just plug a DNA sample, process a bit and be good to go. Thus she could relive Bayek by attaching jumper cables to his corpse and Aya from a skin sample or something.

They might have forgotten as well. This series has changed it's lore a number of times. I remember a number of threads from AC1 and AC2 which pretty much ended up in the trash heap(The Templar mind control satellite, something about land masses not existing anymore because of climate change in AC1, finding an apple on the moon, etc). Maybe they were too busy shoving a bunch of references to the film into AC Origins or something.

Bilious Green:

Saelune:

Bilious Green:

Well, if you want to get your movie/tv show released in India, China, Russia, and the Middle East, homosexual relationships are pretty much out of the question. I'd wager that a lot of the time, it just doesn't make commercial sense to include them if you want to operate in those markets, and not seeking to access those markets would mean leaving huge amounts of money on the table.

You say this as if that is supposed to make it ok. It doesn't.

Business is in business to make money, not change social attitudes. Here is a quote from Michael Eisner, the CEO of Disney from a 1991 internal memo to staff - "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."

What I am saying is that its all well and good to want to make social change, but expecting business to put abstract ideological goals before the bottom line is just unrealistic.

You mean the same bottom line that brought us lootcrates? Yeah. Sorry but businesses that put bottom line before anything else aren't OK.

Bilious Green:

Saelune:

Bilious Green:

Well, if you want to get your movie/tv show released in India, China, Russia, and the Middle East, homosexual relationships are pretty much out of the question. I'd wager that a lot of the time, it just doesn't make commercial sense to include them if you want to operate in those markets, and not seeking to access those markets would mean leaving huge amounts of money on the table.

You say this as if that is supposed to make it ok. It doesn't.

Business is in business to make money, not change social attitudes. Here is a quote from Michael Eisner, the CEO of Disney from a 1991 internal memo to staff - "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."

What I am saying is that its all well and good to want to make social change, but expecting business to put abstract ideological goals before the bottom line is just unrealistic.

Again, you say this as if it makes it ok, it doesn't.

Michael Eisner is not a good person.

It is unrealistic because too many people accept that you cant change things, but if people actually want change as a group, we can get it. The People are the most powerful force, which is why so many who abuse The People try to put it in their heads that they are powerless.

Greed is a sin for a reason.

Bilious Green:

Saelune:

Bilious Green:

Well, if you want to get your movie/tv show released in India, China, Russia, and the Middle East, homosexual relationships are pretty much out of the question. I'd wager that a lot of the time, it just doesn't make commercial sense to include them if you want to operate in those markets, and not seeking to access those markets would mean leaving huge amounts of money on the table.

You say this as if that is supposed to make it ok. It doesn't.

Business is in business to make money, not change social attitudes. Here is a quote from Michael Eisner, the CEO of Disney from a 1991 internal memo to staff - "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."

It isn't 1991 anymore, and Eisner hasn't been in charge of the company for a decade and a half. He may have been right then, and while I certainly wouldn't call it an obligation, why wouldn't Disney want to make history if they thought they could do it and rake in a sackload of cash at the same time?

Bilious Green:

Business is in business to make money, not change social attitudes. Here is a quote from Michael Eisner, the CEO of Disney from a 1991 internal memo to staff - "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."

What I am saying is that its all well and good to want to make social change, but expecting business to put abstract ideological goals before the bottom line is just unrealistic.

Youdo realise you're talking about the same Disney that could make more money in China by changing up Star Wars, right?

Pause and process this one for a moment. Star Wars has issues selling in China specifically because of social and cultural taboos. You yourself have said that companies should work to not alienate their international markets. Why does that only apply to sexuality and the like?

CaitSeith:

You mean the same bottom line that brought us lootcrates? Yeah. Sorry but businesses that put bottom line before anything else aren't OK.

I mean, that too, because this is a pretty important thing to remember when we're talking about corporations.

And I'm not saying it's happening here, but I love when the free market/vote with your wallet types get all pissy about lootcrates or whatever else, because it's a perfect example of why that argument breaks down and they don't like it one bit.

undeadsuitor:

Oh yeah. It's quite silly. At this point I took it more as the protagonist was one of the few ~heroes~ with high amounds of ISU dna or whatever left not killed by the cult or something. since alien or whatever dna is basically what allows them to jump off really high places and that's what quantifies assassins in these games.

Yeah, that's possible. I doubt I'll finish the game so I can't know. Unless I go look up and LP. Which maybe I'll do.

idk im like halfway through.

Dalisclock:

Yeah, admittedly I'm honestly kinda tired of the back and forth about this sort of stuff from both sides and how opinion can change at the drop of a hat. Not because I think corporations can do no wrong(I've said plenty about how Ubisoft annoys me about certain things) but because it feels like a lot of missing the forest for the trees. Which is another reason I'm hesitant to jump on this sort of stuff the moment it happens and would rather get some decent context before bringing the hammer down.

I'm also reminded the corporations aren't your buddies or your friends even if they occasionally do stuff you approve of. They're concerned about good PR and profits and it pretty much ends there.

I always wonder whether people need to hear "corporations aren't your friends" more when the corporations are agreeing or disagreeing. Because it amazes me how fast fans will go to shouting "betrayal!" when corporations do things they don't like.

I don't feel betrayed by the things I hate in ACO. Disappointed, yes. And I think this ending is dumb (and from their own quotes, poorly thought through). But they're chasing their bottom line, and I expect them to do that. All I can do is tell them they're not getting more of my money if they do this.

EDIT: and by "this" I mean their grindy MT-fest, not even the ending to this specific DLC.

I don't even remember that, but it doesn't surprise me considering. Honestly, I was more annoyed to have to play as Jacob the Lunkhead for most of the story missions, whose sole purpose was to mess things up and have his sister clean up his mess.

Which does highlight a related issue Yathzee pointed out (paraphrased)"You can play a man or a woman. One of them is kinda an oaf who charges right in and uses brute force and the other one is smart and sneaky. If you can guess which one is which, you've got a pretty good idea of the level of writing in play here"

A lot of Jacob's plot didn't really advance things, sadly. Or, of course, advanced things in the worst possible way.

But yeah, there was a fairly big snit when Evie was announced as playable, and it continued even after it turned out she was mostly optional. There was no amount of playing as a girl that wasn't Ubisoft "caving to the SJWs" or whatever.

The Ned controversy, on the other hand, only came out after people watched the Anita Sarkeesian video where she said Ned was trans (as opposed to the more parsimonious explanation, that women posing as men for occupational reasons was relatively common in both the era and locale). I wish I had access to some sort of dimension hopper so I could see if that existed in a world where people weren't simply getting outraged at a mean lady criticising muh toyz.

IIRC, the big deal about Layla's animus is not needing to use genetic memories via bloodlines, but rather you can just plug a DNA sample, process a bit and be good to go. Thus she could relive Bayek by attaching jumper cables to his corpse and Aya from a skin sample or something.

They might have forgotten as well. This series has changed it's lore a number of times. I remember a number of threads from AC1 and AC2 which pretty much ended up in the trash heap(The Templar mind control satellite, something about land masses not existing anymore because of climate change in AC1, finding an apple on the moon, etc). Maybe they were too busy shoving a bunch of references to the film into AC Origins or something.

There were a couple novel things about the model of Animus Layla used: it couldcollapse top briefcase size, and it interacted with the blood for...safety reasons, I think...instead of doing a direct brain spike. But I remember Layla specifically making a point of, and the AC Wiki seems to back this up, this one being different because it didn't need to be her ancestors. Per the Wiki, because I doubt I'll find a video....

As stated by herself, Layla built the HR-8 to enable her to access anyone's memories, "even ancestors not [her] own".

The phrasing is not as concrete as I remember, so maybe I'm wrong, though.

Something Amyss:

Yeah, I kinda assumed the Templar/Assasin groups were rather loosely affliated with each other for most of history and only since about the middle ages really started gelling into what we now think of as actual groups or networks. And even then I get the impression from the games that groups more or less operate independently of one another in whatever nation/region they're in. So when Ezio kicked the Templars out of Rome and Northern Italy, there were still Templars in Constantinople doing just fine. Or Haythem's own little Templar group which was implied to be doing it's own thing with no guidance from anyone above.

The assassins even moreso in this regard, where they presumably evolved more or less independently and somewhere along the line share training and ideals(Though then you have that thing in AC4 where apparently they convinced a group of Native Americans to join the brotherhood).

However, Origins and Odyessy have now made it wierd because presumably Bayek and Aya started the Assassins and the Templars Grew out of the Order of the Ancients, except proto-assasins and proto-templars were also operating in Greece 500 years before that(and no doubt even further back still). Even though Alexios/Kassandra don't call themselves assassins, they pretty much are just without the clubhouse.

It's kind of the inherent problem of making this all up as you go instead of having any real bible to govern how the lore/backstory is supposed to work.

Something Amyss:

I always wonder whether people need to hear "corporations aren't your friends" more when the corporations are agreeing or disagreeing. Because it amazes me how fast fans will go to shouting "betrayal!" when corporations do things they don't like.

Without sounding like an ass, You can't be betrayed by someone if you weren't allied to begin with. The corporation doesn't have ideals or friends, it has interests and most of them revolve around selling you stuff.

I have a friend who likes to dump on big corporations for their bad behavior but will fawn over Elon Musk given the opportunity, which I find bizarre for so many reasons.

Something Amyss:

A lot of Jacob's plot didn't really advance things, sadly. Or, of course, advanced things in the worst possible way.

But yeah, there was a fairly big snit when Evie was announced as playable, and it continued even after it turned out she was mostly optional. There was no amount of playing as a girl that wasn't Ubisoft "caving to the SJWs" or whatever.

The Ned controversy, on the other hand, only came out after people watched the Anita Sarkeesian video where she said Ned was trans (as opposed to the more parsimonious explanation, that women posing as men for occupational reasons was relatively common in both the era and locale). I wish I had access to some sort of dimension hopper so I could see if that existed in a world where people weren't simply getting outraged at a mean lady criticising muh toyz.

Presumably at one point each Templar taken down was going to permanently affect the game-world. Taking down the one at the asylum would cause the price of medicine to skyrocket, taking down the transport one would cause traffic jams all over the city hindering use of the carriages, the one at the bank would devalue the currency and make everything more expensive. Apparently they decided not to because it made the game harder as you progressed. While I can see the argument, it would have made the game more interesting and given the storyline some weigh if you actually saw real consequences to Jacob's blundering instead of Evie quickly fixing everything. It certainly would have made the game more noteworthy and maybe even reinforced the themes of the Templars having successfully inserted themselves into the gears of 19th century capitalism.

Something Amyss:

But yeah, there was a fairly big snit when Evie was announced as playable, and it continued even after it turned out she was mostly optional. There was no amount of playing as a girl that wasn't Ubisoft "caving to the SJWs" or whatever.

God forbid anyone have to play as a character without a wang. The SJW have truly ruined video gaming forever. FOOOORRRRREEEEEVVVVVEEEEERRRRR.

Something Amyss:

The Ned controversy, on the other hand, only came out after people watched the Anita Sarkeesian video where she said Ned was trans (as opposed to the more parsimonious explanation, that women posing as men for occupational reasons was relatively common in both the era and locale). I wish I had access to some sort of dimension hopper so I could see if that existed in a world where people weren't simply getting outraged at a mean lady criticising muh toyz.

Yeah, I just kinda assumed Ned, like James Kidd, was pretty much "I gotta dress as a dude to be taken seriously or be allowed to participate" with a bunch of dudes because otherwise they never get past the "no girlz" sign.

Though there are more grey cases such as the Chevalier D'eon who dressed as a woman because he acted as a spy/agent for the French government but there's some discussion whether or not he identified as one as well. Which could have fitted nicely into Rogue being the right time period.

Something Amyss:

As stated by herself, Layla built the HR-8 to enable her to access anyone's memories, "even ancestors not [her] own".

The phrasing is not as concrete as I remember, so maybe I'm wrong, though.

It might have been in there. I didn't read everything on Layla's computer and didn't listen to the audiologs(because I could be exploring ancient egypt).

Dalisclock:
It's kind of the inherent problem of making this all up as you go instead of having any real bible to govern how the lore/backstory is supposed to work.

It's also the problem of having a series that was originally supposed to be a trilogy, because there was no real reason to need this level of backstory to understand in the first place.

I largely like what they did with the series, but it still is one of those things where you kind of have to not think too hard to avoid problems. Fortunately, using just a hidden blade to take down Templar strongholds is usually satisfying enough for me.

I can't remember who says it, but one of the people I follow on YouTube has commented on the X-Men films that they're each basically only in-continuity with the prior X-Men movie, and that's sort of how I think of the AC games most of the time. From one game to the next, they usually get enough right. Though the Bayek/Aya and Alexios/Kassandra thing is kind of a big problem within one game of each other, and if I think too hard I'm sure I'll find more easily.

I kind of wonder if they would have been better off doing a full reboot during the downtime between Syndicate and Origins. People were already piiiiiiissed by how broken Unity was, so pissed they weren't going to buy a new game foir a little while, so making Origins not just the "Origin" of the Hidden Ones but coming up with a new and cohesive beat for the series would have been helpful.

Alas, we then find out it's not even really the origin, because hey, look over there.

Without sounding like an ass, You can't be betrayed by someone if you weren't allied to begin with. The corporation doesn't have ideals or friends, it has interests and most of them revolve around selling you stuff.

I have a friend who likes to dump on big corporations for their bad behavior but will fawn over Elon Musk given the opportunity, which I find bizarre for so many reasons.

I trust corporations only about as far as I can throw their offices. This is because I expect them to do what is best for their bottom line, whether that includes me or not. One of my big worrie about MTs is that they basically allow game companies to be beholden to a smaller and smaller base, because it's no longer about who buys the 60 dollar game or the 80 dollar edition or the 150 dollar mega super ultra combo, it's about who is going to be their "whales" and continue to spend afterwards.

The closest I get invested is I will occasionally pre-order a game based on the quality of the last game. And ACO reminded me I shouldn't do that. But yeah, scorpion and the frog.

Musk concerns me. His cult of celebrity is kind of dangerous. If it can get attention to projects like space travel or greener transit, it could be worth it, but watching him accuse someone of being a pedophile just because Musk's idea wasn't practical in the cave scenario demonstrates how easily that same celebrity can be weaponised. And even if Musk was a saint, that should scare people.

Presumably at one point each Templar taken down was going to permanently affect the game-world. Taking down the one at the asylum would cause the price of medicine to skyrocket, taking down the transport one would cause traffic jams all over the city hindering use of the carriages, the one at the bank would devalue the currency and make everything more expensive. Apparently they decided not to because it made the game harder as you progressed. While I can see the argument, it would have made the game more interesting and given the storyline some weigh if you actually saw real consequences to Jacob's blundering instead of Evie quickly fixing everything. It certainly would have made the game more noteworthy and maybe even reinforced the themes of the Templars having successfully inserted themselves into the gears of 19th century capitalism.

Oh, wow That would have added an interesting ethical quandry to the Assassin plot as well, because it could be easily argued that it's better to let society limp along as-is, rather than hurting people by taking them out.

Or, you know, find a smarter way to deal with them. I prefer that.

I think that's probably too high-concept for an AC game, though.

Yeah, I just kinda assumed Ned, like James Kidd, was pretty much "I gotta dress as a dude to be taken seriously or be allowed to participate" with a bunch of dudes because otherwise they never get past the "no girlz" sign.

And James was based on an actual, factual, historical example of it, to boot.

Though there are more grey cases such as the Chevalier D'eon who dressed as a woman because he acted as a spy/agent for the French government but there's some discussion whether or not he identified as one as well. Which could have fitted nicely into Rogue being the right time period.

It gets tricky, because the term transsexual is younger than the years ACS took place in, and the term transgender is even younger, having reached its current meaning in the mid-60s. That, combined with not having a necessarily great look into their heads, makes it difficult. I mean, language can be restrictive when the propr woirds aren't available, but also, it's not like people were going to go around saying "I dress as a man, but it's only to fool you into accepting me" or the like.

Virtually any of the people who presented as such could have been trans, or they could not have been. Given the number of AFAB people particularly who presented as men, however, it's a safe bet not all of them or even a large chunk were trans.

It's a little different when AMABs present as women, because there's rarely any societal gain. There are definitely reasons to do it (you've listed one possibility). We do have some more concrete examples, like a couple of soldiers from the Civil War who expressly stated their desires to live as women, but it's hard to really speak definitively.

Which is a long way to say I can't know that Ned isn't trans anymore then D'eon, but there was a simpler explanation people didn't want to hear because EssJayDubyous.

Speaking as someone accused of being a Soshul Justus Werrier, I always find it curious because I don't really go around demanding LGBT characters or women or whoever else. I enjoy them when they're there, as long as they're not, you know...awful...but even if someone who worked on ACS said that Ned was trans, my reaction would basically be "cool" and then I'd get on with my life. Ned was a fun character in a few missions and...I haven't really thought much about him besides that.

Similarly, I'm not upset because Bayek is a man, or whatever else the rags who report this stuff are on about. I wouldn't care if Layla had been another man, as long as he wasn't as boring as Desmond Mild, etc.

It might have been in there. I didn't read everything on Layla's computer and didn't listen to the audiologs(because I could be exploring ancient egypt).

It was one of the cutscenes with Layla where she said what I remembered (spoilers for the story in this clip, for anyone else who might be reading):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pm7tgeTG0A

About 7:30. It's possible I read too much into it, and I'm less sure if that's what she meant. not sure if it's covered in any of the extra data since I rarely look at it.

Something Amyss:

Dalisclock:
It's kind of the inherent problem of making this all up as you go instead of having any real bible to govern how the lore/backstory is supposed to work.

It's also the problem of having a series that was originally supposed to be a trilogy, because there was no real reason to need this level of backstory to understand in the first place.

Yeah, there's that too. Then somewhere along the way Brotherhood and Revelations got tossed in the mix, being AC 2.5 and 2.75 respectively leading to 5 games in this particular Trilogy, yet AC3 ended up feeling kinda Rushed despite the two and a half year development cycle(apparently they really wanted it to drop in 2012 to coincide with the storyline finale, but it still feels wierd how parts of it feel unfinished).

Brotherhood was fairly good though a bit overzealous with the "Liberate the city, then buy all the shops" stuff but it did expand on the story from AC2 decently. Revelations felt like this weird treading water entry where there were some noticable upgrades to the engine but didn't bring a whole lot to the series. Especially with Desmond being a coma the whole time.

I'm pretty much at the point I tend to care more about each game's story by itself rather then against any greater whole. Ezio's story is this epic revenge tale, Conner had his whole trying to protect his tribe thing going on and his extremely strained relationship with his dad(as well as his uneasy alliance with the American Rebels) and Edward somehow ends up being a strangely likable asshole who only cares for himself and getting paid(to the point it alienates everyone around him who doesn't end up dead). That's the stuff I tend to remember about this series, rather then the ISU stuff or the Templar/Assassin war.

Something Amyss:

Musk concerns me. His cult of celebrity is kind of dangerous. If it can get attention to projects like space travel or greener transit, it could be worth it, but watching him accuse someone of being a pedophile just because Musk's idea wasn't practical in the cave scenario demonstrates how easily that same celebrity can be weaponised. And even if Musk was a saint, that should scare people.

Yeah, I'm all for advancing space travel but Musk seems like he's much better at claiming he's gonna do all this awesome stuff then showing us how he's gonna actually do it. He wants to put a human on mars in 10ish years? Awesome. Call me when you put a human in orbit. I'm waiting.

And the Pedo thing really did not improve my opinion of him personally, to put it mildly.

Musk aside, I'm really not fond of the cult of celebrity certain people develop. Particularly certain politicos but billionare industrialists are just as bad. I want to be impressed by what you do, not what you say and a lot of them seem more interested in PR stunts then showing what can be accomplished.

Something Amyss:

Speaking as someone accused of being a Soshul Justus Werrier, I always find it curious because I don't really go around demanding LGBT characters or women or whoever else. I enjoy them when they're there, as long as they're not, you know...awful...but even if someone who worked on ACS said that Ned was trans, my reaction would basically be "cool" and then I'd get on with my life. Ned was a fun character in a few missions and...I haven't really thought much about him besides that.

Similarly, I'm not upset because Bayek is a man, or whatever else the rags who report this stuff are on about. I wouldn't care if Layla had been another man, as long as he wasn't as boring as Desmond Mild, etc.

I'm kinda in that same place. I'm fine with playing as woman as I am as a man and if that's what the devs want to do, I'm cool with it. In a game with character customizers I'll build the character based off the options and how I feel at that particular time. If you asked me if I liked Bayek or Evie Frye more, I'd say Bayek simply because it felt he was better developed. I liked Evie well enough but I honestly can't really think of any good descriptors for her other then "The Smart, Sneaky, Responsible member of the Frye Twins" whereas Bayek feels like he as a character Arc. Aya does to some extent as well but she was offscreen so much it's not nearly as notable and I really wouldn't have minded seeing more of what Aya was doing while Bayek was tooling around and sightseeing Egypt.

The Ned being possibly being Trans thing, if it ended up being canon, I'd be fine with it. I was honestly more bothered by how much some of the characters felt like cameos then real people then anything else, particularly Syndicate. Karl Marx is in the game? Oh, he's just a quest giver and you play some escort missions with him. Wow, Ubisoft, you didn't try very hard did you? At least the Dickens "ghost club" and the DLC "Dreadful Crimes" missions(with a child version of Arthur Conan Doyle) were kinda interesting conceptually.

Dalisclock:

Something Amyss:

Dalisclock:
It's kind of the inherent problem of making this all up as you go instead of having any real bible to govern how the lore/backstory is supposed to work.

It's also the problem of having a series that was originally supposed to be a trilogy, because there was no real reason to need this level of backstory to understand in the first place.

Yeah, there's that too. Then somewhere along the way Brotherhood and Revelations got tossed in the mix, being AC 2.5 and 2.75 respectively leading to 5 games in this particular Trilogy, yet AC3 ended up feeling kinda Rushed despite the two and a half year development cycle(apparently they really wanted it to drop in 2012 to coincide with the storyline finale, but it still feels wierd how parts of it feel unfinished).

Brotherhood was fairly good though a bit overzealous with the "Liberate the city, then buy all the shops" stuff but it did expand on the story from AC2 decently. Revelations felt like this weird treading water entry where there were some noticable upgrades to the engine but didn't bring a whole lot to the series. Especially with Desmond being a coma the whole time.

I'm pretty much at the point I tend to care more about each game's story by itself rather then against any greater whole. Ezio's story is this epic revenge tale, Conner had his whole trying to protect his tribe thing going on and his extremely strained relationship with his dad(as well as his uneasy alliance with the American Rebels) and Edward somehow ends up being a strangely likable asshole who only cares for himself and getting paid(to the point it alienates everyone around him who doesn't end up dead). That's the stuff I tend to remember about this series, rather then the ISU stuff or the Templar/Assassin war.

AC1, 2 and Brotherhood (haven't gotten to Revelations yet) was clearly building to a final showdown with Desmond in modern day taking town Abstergo aka The Templars. But 'guns are hard', so instead they killed off Desmond and I will never stop being bitter about that.

I mean, the initial point in Brotherhood is 'We need to train you more' while we figure out how to regroup.

Saelune:
AC1, 2 and Brotherhood (haven't gotten to Revelations yet) was clearly building to a final showdown with Desmond in modern day taking town Abstergo aka The Templars. But 'guns are hard', so instead they killed off Desmond and I will never stop being bitter about that.

I mean, the initial point in Brotherhood is 'We need to train you more' while we figure out how to regroup.

Brotherhood I don't mind so much because Brotherhood feels like a fairly natural follow up to AC2 both in the present and in the past. Revelations, OTOH, really does feel like a "AC3 isn't done yet. Please be satisfied with this in the meantime" entry. I liked Revelations but it's one of the more missable entries in the series(along with Unity and Syndicate).

I would be more bitter about Desmond if it hadn't taken all the way out to Revelations(and in the wierd side platformer bit) to give Desmond some actual character development beyond "I am a bartender". What we eventually got wasn't bad but being shunted off to the extra material(which you had to collect stuff to unlock) and 4 games in feels inexcusable.

Just as a specific example, I'll say that it's kind of off-putting when I watch, say, a Nightmare Masterclass Youtube video about Petscop, a Creepypasta video series, and then he ends up spending literally half the video rambling about late stage capitalism (and comments complaining about him ranting about... *drumroll* late stage capitalism)

I kept hoping that he'd go back to discussing the work that the video was ostensibly about... and it ended without that ever happening.

I'm not *offended* by what he was saying. I just don't find it particularly relevant to the purported topic of the video. I felt that he was grasping at threads to make the link, and then spends literally half the video's runtime on it.

Dreiko:
I don't think I've ever run into a right wing publication.

Sounds like someone forgot about Reaxxion.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here