I've played up to Origins and have enjoyed them up to that point. I know the stories of Odyssy and up so far and ehile the RPGs are okay, theyhave issues and feel too bloated at 100 hours just to play the story. Overall, the quality has been going down for a while. The most recent game that was more of a return to pre-RPG era was nice, but the story wasn't as good as past games.
Mrrrrrm... *shouts for @Flaming1 "SPANK ME DADDY!"
Origins and Odyssey were both really good, Valhalla is not bad if you like norse mythology and vikings (Still, a fall off after the good Origins and Odyssey nonetheless). But they are action-adventure-rpgs now, isn't really the same sort of game AC started out as, not much "Assassin" in it honestly.
Maybe I just want to talk about Air conditioners haha
Perfect color.
Youjo Senki or The Saga of Tanya the Evil. It wasn't to prevent r34, it was because the author didn't want her to look cute. She is a psychopathic middle aged Japanese salaryman committing war crimes in magic WWI. He wanted to reflect that with her design, but there's only so much you can do to make a small blond girl not cute without adding some horrible disfigurement.I think I read somewhere that the animators did that her lip on purpose, so that she would be, uh, smol'd... How wrong they were.
What anime is that?
Very strange. It's almost like making a 6'2" black man the man character in feudal Japan is a more apparent misrepresentation with more obvious political motives than aging up a 17 year old in your game aimed at adults. You'd think maybe the discourse around games has changed since 2009 too. I wonder if something happened, maybe around 2014, that would influence discourse and how games are perceived when these issues come up.Google Assassins Creed historical inaccuraries.
You'll find they made shit up in every iteration. Caterina Sforza in AC2 was portrayed much older, when she should've been only 17. She's portrayed as benevolent, when historically she was just as ruthless as the Borgia or Medici families.
Why did no one complain about that? Or any of the hundreds of other historical circumstances and misrepresentations?
You can find countless inaccuracies but no one raised a stink about any of them. Strange.
Do you like the non pointy border?Perfect color.
But are you prepared to talk about air conditioner games? Don't lose a finger I think might be my favorite.
Wait, this thread is only from Saturday?! Dear god.Ha!
You think this is a fever dream? You should go back and read from page 2,500 -
Oh. Yeah.
You must be registered to see attachments
Yes, what is it?
Is it? The devs have been making the "historical accuracy" argument every single time, and every single time it's a lie.
Everything you say's been true in every one of the AC games. Historical events that didn't happen, use of clothing and armor that's in the wrong period, etc. etc.
I think we can thoroughly agree that the game will suck, but that's because it's the same AC clone they've done a million times over. And it's done by Ubisoft.
I don't think a black character in japan called Yasuke who is portayed as Samurai instead of being a Retainer is the thing that made or broke the game.
So the problem's not the historical inaccuracy now, it's that it's a black guy in japan. Why can't there be a game that features him instead of the thousands of games that feature japanese characters? Why do you need to put everything into the framework of some big large conspiracy where a machiavellian villian is trying to force you to play a black guy?
Then why's everyone leading with "black Samurai when he should've just been a retainer" instead of focusing on any of the bigger issues the game actually has? Like bing from Ubisoft. Being a microtransaction game. etc.?
That is one of the best sentences I have ever read.
I'm a standard guy, basically played every AC till AC: Mirage when they changed the combat and stealth for the worst. I had hopes for AC: Shadows going back from the RPG-esque system and God of War style of combat. Only to have Ubislob digging out the only black person in Japan around this time period not for as interesting historical figure but diversity brownie points (blatantly using stolen joke). " Oh if don't like the guy play the woman" or "Oh if you don't like the game play Ghost of Tsushima" are suggestion I despise. Is it so hard to comprehend that I want a Japanese Assassin's Creed with the choice of a Japanese male and female, like 80% of all the people who waited for this game to happened. Yeah but people racist is easier, you know the people who also love other AC titles with diverse characters.Yeah, because they don't really care, there are three kind of people whining at AC Shadows right now, the standard guys that always find a fault with everything before it is even out, so thats normal, then the Japanese that are annoyed that the game in Japan doesn't use a japanese MC, which is fine, though overblown, because there is the japanese Girl right? And the loudest, Racists and misogynists that scream about historical accuracy, but in reality just don't like that the main characters are a black guy and a woman...
Yeah well... the writing is one thing (tho, not native english, so, mhmmm), but I am totally suck with anything that would be related to the art/3d-stuff xDDD
Because those historic inaccuracies are not advertised as historical facts. The whole premise Ubislob build upon was the fanfic of one "historian". The whole argument about AC and historical accuracy is stupid in a game with aliens or mind controlling pope but who has thrown the first stone.Google Assassins Creed historical inaccuraries.
You'll find they made shit up in every iteration. Caterina Sforza in AC2 was portrayed much older, when she should've been only 17. She's portrayed as benevolent, when historically she was just as ruthless as the Borgia or Medici families.
Why did no one complain about that? Or any of the hundreds of other historical circumstances and misrepresentations?
You can find countless inaccuracies but no one raised a stink about any of them. Strange.
It's obviously dumb that they made the most recognizable character in the entire country the secret assassin. It's okay to acknowledge that fact is dumb. It doesn't make anybody racist. It's also dumb that they made Cleopatra black and there are legions of people who actually don't know anything about history whatsoever claiming that it's true and that anyone who disagrees is racist. It's also dumb that they made Achilles black, because obviously that character wouldn't have been black, even if he's not historical. Making Catherine the Great black was also really stupid. Changing historical Norse Jarl Haakon into a black woman was egregiously stupid. All of those statements are true and none of it has to do with being racist.
I fully agree. I wonder every time that so many people say it´is obviously stupid to "black wash" everything and producer still keep it on.
This site provides links to other sites/services, and does not store any files
