Assassin's Creed General Thread: Lets lose a finger

[Zachowon]

Just finished Origins and now playing Odyssey and wanted to talk about some things and the series in general.

Like how I loved the Curse of the Pharoah's in origins.

And bow I cant wait for Valhalla even though it is so far the most historically inaccurate

 

[f1onagher]

Since I don't think this deserves a separate thread I'll make use of this one.



Its the new story trailer for AC: Valhalla.

I am intrigued by the setting, but I've never been a fan of the gameplay direction that started with Origins. Also, I'm far too much of an Alfred the Great fanboy to tolerate however the French inbreds at Ubi will do him dirty. Call me weird but I like the guy that saved Anglo-Saxon civilization against all odds over the slaving pirate assholes that permafucked Ireland. Vangarians are cool though. They should have made this about Vangarians.

Or an Irish Assasin throwing the Vikings out of Ireland. Or an actual Japanese Ninja you dense motherfuckers! Sorry, sorry, it's just so obvious and the Sengoku Jidai period is so cool.

Anyway, I'm just doing this to whine about Ubisoft and see if I can't get some conversation about the game rolling. I am legitimately interested in the setting, I'll just be very patient about getting the game.

 

[Zachowon]

Since I don't think this deserves a separate thread I'll make use of this one.



Its the new story trailer for AC: Valhalla.

I am intrigued by the setting, but I've never been a fan of the gameplay direction that started with Origins. Also, I'm far too much of an Alfred the Great fanboy to tolerate however the French inbreds at Ubi will do him dirty. Call me weird but I like the guy that saved Anglo-Saxon civilization against all odds over the slaving pirate assholes that permafucked Ireland. Vangarians are cool though. They should have made this about Vangarians.

Or an Irish Assasin throwing the Vikings out of Ireland. Or an actual Japanese Ninja you dense motherfuckers! Sorry, sorry, it's just so obvious and the Sengoku Jidai period is so cool.

Anyway, I'm just doing this to whine about Ubisoft and see if I can't get some conversation about the game rolling. I am legitimately interested in the setting, I'll just be very patient about getting the game.

Thier AC games, the newer ones are also Long as fuck and are pretty accurate with what is going on.
Odyssey is long as hell. One of the longest AC games.
I like the gameplay changes they did in Origins, liked and disliked some of them in Odyssey. I wish they kept the crafting to better gear in Ody.

Valhalla looks very good.

 

[Nikkolas]

I really need to get into these games. I bought AC2. I just fuckin' hate how they work on PC. I bought them on Steam but nope, you launch it in Steam and then it says you need Uplay to play it. Ugh. What's the fucking point of it being on Steam, then? They do the same thing with Dragon Age needing Origin to run.

 

[Zachowon]

I really need to get into these games. I bought AC2. I just fuckin' hate how they work on PC. I bought them on Steam but nope, you launch it in Steam and then it says you need Uplay to play it. Ugh. What's the fucking point of it being on Steam, then? They do the same thing with Dragon Age needing Origin to run.

SO they sell keys on Steam but the game itself is stored by their home companies.
It literally does not add much. I don't see the issue

 

[Nikkolas]

SO they sell keys on Steam but the game itself is stored by their home companies.
It literally does not add much. I don't see the issue

It just seems stupid. I'm pretty much against all these separate "players" or whatever they're called. Rockstar's launcher for GTAIV fucked up so many things for me when I played it for the first time earlier this year because it doesn't allow modding or something. I just wanted teh original radio but even though I own the game, I had to figure out how to play it while still getting the original music.

So there's Uplay, Rockstar, Origin, how many others?

 

[Zachowon]

It just seems stupid. I'm pretty much against all these separate "players" or whatever they're called. Rockstar's launcher for GTAIV fucked up so many things for me when I played it for the first time earlier this year because it doesn't allow modding or something. I just wanted teh original radio but even though I own the game, I had to figure out how to play it while still getting the original music.

So there's Uplay, Rockstar, Origin, how many others?

That is it, that you can buy through steam. Blizzard has thiers and the only way you can play the newer COD games, then you have EPIC, but I wont give my information to China, and Uplay for the newest AC, but you will already have that downloaded for steam.

It is honestly only a small issue.

 

[prinCZess]

I really need to get into these games. I bought AC2. I just fuckin' hate how they work on PC. I bought them on Steam but nope, you launch it in Steam and then it says you need Uplay to play it. Ugh. What's the fucking point of it being on Steam, then? They do the same thing with Dragon Age needing Origin to run.

Ubisoft is really bad about being a badgering bother of a game company, in my experience. I remember them jaggering about Uplay on prior Assassins Creed titles, and asking for a Ubisoft account on Rainbow Six Siege being a process for a buddy of mine when they wanted to play that, and generally just being a bother.
It being on Steam and still doing the same would be...doubly frustrating, no doubt. Whole point of Steam is that it's so universal as a launcher.

As to Assassins Creed...
I liked the first few games a good deal. They appealed to both the history-nerd section of my mind (spending way too long reading about historical buildings, events or characters in the Codex was too much fun--especially when they adopted a semi-snarky British persona to the narrator) and to the conspiratorial, black-helicopters amusement side of things with the grab-bag of Templars and Assassins and whatnot. I think both those cool aspects kind of...went off the rails after Black Flag or so (that's where I checked out at least) and it shifted to be less about both of those things or any kind of historical or even historically-adjacent storylining or 'tourism' and more about ancients and aliens and mythology and the like--at least as I perceive it watching bit and pieces of the newer ones.

Ezio Auditore was a fun character in general, and I'm one of the apparently odd-birds that thought the slight tweaks of tower-defense and stuff from...the Istanbul/Constantinople game was a fun sidetrack. Three was kind of a slog and...a bit typecasting in characters, but I spent entirely too much time in Black Flag sailing about indulging pirate nonsense.

Never got into any of the multiplayer, but it honestly seemed like a kind of neat idea. That kind of mind-gamey, 'blend-in-with-NPCs' kind of schtick always appealed to me as a mechanic.

Seen the newer ones played a bit, and some surface interesting stuff but...I dunnow, didn't seem to be nearly the same focus on history as anything more than to be nodded at with name-drops at best, and the combat was never a big interest to me so it getting 'better' just...meh. Didn't care about.
Valhalla is pretty, but seems like an iteration on the previous two (three?) with a different setting and...as far as I'm aware the framing-piece storylines from the modern world that were always fun breaks has been largely abandoned or sidelined?

 

[Zachowon]

Ubisoft is really bad about being a badgering bother of a game company, in my experience. I remember them jaggering about Uplay on prior Assassins Creed titles, and asking for a Ubisoft account on Rainbow Six Siege being a process for a buddy of mine when they wanted to play that, and generally just being a bother.
It being on Steam and still doing the same would be...doubly frustrating, no doubt. Whole point of Steam is that it's so universal as a launcher.

As to Assassins Creed...
I liked the first few games a good deal. They appealed to both the history-nerd section of my mind (spending way too long reading about historical buildings, events or characters in the Codex was too much fun--especially when they adopted a semi-snarky British persona to the narrator) and to the conspiratorial, black-helicopters amusement side of things with the grab-bag of Templars and Assassins and whatnot. I think both those cool aspects kind of...went off the rails after Black Flag or so (that's where I checked out at least) and it shifted to be less about both of those things or any kind of historical or even historically-adjacent storylining or 'tourism' and more about ancients and aliens and mythology and the like--at least as I perceive it watching bit and pieces of the newer ones.

Ezio Auditore was a fun character in general, and I'm one of the apparently odd-birds that thought the slight tweaks of tower-defense and stuff from...the Istanbul/Constantinople game was a fun sidetrack. Three was kind of a slog and...a bit typecasting in characters, but I spent entirely too much time in Black Flag sailing about indulging pirate nonsense.

Never got into any of the multiplayer, but it honestly seemed like a kind of neat idea. That kind of mind-gamey, 'blend-in-with-NPCs' kind of schtick always appealed to me as a mechanic.

Seen the newer ones played a bit, and some surface interesting stuff but...I dunnow, didn't seem to be nearly the same focus on history as anything more than to be nodded at with name-drops at best, and the combat was never a big interest to me so it getting 'better' just...meh. Didn't care about.
Valhalla is pretty, but seems like an iteration on the previous two (three?) with a different setting and...as far as I'm aware the framing-piece storylines from the modern world that were always fun breaks has been largely abandoned or sidelined?

They are not as important, but it is still there and you learn a very large amount of it.

And honestly? The newer ones have a lot of history in them. And are accurate in a lot of things that go on.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

They are not as important, but it is still there and you learn a very large amount of it.

And honestly? The newer ones have a lot of history in them. And are accurate in a lot of things that go on.

If we ignore "politically correct" garbage like a vase being intentionally missrepresented as having "a boy and a girl being taught" rather than the actual two boys.

 

[Zachowon]

If we ignore "politically correct" garbage like a vase being intentionally missrepresented as having "a boy and a girl being taught" rather than the actual two boys.

hm? I am confused.

 

[f1onagher]

Assassins Creed should have continued on about the conflict between the Hashin and the Templars only. Then Ubi could have just had a historical series where we play as pirates, Vikings, Hoplites, Indians, or whatever. The entire modern day stuff should have been jettisoned and the ancient aliens turned way down and just used as the magical MacGuffins that pop up throughout the games.

But the complete abandonment of the social stealth components of the series is unacceptable. The pure awesome of being Altair in AC1 was amazing. You scouted out your target, gathered intel on entrances, exits, guards, and hiding places. Then you had multiple avenues of assassinating your target and open combat was seriously discouraged. That was mostly gone by about Unity.

However, like every other opinionated nerd on the internet, I have recently purchased the newest game despite my protestations. It's the first game I've bought since Unity and its... alright. It strongly supports my argument that Ubi should just have a generic history series as being a Viking troubleshooter is fun. I can't help but compare it to Red Redemption 2 and Ghost of Tsushima though. Both of those games had much more robust and immersive open-world systems, Red Dead had much better RPG elements and Ghost had far superior stealth and combat mechanics. And of course, when compared to a proper stealth game like the old Thief games or more recently the Styx series Valhalla is barely trying.

 

[Zachowon]

So technically they are still fighting the Templars and brotherhood, we are just seeing them in their youth, especially in Origins and Odyssey. Havnt played Valhalla yet.

They make them all tie in and have done good with the story somewhat keeping it tied together.

It should be noted that the modern day scenes in the AC games, newer ones are very minor. Compared to the old ones. I personally like the newer ones for its combat system and its stealth, as as someone who sucks at stealth, I enjoy the newer system.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

hm? I am confused.

"Let's rewrite History because muh sexism!"

 

[Zachowon]

"Let's rewrite History because muh sexism!"

Well, based off that you get to choose between make and female that is most likely way, to match up with the game.

SO one example. O wow! So terrible! That is also minor. Show them making some major well known historical figure completely different then their historical coutnerparts...

 

[Battlegrinder]

SO one example. O wow! So terrible! That is also minor. Show them making some major well known historical figure completely different then their historical coutnerparts...

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

Does turning the story of the viking invasion of England into a tale about how colonialism is awesome and the nazis were totally right about the innate superiority of the norse over everyone else count?


As a general note, I'm suspicious of any sort of historical reinterpretation akin to what ubisoft is doing, because departing from the anchor of real history opens the work up to contemporary prejudices seeping in instead, such as the generally anti-christian sentiment in valhalla, and that the cited reasoning of "being more inclusive" has never really held up to scrutiny.

 

[Zachowon]

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

Does turning the story of the viking invasion of England into a tale about how colonialism is awesome and the nazis were totally right about the innate superiority of the norse over everyone else count?


As a general note, I'm suspicious of any sort of historical reinterpretation akin to what ubisoft is doing, because departing from the anchor of real history opens the work up to contemporary prejudices seeping in instead, such as the generally anti-christian sentiment in valhalla, and that the cited reasoning of "being more inclusive" has never really held up to scrutiny.

I mean, they killed Christians because they were christian. The vikings did not care fornthem. Why is that an issue?

 

[Battlegrinder]

I mean, they killed Christians because they were christian. The vikings did not care fornthem. Why is that an issue?

Did you read the article? Because when he says

Now, do I think that the developers set out to create a sanitized defense of colonialism (much less an apologia for Nazi race ideology)? Of course not. But they ended up doing it anyway.

It's pretty clear what he means.

 

[Zachowon]

Did you read the article? Because when he says



It's pretty clear what he means.

Have...you ever seen viking shows? They kinda show that as well to a degree

 

[almostinsane]

I am intrigued by the setting, but I've never been a fan of the gameplay direction that started with Origins. Also, I'm far too much of an Alfred the Great fanboy to tolerate however the French inbreds at Ubi will do him dirty. Call me weird but I like the guy that saved Anglo-Saxon civilization against all odds over the slaving pirate assholes that permafucked Ireland. Vangarians are cool though. They should have made this about Vangarians.

Every work of fiction set in this era likes to glorify vikings over Anglo-Saxons. We all know it's because a Christian civilization has to be the oppressor somehow.