Jul
1st
2019
PSA: Assassin's Creed · 7:49pm Jul 1st, 2019
Time for an important public service announcement! Assassin's Creed is not historical! Dear Steam, please stop catigorising it as such, dear Ubisoft, please stop advertising it as such (and don't tell me they don't... they literally popped up on my Uplay with an advert saying "play through history in Assassin's Creed") and dear people, please, PLEASE don't base your knowledge of history on its games!
A Song of Ice and Fire is a better and more faithful fiction adaptation of the War of the Roses, than Odyssey is of the Peloponnesian War. 
Report
Rainbow FlutterDash · 123 views
·
Haha yeah that franchise is most definitely historical fiction. Emphasis on the fiction
5082554
It's fantasy fiction set in a historically-inspired universe.
Odyssey is the first game you can make real choices in, but they put in a lot of work to be for the most part accurate to history. Unity is even being used with models for the restoration of Notre Dame cathedral.
5082929
I should've added the caveat that they get the architecture spot on, just not the lore. Aside from that they clearly put very little work in at all. I've played Odyssey - admittedly I've only played that one and the original - but both are terrible in terms of history, Odyssey especially so.
5082932
Well I would suggest giving the others a try. Odyssey as I said has choice, something that I both dislike and like, for most games I think it is a great thing, for Assassin's creed, eh, perks and cons. That being said, history is your to mold just as much or even more follow.
What was unhistorical from Assassin's creed 1? If I remember they barely touched on history there, pretty much it was, kill, this guy, now kill that guy, now kill this guy, now that guy, now ride into battle to kill this last guy, now fight they guy who told you to kill these people.
5082935
The choice isn't the problem, I'm talking about the portrayal of the war, the ship designs and colours, the armour and weapons etc etc etc. I don't mind being able to change history as long as everything except you is accurate.
The Ḥashīshiyyīn or Assassins are portrayed comically different from the historical ones, and they just appropriate historical characters like Robert de Sable for their own purposes. There's a giant cathedral and European castle in Acre for some reason, plus way too much European architecture in that city. Then there's the weapons and armour... the armour's okay I guess, but the fact that all of the soldiers use swords and no one uses shields? That is rather absurd. Of course, that could be forgiven as simply too much work for the devs I guess. It's certainly better than Odyssey, but still not great...
PS: Better in historical accuracy, Odyssey is definitely a better game, I actually like it quite a bit, but it could be SOOOOOO much better.
PPS: As I said on the other thread, I'm too tired to keep this up, goodnight!!!
5082944
ah very well
I kinda don't think the Templars were really a secretive organization either like that, but I can approve of some non historical things if it's to make the game more fun, I don't think they do that with everyone and everything certainly.
with AC1's gameplay a shield would be too much to find a way to properly put in. Why don't the British, French, Spanish, just shoot you all the time in the AC games? Because if they just shot you all the time you would not play the game because you would keep dying all the time, but I get it on the architecture. I do remember there were Templar shields that had arrows in them, showing the Templars DID use the shields to fight, just not to fight you.
By no means do I want you to stay up, get your sleep, the last thing I would ever want is to be unwanted company.
5082952
And I truly don't blame them! So that's why it's important to get things right in the historical context... I wouldn't mind if in Odyssey you really were a super powerful demigod who can kill hundreds and completely change history as long as YOU the player are the only thing that's inaccurate, because people would get that.
That's true, there were shields on the ground. I'm just very finicky when it comes to historical or scientific accuracy, because popular culture informs most people what those things are really like... not everyone spends hours a day reading about it like me.
It's the little things that just skew people's perception of the past. From the little things for instance the fact that Greeks didn't wear bracers, or the fact that battles are depicted as a huge melee rather than formation battles fought in Phalanx... especially bad is Thermopylon which makes it look, as in the 300 that the Lakedaimons only held so long based on their great skill alone, rather than because they held the phalanx formation. I also seem to recall as usual they were depicted as only three hundred Lakedaimon Spartan hoplites, rather than the historical 1,700 other hoplites from otehr city-states (of which about ~1,000 retreated before the third day, but not all.)
Then there's the ones that actually matter like presenting the Iranian Achaemenid Empire as evil and the Lakedaimons as heroic, which can bias modern opinions making Europe look better than the Middle East throughout all of history which is just not true at all. I would argue that the Achaemenid Empire, being devoid of slaves, a relative bastion of women's rights (emphasis on 'relative') peaceful, orderly, secure and connected by safe functional roads etc, etc was vastly preferable to even Athenai, - which though democratic was far more sexist than the Iranians and had many, many slaves - and therefore WAY better than the Lakedaimons also more sexist and literally holding an entire ethnic group of people as slaves (sound familiar?), with a brutal diarchy contrasting Athenai's liberty, and their famous hoplites routinely engaging in homosexual pedophilia with their proteges - bet you don't hear that one from Spartan-loving internet trolls -, whose right of passage was to kill one of those innocent slaves I mentioned.
The game, as with most things, seems to portray the Lakedaimons as better than the Athenai who are better than the Iranians. This is the EXACT opposite of history and it's really, really annoying.
5083129
I think most would know to do research on their own if thew want to claim they are versed in these subjects. While AC definitely may give them information, I believe most would look into it themselves. I think anyway
The Ḥashīshiyyīn or Assassins I kinda expect to be portrayed differently than how they really were. AC is about the fact that the Templars/Order of the Ancients/Cult of Kosmos, and the Assassins have existed long before they were public in history and long after they faded. Do you truly think anyone thinks it accurate that the Templars have been warring in the shadows with the Assassins and influencing history? I really hope not, yes they act differently, the history we know of them is what the Assassins and Templars want us to believe, they want us to believe they were just a small part of history that fought in the Crusades, their true history is beyond what the books tell you, that's what the main theme with this game is. Seeing history how it "truly" happened. There are of course accurate things you would find in the books, but finding the pure unfiltered truth is something that almost never happens. To the victors goes the spoils, goes the truth, and from there they write it as they want to. In AC The Bible holds some truths as the Templars point out in either a comic or a game (don't remember) that The Bible was right about The Garden of Eden being real, but that it was far from a paradise. There was an Eden, there was an Adam and Eve. But Eden was a place where the Isu reigned and controlled humanity with their Apples of Eden, and it was where Adam and Eve, two Human-Isu hybrids who were immune to its control stole an apple and used it to override the neurotransmitters within humans and start the Human-Isu war.
Bracers. Really? I kinda think someone is being a wee bit nitpicky here. Just a tad
In AC3 why do you think Connor didn't fight with the Continental Army against the British in the battle of Bunker Hill by standing in a line and shooting a musket at the British? Because if you ask me, that would be REALLY boring. Same reason there's not phalanx battle in ACO. They wanted you to take part in battles, and fighting in a Phalanx would be a bit boring in my eyes. Certainly more boring than the battles that remind me of that big battle in Star wars where Jango Fett died. If they werren't pleasing players would just say "F*** it. Deal with this yourself Athens/Sparta.
The beginning was to show you how battles would take place to give you a taste of what is to come. May be inaccurate but the opening of a game can be pivotal on how interested players so they kinda had to make the battle seem as epic as possible. Will touch more on this later
What part made them seem evil exactly? Just to clarify.
Are you trying to talk about familiar in the game or outside it? Honestly not sure here.
Can't help but detect some spite here. I myself prefer Athens way of life over Sparta, but I do believe historians agree for the most part, Athens was more aggressive and holds more blame in starting this war
Last bit here. I will admit this isn't the strongest thing, but I think it's worth mentioning. Imagine just for a second, you fought for a side in a war, you had an entire experience fighting alongside an army (take any army in history or you can even use the legion and stormcloaks of TES 5) You do all this work for them. Then you lose. After all that, everything was for nothing. Would that not feel like the biggest anticlimax ever? Imagine AC3 you supported the British like virtually all indigenous peoples did, and you lose. Would that not feel like a let down? In a game, most people want to win, and it was written that Sparta would be triumphant. Ergo, they kinda pushed you to side with them so you to could feel triumphant. When the Assassins lose during the Sever Years War, you're playing as a Templar and you're thrashing them left and right so you can feel triumphant, and in that case, they showed that the Assassins can be pretty horrible people (at least this chapter of the Brotherhood) And that Haytham and his Colonial Rite were really not bad people that just wanted to help the colonies in the way they thought best.
(I know this took me forever to get back to. I apologize for the tardiness. My laptop ran out of power and a near complete draft was erased so I lost a lot of will to even write this, then I had to deal with some.....personal issues. One way or another sorry I took so long.)
5087456
I have no time to try to remember what the hell this argument was about.
Undoubtedly whatever this novel is, it will annoy me, so I am not going to read it. I apologise for all your wasted hard work.
5087480
You don't remember? It was about how you owed me 100,000 dollars, and your car, and that you had to unicycle across a tightrope in the circus.wasn't so much an argument as it was a bit of discussion. And it was on weather or not AC was historical or not.
And that's fine, never want to force anyone into this.
5087488
Yeah, I remember. It is certainly not historical, maybe I'll get around to reading your comment later on.
5087495
take your time, no rush at all. I honestly have 91 different blogs to respond to and rising, plus 19 notification and 700 feed, needles to say I've got a lot on my plate