PDA

View Full Version : Interesting AC related article by Yahtzee



Sushiglutton
03-19-2015, 06:03 PM
Saw it on Gaf first: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1012294. Here's the full article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/13644-Maximum-Accessibility-Would-Doom-An-N64-Majora-s-Mask-Today



It may seem like the article is about Majoras Mask, but it also says a lot about AC:



I think the interesting question to ask ourselves is this: could Majora's Mask be made today, in the industry as it stands? Anything goes in the indie circles, obviously, but could it ever be considered and developed as a full-on triple-A first party release, as it was back in N64 times?


No. I strongly doubt that it could. Most obviously for the fact that the timing mechanic could give a **** for how the player wants to experience the game. (...) I find it interesting that there's so much of the game you can miss, just because most of the people and events involved in sidequests are working to a schedule regardless of your actions. It's not the case that characters simply wait indefinitely in their little rooms for the player to enter, at which point they are instantly ready to concisely express the most salient points of the situation.


This is almost completely unique in the field of video game structuring. Most video games simply guide the player along like it's walking a dog, yanking on the leash when the dog takes exploration too far. Even in a sandbox game where the player chooses their own route, all the enemies, story missions and encounters are kept in stasis, waiting for them to approach so that they can activate, like the pop-up cardboard monsters on a cheap ghost train. Meanwhile, Majora's Mask feels like a game world existing without necessarily being aware of the player inside it.


(....) what we mean is, everything the player has achieved gets undone. But that's a difficult sell, too. One of the main things that drives commercial game design these days is that the player has to constantly be feeling like they're achieving progress. This is why the concept of 'Achievements' was invented. And why they're called 'Achievements' as opposed to 'Drops in the ocean of futility'.


I suppose my point is that Majora's Mask probably couldn't be made today because games are designed these days for the sake of maximum accessibility. If a player is confused for one second too long by a menu interface it goes back for another iteration. Even Dark Souls has a consistent sense of progress; Majora's Mask is an idea birthed from the intention to deliberately drag the player down and **** with them. I don't think publishers would buy that nowadays, and it's a shame, because sometimes deliberately ****ing with the player can make a strong artistic statement. That's why I want to make a game for the Xbone that makes the console catch fire and explode. I'm thinking the Arts Council will give me a grant if I show them Ryse: Son of Rome

SixKeys
03-19-2015, 06:43 PM
I read this earlier too, but I don't see it as being particularly AC-related. This is pretty much how all modern (triple A) gaming works, not just Ubisoft's games.

There are things I agree and disagree with regarding the approach of old-school games like Majora's Mask versus modern games. The truth is, the world of gaming moves a lot faster these days. It used to be a huge event when a single big title was released for any console. Gaming outlets were abuzz with news about that upcoming title for months, sometimes years. Nowadays the market is inundated with games. People have to pick and choose from a wide variety of games to sink their time in. And that's where the "need" for constant achieving of progress comes in. Game companies simply can't afford to invest big money into obscure games that may frustrate the player to the point of quitting halfway. In the old days, the player would buy maybe one or two big games a year and they would spend months trying to crack each puzzle and collect every collectible. Even when they got frustrated, they would put the game down for a few days and then return to it again because there was nothing else to play. Now if players get frustrated with a game to the point of giving up, they will in all likelihood move on to other games. They will remember that frustration from that one company's game and how they couldn't be bothered to finish it, and tht frustration may affect their willingness to buy more games from that company in the future. How to prevent that? By flattering the player with constant rewards (easy trophies and achievements) to give them a good feeling that keeps them coming back for more.

Sushiglutton
03-19-2015, 08:26 PM
I read this earlier too, but I don't see it as being particularly AC-related. This is pretty much how all modern (triple A) gaming works, not just Ubisoft's games.

This is absolutely true! The reason I thought about AC is because it fits in with the factory made-issues I have with AC. When I compare to the old Ninty games they felt much more crafted through and through.

But you are correct that GOTY candidates (not for me, but on many sites) like Shadow Of More def fits into the description.



There are things I agree and disagree with regarding the approach of old-school games like Majora's Mask versus modern games. The truth is, the world of gaming moves a lot faster these days. It used to be a huge event when a single big title was released for any console. Gaming outlets were abuzz with news about that upcoming title for months, sometimes years. Nowadays the market is inundated with games. People have to pick and choose from a wide variety of games to sink their time in. And that's where the "need" for constant achieving of progress comes in. Game companies simply can't afford to invest big money into obscure games that may frustrate the player to the point of quitting halfway. In the old days, the player would buy maybe one or two big games a year and they would spend months trying to crack each puzzle and collect every collectible. Even when they got frustrated, they would put the game down for a few days and then return to it again because there was nothing else to play. Now if players get frustrated with a game to the point of giving up, they will in all likelihood move on to other games. They will remember that frustration from that one company's game and how they couldn't be bothered to finish it, and tht frustration may affect their willingness to buy more games from that company in the future. How to prevent that? By flattering the player with constant rewards (easy trophies and achievements) to give them a good feeling that keeps them coming back for more.


Some good explanations in here. You are probably right games have to fight much harder to not lose the gamers, because the competition of player's time is so much more fierce. And one tactic is by giving the feeling of constant progress. Also the budgets are way higher which drives the need for more effective manufacturing. And the budgets also drives the need to maximum the number of player who consume a certain bit of content, which is way modern games try to make sure that all content is hard to miss.

I still think it's a bit of a shame, because it means less interesting games imo. In the article Yahtzee also says:


Enough precedent has gone by that certain things are established as The Way Things Are Done. We have names for all the standard items on the checklist, like 'critical path' and 'player training'. It gets harder and harder to break things down the fundamentals and try something completely new, especially for an installment of a long-established franchise.

Farlander1991
03-19-2015, 08:43 PM
When I compare to the old Ninty games they felt much more crafted through and through.

IMO this is the problem with comparing to old games, usually people compare with very good classics (be it well-known or not so well-known) that stood the test of time, but they don't compare to all the ****tons of other games most of which weren't any better or more well-made than games today. And, heck, actually revisiting the classics is also a weird experience - I've noticed that these days, replaying old titles, rarely do I like an awesome game that I loved a long time ago as much as I did back then, that's because overall, despite the perceived state of 'not moving forward', things have in fact improved a lot.

The answer to Yahtzee question is pretty simple, though. Yes, Majora's Mask could've been made today. The problem is, a game like Majora's Mask already exists, is not THAT old (and was recently re-released), and it's not a type of game that you would see often even back then (and by that I mean you wouldn't see a game like it pretty much at all, with the only exception being an absolutely niche and commercially failed The Last Express a few years back which you may see some similarities with in terms of how it handles time), so why would you expect to see it often now?

Sushiglutton
03-19-2015, 08:51 PM
IMO this is the problem with comparing to old games, usually people compare with very good classics (be it well-known or not so well-known) that stood the test of time, but they don't compare to all the ****tons of other games most of which weren't any better or more well-made than games today.

This is very true. However I do think Nintendo games have stood the test of time very well in general.



And, heck, actually revisiting the classics is also a weird experience - I've noticed that these days, replaying old titles, rarely do I like an awesome game that I loved a long time ago as much as I did back then, that's because overall, despite the perceived state of 'not moving forward', things have in fact improved a lot.

I'm playing Devil May Cry 4 atm and a lot of old school conventions pisse me off :p. Like for example you have to play all stages in one go. So if you get to a boss and die a couple of times and feel like doing something else you will have to replay the whole stage (not that I ever die of course :rolleyes:). It's just annoying in general how the game handles checkpoints and stuff like that. So yeah a lot of stuff we now take for granted have def resulted in a smoother and more enjoyable experience.

SixKeys
03-19-2015, 09:33 PM
IMO this is the problem with comparing to old games, usually people compare with very good classics (be it well-known or not so well-known) that stood the test of time, but they don't compare to all the ****tons of other games most of which weren't any better or more well-made than games today. And, heck, actually revisiting the classics is also a weird experience - I've noticed that these days, replaying old titles, rarely do I like an awesome game that I loved a long time ago as much as I did back then, that's because overall, despite the perceived state of 'not moving forward', things have in fact improved a lot.


Very true. I've actually been surprised to see how honest the reception has been for Grim Fandango's re-release - and not in a completely positive way. It's a game that has been viewed as a classic masterpiece for many years and people have been clamoring for a re-release. Now the game is out again and a lot of reviews are going: "Ehm.....Frankly it's not quite as good as we remembered." Usually reviews for re-releases are tinted by rose-colored nostalgia glasses, but not so much in GF's case.

Farlander1991
03-19-2015, 10:13 PM
Very true. I've actually been surprised to see how honest the reception has been for Grim Fandango's re-release - and not in a completely positive way. It's a game that has been viewed as a classic masterpiece for many years and people have been clamoring for a re-release. Now the game is out again and a lot of reviews are going: "Ehm.....Frankly it's not quite as good as we remembered." Usually reviews for re-releases are tinted by rose-colored nostalgia glasses, but not so much in GF's case.

Yeah, like Grim Fandango's visual style is still pretty awesome, and the writing and overall story/plot hold up as well, but more in terms of gameplay, there's stuff that's not really up to today's standards, like arbitrary obstacles that are there just for some additional puzzle thing and have little to no narrative value, or places where you don't even know what puzzle you're solving exactly, you just are doing things that work out hoping that it will lead to something.

Megas_Doux
03-19-2015, 11:22 PM
When I compare to the old Ninty games they felt much more crafted through and through.



:

I think there┤s a lot of Nostalgia factor!

Standards were pretty different back then, a lot. Positive, releases were better regarding performance, there was no transmedia, DLC, 849348309 editions and all those non friendly practices. However I was able to beat RE2 and Metal Gear Solid, two my favorite games ever, within just 6 hours AT most, no multiplayer was required, or even forced, acting was awful and selling 1 million copies within a time frame of a year was considered a huge success.....

A whole different thing.

I Cant talk about Majora┤s mask, for I┤ve never played ANY Zelda game.

ze_topazio
03-19-2015, 11:42 PM
I think there┤s a lot of Nostalgia factor!

Standards were pretty different back then, a lot. Positive, releases were better regarding performance, there was no transmedia, DLC, 849348309 editions and all those non friendly practices. However I was able to beat RE2 and Metal Gear Solid, two my favorite games ever, within just 6 hours AT most, no multiplayer was required, or even forced, acting was awful and selling 1 million copies within a time frame of a year was considered a huge success.....

A whole different thing.

I Cant talk about Majora┤s mask, for I┤ve never played ANY Zelda game.

My record for Resident Evil 2 was around 50 minutes.

Farlander1991
03-20-2015, 12:06 AM
Warning, some of the next sentences will be sarcastic, but are not meant to be 'aggressive'.


there was no transmedia

Yeah, cause there was no Shadows of the Empire (each part of the media telling a different part of the story), no special Space Quest comics, no King's Quest novelizations, no WarCraft and Diablo novels (those started at like year 2000), no Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog animated series, etc. etc. (granted, half of the transmedia wasn't lore-connecting like AC, or WC or stuff like that, but it was still pretty present).


DLC

Yeah, cause there were no expansion packs, most of which not only divided the multiplayer part of the community (a problem that sometimes is prevalent now as well), but also a lot of them were just overpriced map packs with little to no meaningful content (not every expansion pack of olden days was SC: BroodWar)


849348309 editions

If you mean editions that divide temporary exclusive game content, then yeah, most of those didn't exist, but if we speak about different collector's editions and editions with a couple goodies, then those have pretty much existed, and they were all over the place and sometimes really depended on regional publisher.

My point is, a lot of the practices that we hate now, have existed for quite some time, we just didn't notice them (or maybe even thought that they were cool) for the most part because, just like games weren't as prevalent, those practices didn't seem as prevalent also.

Megas_Doux
03-20-2015, 12:07 AM
My record for Resident Evil 2 was around 50 minutes.

Yeah, 6 hours at most for a 9 years old kid. I was able to beat the game once I had memorized EVERY detail in HARD difficulty within two hours. I can picture Angry joe yelling at his camera with that slow motion effect of "2 HOURS IN HARD ?????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Are you @=&$#"!$#&% kidding me??????? Or Total biscuit saying he could barely hit 898989298293898989 FPS and thus, the game is awful.

As I said, for bad and for good expectations these days are way different from what they used to be 15 years ago.



Warning, some of the next sentences will be sarcastic, but are not meant to be 'aggressive'.

.

Oh well, I said what I said about games I played, but you have a point.

SixKeys
03-20-2015, 12:22 AM
Regarding transmedia and DLC, it's not that they weren't always prevalent, it's that they were treated as something extra rather than a missing piece of the main plot. How many times have we heard "read the novel" when someone asks about an unexplained plothole in one of the AC games? As if novels were a proper replacement for not having plotholes in the first place. But Ubi (and other companies) seem to be going out of their way to create vague stories with bits so clearly left unexplained that it's transparently obvious they're designed to make you get the "missing scenes" by buying DLC and comics and books and whatnot. A good example of this being Elise's dodgy behavior in Unity with her constant "I have something I need to take care of first" which is never explained in the game but apparently is in the book.

This picture explains it perfectly:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--43O0UQV4--/1989w9qs44b91jpg.jpg

ze_topazio
03-20-2015, 12:39 AM
Yeah, 6 hours at most for a 9 years old kid. I was able to beat the game once I had memorized EVERY detail in HARD difficulty within two hours. I can picture Angry joe yelling at his camera with that slow motion effect of "2 HOURS IN HARD ?????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Are you @=&$#"!$#&% kidding me??????? Or Total biscuit saying he could barely hit 898989298293898989 FPS and thus, the game is awful.

As I said, for bad and for good expectations these days are way different from what they used to be 15 years ago.


I think that if I really tried I could recite the entire script of RE2 out of memory and I haven't touch that game in way more than 10 years, that's how much I played it back in the days, I probably could do the same for RE1 and 3.

pirate1802
03-20-2015, 07:37 AM
As always, Lord Farlander and Lady Sixkeys speak the truth.

Farlander1991
03-20-2015, 01:59 PM
Regarding transmedia and DLC, it's not that they weren't always prevalent, it's that they were treated as something extra rather than a missing piece of the main plot.

Not necessarily. Games like WarCraft 3 use lore from the novels based on WC1 and WC2, so even if you played those games, some things will be 'eeeeh, what?!' without additional knowledge. And that's just one of possible examples.

Yeah, AC can be bad at transmedia (though I disagree with Elise's example, I personally think that it's precisely just something extra and there's nothing in ACU plot that REQUIRES us to know what happened with Elise at the time), but it's not like every game series is like that.


This picture explains it perfectly:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--43O0UQV4--/1989w9qs44b91jpg.jpg

Oh, this picture. You know, this picture is not without its merits. However I have several problems with it.
First, it overglorifies the expansion packs of 1999. Awesome expansion packs like in example have existed then, of course, and they also exist now btw, but even in the 90s there were a lot of expansion packs that were like in the 2005 example (more of the same) or LAst-GEn example (Stuff cut from the original game that would be put in expansion, because this kind of thing is NOT new, budgets and time limits always have existed). It's more of the 'grass was greener back then' kind of thing, which is kinda ********.

Some of the stuff I agree with, like store exclusives and micro-transactions, but here's the thing, if digital and internet were as spread out back then like they are now, we'd have that stuff back then too. The problem is twofold, though, the exclusives one is because retailers have still too much power these days, and the microtransaction one is a problem because gamers themselves pay, so this practice continues. I don't agree with microtransactions on non-F2P games, but if this stuff wouldn't bring money then it would have stopped already.

VestigialLlama4
03-20-2015, 05:37 PM
Majora's Mask is the only game, correct that, the only artwork in any medium, that gets time travel right. It's a game where the side activities tell the main story. The game is all about the quests to complete to get the masks, it revolves around observing and interacting with NPC behaviour, and spending time and hanging out with them. The dungeon stuff is kind of secondary and the real victory is giving away all those masks to the bad guy in that hide-and-seek game. It's a game of mini-stories, with a fairly simple plot about saving the world. It's how annualization should be done, taking established assets (Ocarina of Time) and reformulating it in a new way, not taking away anything from the first game but doing something a major release can't do.

So Croshaw is right in that regards. Assassin's Creed, aside from say the Tyranny DLC and the Desmond's Journey side missions have rarely shown an experimental side in their annualized products. AC3 was their most experimental title in that it reformulated Parkour in entirely natural environments, the Homestead was essentially the Zelda errand-mechanic reformulated to colonial times. The game also built the assets and elements that all successive titles have been harvesting since then.

SixKeys
03-20-2015, 05:56 PM
Not necessarily. Games like WarCraft 3 use lore from the novels based on WC1 and WC2, so even if you played those games, some things will be 'eeeeh, what?!' without additional knowledge. And that's just one of possible examples.

I'm not familiar with Warcraft, so I wouldn't know about that. I'm sure you can find some examples of old games doing this kind of stuff back in the day, but it wasn't anywhere near as prevalent as today. It's more difficult for me to come up with triple A titles that don't adhere to these practices today than titles that do. Nintendo didn't hop on the microtransactions and DLC train for a long time, but even they have finally taken the plunge.


Yeah, AC can be bad at transmedia (though I disagree with Elise's example, I personally think that it's precisely just something extra and there's nothing in ACU plot that REQUIRES us to know what happened with Elise at the time), but it's not like every game series is like that.

It's not technically required info, but it's written in a way that makes the player think it's relevant to the game's plot. Character A behaves suspiciously, keeps disappearing with barely an explanation just when it seems Arno could use her help. This makes the player believe we're meant to notice her behavior and keep an eye on it, in case it becomes a plot point later (like she turns out to be a traitor or something). They did this right in AC3: when Connor and Haytham are supposedly working together, there are several times when Haytham does something clearly suspicious. He tells Connor to stop asking questions at moments when it makes sense to question his behavior, he sends Connor to do some menial task which he could have easily performed himself, just so he can snoop for information or kill hostages in his son's abscence. His behavior is presented to us in such a way that he seems suspicious, and later our suspicions are confirmed when Haytham turns on us.

In Elise's case the same thing is handled poorly, because she never turns on us. She just acts suspiciously for no reason. It would be okay if they were trying to create constant tension between her and Arno, to make us always be conflicted about whether she has earned our trust (like when Mirabeau dies and Elise seems like an obvious suspect). But any such tension is immediately resolved ("Did you kill Mirabeau? -No. -Okay, I'll buy it.") and never brought up again later.

Shahkulu101
03-20-2015, 06:11 PM
I thought they made Elise go off and do her own thing to emphasize the fact she was a badass Templar swords-woman who don't need no man.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-20-2015, 06:35 PM
It's sad that AAA developers are more concerned about sales than making something great and new....
There are exceptions like CD Projekt Red, Naughty Dog, Sony Santamonica...
But Ubisoft, Activision, Nintendo, Microsoft, Bethesda, Take 2, Rockstar, EA..
They are more after 'Whats Proven? Lets try to make another one of those.'
To be fair though Uncharted 4 wasnt needed.. the Next God of War isnt needed
Im not asking for new IPs.... Im asking for new experiences...
First person Shooter? Hack and Slash? Open World Action Adventure? JRPG?
I believe the new experiences will be found in Western RPG style gaming....
Developers need to take the staples of that genre and do something more than skill trees and looting with it...
Thats where we will find magic again

Shahkulu101
03-20-2015, 06:59 PM
Rockstar only care about money?

Dude, no -- just...no.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-20-2015, 07:35 PM
Rockstar only care about money?

Dude, no -- just...no.

You took my statement out of context...
I stand behind what I said....
Theyve created nothing new since Bully
Even RDR was a western GTA
Infact Im not saying that ANY of them ONLY care about money... they all care about money, its a business..
Im just saying they are afraid to take risks... they are settling for comfort...
Assassins Creed was a risk.. it isnt anymore
This risk gave the comforting birth to 9 standalone console sequels. Shadow of Mordor, and a New IP in Watch_Dog
GTA was a risk back when video games were about collectiong coins and jumping on enemies heads...
It gave birth True Crime, Saints Row, again watch dogs.. sleeping dogs...
God of War gave birth to darksiders, dawn of the dragon.. basically every early past gen game...
Thats what im saying.. NOT that its only a care for money...
Developers LOVE making games...
We need a Kanye West AAA developer that isnt afraid to say im gonna do a whole album with autotune.. deal with it

Shahkulu101
03-20-2015, 07:51 PM
You took my statement out of context...
I stand behind what I said....
Theyve created nothing new since Bully
Even RDR was a western GTA
Infact Im not saying that ANY of them ONLY care about money... they all care about money, its a business..
Im just saying they are afraid to take risks... they are settling for comfort...
Assassins Creed was a risk.. it isnt anymore
This risk gave the comforting birth to 9 standalone console sequels. Shadow of Mordor, and a New IP in Watch_Dog
GTA was a risk back when video games were about collectiong coins and jumping on enemies heads...
It gave birth True Crime, Saints Row, again watch dogs.. sleeping dogs...
God of War gave birth to darksiders, dawn of the dragon.. basically every early past gen game...
Thats what im saying.. NOT that its only a care for money...
Developers LOVE making games...
We need a Kanye West AAA developer that isnt afraid to say im gonna do a whole album with autotune.. deal with it

I do see your point, but R* only releases games every fives years or so. As a result the change doesn't come as fast.

RDR may have just been a western GTA, but it did have a vastly different settings and some unique systems.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-20-2015, 08:00 PM
I do see your point, but R* only releases games every fives years or so. As a result the change doesn't come as fast.

RDR may have just been a western GTA, but it did have a vastly different settings and some unique systems.

I agree, I can appreciate rockstar for their quality.. im not trying to take away the advancements they are making in gaming.. Im just saying I can steal cars in about 1 billion games.. give me something new with this idea...
Why does an open world game set in a city have to be about causing mayhem?
Because its proven to work...
Find something that isnt proven to work like being just a normal resident and make it work...
Make the story and its world evolve with you.. give a person choices that can turn this game into either another GTA or just a life simulator lol
Dont introduce me to guns and stealing cars... let me choose if i want to do that...
Let me walk past gun shops... try to open car doors.... but dont be like heres a gun and here's how you shoot it
Go buy one.. take it somewhere people arent around and figure out the buttons..
Mafia II is kind of a great example of doing something new with the sandbox idea.. I didnt want to cause mayhem in that game because I felt like there was too much risk involved
I was a mobster.. I tried to keep attention away from me as much as I could... It was rare for me to steal a car... Id make the effort to get back to mine

VestigialLlama4
03-20-2015, 08:03 PM
I do see your point, but R* only releases games every fives years or so. As a result the change doesn't come as fast.

RDR may have just been a western GTA, but it did have a vastly different settings and some unique systems.

RDR really made Ranch Life awesome but most of the game is pathetic. Anything outside of taming horses, hanging out at MacFarlane's Ranch and later your ranch sucks.

Sushiglutton
03-20-2015, 08:12 PM
Even RDR was a western GTA


RDR really made Ranch Life awesome but most of the game is pathetic. Anything outside of taming horses, hanging out at MacFarlane's Ranch and later your ranch sucks.


Thread just got weird lol

STDlyMcStudpants
03-20-2015, 08:16 PM
Thread just got weird lol

Lol I've recently reviewed RDR..
It did so many things right with its world, but i can respect people not liking the game, I can def see instances where it can turn them off...
RDR is amazing during its first 1/5
then it well.... it falls

VestigialLlama4
03-20-2015, 08:27 PM
Lol I've recently reviewed RDR..
It did so many things right with its world, but i can respect people not liking the game, I can def see instances where it can turn them off...
RDR is amazing during its first 1/5
then it well.... it falls

Most of the game is a hodge podge of stereotypes from movies. The Mexican section is racist as hell and over-the-top and silly, and it can be as ironic as it wants it won't change that fact. Edgar Ross is a poor villain, the film keeps playing the same one note about the End of the West over and over again. Having you hunt bisons and exterminate a species on your own and so on. It gets absurd.

In terms of world maps, the landscape is essentially a cobbled over patch of Western backgrounds from movies, its pretty flat and uninspired. The game goes wide, so you have backgrounds from several different kinds of western, the Great Plains has the Snowy Western look (from Altman's McCabe and Mrs Miller), the Middle Section near MacFarlane's Ranch is Shane or Giant or Clint Eastwood films, the Mexican section is Peckinpah westerns. It goes wide but it does not go deep.

Rockstar Games suck at serious storytelling. Their GTA games, San Andreas, work because its hilarious and absurd and silly. The minute they show aspirations to actual characterization like in GTA4 or GTA5, it falls apart. So the genuinely sweet cutscenes of John Marston and Bonnie MacFarlane, and him and his family, don't work in the sections where he's hanging out with lowlives, because the tone is very off.

Sushiglutton
03-20-2015, 08:35 PM
Lol I've recently reviewed RDR..
It did so many things right with its world, but i can respect people not liking the game, I can def see instances where it can turn them off...
RDR is amazing during its first 1/5
then it well.... it falls

Yeah, different opinions and all that. I just think RDR is amazing in most ways (shooting wasn't that great). Tons of great ideas for structuring the open world activities and lots of cool details like in all R* games.

Megas_Doux
03-20-2015, 10:07 PM
RDR┤s gameplay pathetic while AC III awesome, to each their own I suppose.....


Both companies want money and I think Rockstar seems to get away with stuff most companies get torched for indeed. But they are smart enough to know that annualization is NOT the way.

ze_topazio
03-21-2015, 04:03 AM
RDR is a homage to the western movies of the 60's and 70's, they were not trying to be realistic and accurate in any form or way, wild west cliches, tropes and similarities with old western movies was on purpose.

Putting RDR and AC3 in the same group ain't even fair, RDR is like a fine French meal, AC3 is more like an hamburger you can buy outside of a stadium.

VestigialLlama4
03-21-2015, 06:14 AM
Putting RDR and AC3 in the same group ain't even fair, RDR is like a fine French meal, AC3 is more like an hamburger you can buy outside of a stadium.

That is quite strange.

Red Dead Redemption is the game with zero historical plausibility and research, it gives a fairly conventional and one-note vision of "the West", has a White Hero who becomes a savior of the Mexican Revolution and watches with sadness as stupid Mexican women get brainwashed by hack revolutionaries, provides an open world that is essentially Grand Theft Horse filled with the same shooting mechanics as GTA-Max Payne, a silly Karma Meter (if you are a bad man then the story-Marston makes no sense with what you do as a player), ironic jokes about how racist and bad the West was while offering nothing in response.

So how is that a "fine French meal", or "fancy Italian cuisine" or "sophisticated Japanese culinary delights" or what have you, when the game does nothing truly new and has zero aesthetic ambitions. Even BLACK FLAG (a cousin game) is superior in that it showed the Pirate Era in an absolutely new light, deconstructing how that period has been shown and populary understood in a new area.

I actually preferred UNDEAD NIGHTMARE to the main story, I don't like zombie movies and games generally, but Undead Nightmare is way superior. There are parts in Red Dead Redemption that are nice, the first section with Bonnie MacFarlane and the later John Marston Family sections, but everything in between is a trite hollow mess. The horse riding gameplay in RDR is also awesome and far superior to AC3 but that goes without saying.



RDR is a homage to the western movies of the 60's and 70's, they were not trying to be realistic and accurate in any form or way, wild west cliches, tropes and similarities with old western movies was on purpose.

If that is so, why the self-seriousness, why the pretentiousness of "Bury Me on the Lone Prairie" for a funeral scene, why get John Hillcoat to do a Machinima movie?

rprkjj
03-21-2015, 08:51 AM
That is quite strange.

Red Dead Redemption is the game with zero historical plausibility and research, it gives a fairly conventional and one-note vision of "the West", has a White Hero who becomes a savior of the Mexican Revolution and watches with sadness as stupid Mexican women get brainwashed by hack revolutionaries, provides an open world that is essentially Grand Theft Horse filled with the same shooting mechanics as GTA-Max Payne, a silly Karma Meter (if you are a bad man then the story-Marston makes no sense with what you do as a player), ironic jokes about how racist and bad the West was while offering nothing in response.

So how is that a "fine French meal", or "fancy Italian cuisine" or "sophisticated Japanese culinary delights" or what have you, when the game does nothing truly new and has zero aesthetic ambitions. Even BLACK FLAG (a cousin game) is superior in that it showed the Pirate Era in an absolutely new light, deconstructing how that period has been shown and populary understood in a new area.

I actually preferred UNDEAD NIGHTMARE to the main story, I don't like zombie movies and games generally, but Undead Nightmare is way superior. There are parts in Red Dead Redemption that are nice, the first section with Bonnie MacFarlane and the later John Marston Family sections, but everything in between is a trite hollow mess. The horse riding gameplay in RDR is also awesome and far superior to AC3 but that goes without saying.




If that is so, why the self-seriousness, why the pretentiousness of "Bury Me on the Lone Prairie" for a funeral scene, why get John Hillcoat to do a Machinima movie?

I've never watched a lot of westerns, but I don't think they're so pulp as to not have anything like RDR has. My dad is a huge fan of westerns, and RDR is the only game he's beaten besides GTA Vice City and Red Dead Revolver, and he says it's like playing the game version of an old western. Besides that, I think people like RDR because it's GTA with cowboys. It's not a reskin, but it basically is GTA if GTA were an assassin's creed style franchise and they had one that took place in the wild west. People like it because it's an incredibly immersive and rarely seen representation of a video game open world, that's incredibly detailed with high production values that show and a pretty good multiplayer as well. Many also thought that the story was pretty great too.

Megas_Doux
03-21-2015, 09:04 AM
RDR┤s gameplay is way better than AC III┤s!!!!!

Horse mechanics, HUNTING that unlike AC III and AC IV -thank Horus you dont have rely that much on that in AC IV, though- is actually challenging, RANDOM events, etc, etc, etc......

VestigialLlama4
03-21-2015, 09:35 AM
RDR┤s gameplay is way better than AC III┤s!!!!!

You keep holding on to that as a gospel truth, simply because RDR doesn't have glitches, is not an annualized title, has zero storytelling ambitions and accomplishes its small group of set goals.


Horse mechanics,

That I stated at the beginning is the one part where RDR is unquestionably superior and greater, the pity is that it's only a side-activity to the game.


HUNTING that unlike AC III and AC IV -thank Horus you dont have rely that much on that in AC IV, though- is actually challenging,

In the sense that you can shoot the animals dead with superior weapons yes, its challenging.


RANDOM events, etc, etc, etc......

You mean doing the same things over and over again and pretending its different. Yes that is a truly curious development.


Besides that, I think people like RDR because it's GTA with cowboys. It's not a reskin, but it basically is GTA if GTA were an assassin's creed style franchise and they had one that took place in the wild west. People like it because it's an incredibly immersive and rarely seen representation of a video game open world, that's incredibly detailed with high production values that show and a pretty good multiplayer as well. Many also thought that the story was pretty great too.

I fully get the appeal of RED DEAD REDEMPTION, I would have been super-impressed with it had I not played San Andreas on PC. And later on XBOX 360, I played GTA4 and its DLC expansions. You see the truth about Rockstar games is that while they don't do annualized titles, their actual games show fewer changes and innovations than AC does between games. SAN ANDREAS offered the ultimate open-world fantasy, of a kid in a ghetto becoming Emperor of the State, ruling over the seas and skies. Its map had a sense of distance, the difference between living in rural areas, desert areas and in cities, each city was also different from one another. It took them several years until GTAV created the innovation open-world games were building towards all along, multiple protagonists and switching between them. In between they made well-made but forgettable open-world titles.

rprkjj
03-21-2015, 09:43 AM
You keep holding on to that as a gospel truth, simply because RDR doesn't have glitches, is not an annualized title, has zero storytelling ambitions and accomplishes its small group of set goals.



That I stated at the beginning is the one part where RDR is unquestionably superior and greater, the pity is that it's only a side-activity to the game.



In the sense that you can shoot the animals dead with superior weapons yes, its challenging.



You mean doing the same things over and over again and pretending its different. Yes that is a truly curious development.



I fully get the appeal of RED DEAD REDEMPTION, I would have been super-impressed with it had I not played San Andreas on PC. And later on XBOX 360, I played GTA4 and its DLC expansions. You see the truth about Rockstar games is that while they don't do annualized titles, their actual games show fewer changes and innovations than AC does between games. SAN ANDREAS offered the ultimate open-world fantasy, of a kid in a ghetto becoming Emperor of the State, ruling over the seas and skies. Its map had a sense of distance, the difference between living in rural areas, desert areas and in cities, each city was also different from one another. It took them several years until GTAV created the innovation open-world games were building towards all along, multiple protagonists and switching between them. In between they made well-made but forgettable open-world titles.

Lack of innovation doesn't mean bad. I can understand why you consider RDR forgettable if you can't remember a game unless it's innovative, but I think it's fairly memorable for people who are able to fondly recall games they enjoyed.

Megas_Doux
03-21-2015, 09:58 AM
In the sense that you can shoot the animals dead with superior weapons yes,it's challenging.

It's challenging because you can die, unlike the embarrasing QTE's of AC III...

And about holding and repeating stuff as mantras, well many here can agree you are the number one at that:





Comparing solely land-based organic environment. In AC3 you felt you were really in a forest, in UNITY, you don't really feel you are on an island.

You were comparing AC III to AC IV yet "Unity" surfaces somehow..... :p

VestigialLlama4
03-21-2015, 10:41 AM
It's challenging because you can die, unlike the embarrasing QTE's of AC III...

True of the larger animals in AC3, but the smaller animals are challenging to hunt by stealth and hidden blade which gives you an undamaged pelt. You can of course get that as well through QTEs but in AC3, the incentive is to avoid triggering QTEs by assassinating animals by stealth. Is it as hard as shooting them down in RDR, no, but it is challenging to always hunt them by stealthy means. In AC3, I always avoided QTEs with Bears and Cougars.


And about holding and repeating stuff as mantras, well many here can agree you are the number one at that:

If only because I list specific flaws with the gameplay of RDR and other titles which people ignore because it gives them a nice overall open-world game. Whereas most people say stuff about AC3, i.e. Connor is a bore, Homestead is boring, that AC3 didn't innovate and that its a tech-demo without explaining what they mean, and it all comes down to that when the game was launched, people didn't have a good time because it was not what they expected, they didn't like the setting, Connor is not Ezio and their port had some glitches.

So what? Have you replayed it recently? You don't have to of course and your opinion still matters. But again why does that kneejerk first impression matter three years later. Not one of your criticisms about AC3 differs any much from anything that was said upon its launch. So who is the one holding and repeating stuff here?

The point is that after three years, AC3 is looking vastly more impressive chiefly for the fact that it tried to do new things and introduced several ambitious new ideas, isn't that what should be encouraged for a big game company. It's still got ideas worth pursuing, dual protagonists whose interactions with the landscapes are significantly different for one. UNITY didn't innovate on anything close to that scale when it jumped to Next-Gen. Instead they ignored the fact that AC3 was still their best selling title and decided to go for the most generic product-research experience possible, did not innovate except for the expected improvements in graphics (1:1 Presentation is kind-of logical for a Next-Gen leap and nothing really new) and streamlining of older controls.


You were comparing AC III to AC IV yet "Unity" surfaces somehow..... :p

That was an error, I meant to type Black Flag, I apologize.

Megas_Doux
03-21-2015, 05:22 PM
If only because I list specific flaws with the gameplay of RDR and other titles which people ignore because it gives them a nice overall open-world game. Whereas most people say stuff about AC3, i.e. Connor is a bore, Homestead is boring, that AC3 didn't innovate and that its a tech-demo without explaining what they mean, and it all comes down to that when the game was launched, people didn't have a good time because it was not what they expected, they didn't like the setting, Connor is not Ezio and their port had some glitches.


.

I wasn┤t talking about THIS specific topic, but pretty much every topic in which you engage.....

Like when you stubbornly insisted that Ezio┤s accent was "accurate" basically because you "believe it" despite the evidence of its VA himself saying he couldn┤t pull it off properly and instead he had choose a "spanish" version ala Puss in the boots just to suit the character┤s flamboyant persona.

Or when you and M politely argued about Paris, or the discussion about game designing with Farlander, etc, etc, etc, ETC......

I NEVER said AC III did not innovate, I said that due to this annualization, conveyor belt AC had turned into, the game was not ready and developers didn┤t have the time they needed to better execute all the new things AC III brought to the table. Let alone the many advertised things they had to cut.......

SixKeys
03-21-2015, 06:23 PM
Anyone who tries to claim AC3 is a better game than RDR is delusional.

Assassin_M
03-21-2015, 06:32 PM
I enjoyed hunting more in AC III than I did in RDR. Fact: AC III animal behavior is more diverse than in RDR, by the way.

SixKeys
03-21-2015, 06:35 PM
I enjoyed hunting more in AC III than I did in RDR. Fact: AC III animal behavior is more diverse than in RDR, by the way.

Diverse how?

And at least in RDR you had a reason to bother with bait, since animals wouldn't just wander into your lap.

Assassin_M
03-21-2015, 06:40 PM
Diverse how?

And at least in RDR you had a reason to bother with bait, since animals wouldn't just wander into your lap.
Animals in RDR only roam around, until they kill something. Then they spent a couple of minutes eating and then go back to roaming.

There are stations for animals in AC III where you'll see baby bears playing, you'll find adult bears scratching tree trunks, moose fighting, deer drinking from lakes, baby wolves suckling from their mother, a deer family playing around and much more.

Your AC III was effed up, man. I wont talk about technical issues. in my AC III, animals didn't jump on my lap.

Sushiglutton
03-21-2015, 07:54 PM
I think the hunting in RDR was better for the following reaosons:

1) Much better shooting mechanics. I mean you actually had to aim for starters... (with free-aim turned on ofc)
2) Baiting didn't work in AC3. I used the bait repeadily at the same exact spot in AC3 and new animals kept spawning.
3) Dangerous animals were actually dangerous in RDR. The first time a cougar attacked was one of the scariest moments in gaming for me. Sure you may view it as a cheap death, but I take it over QTE any time.

Assassin_M
03-21-2015, 08:06 PM
1) Much better shooting mechanics. I mean you actually had to aim for starters... (with free-aim turned on ofc)
You can free aim in AC III

Sushiglutton
03-21-2015, 09:58 PM
You can free aim in AC III

I think you know what I mean :rolleyes:. If you are not aiming correctly the game won't let you shoot. Also if you see the white contour there is no need to aim. The "free-aiming" in AC3 is more like using the mouse to mark an icon than it is proper free-aiming in a TPS-sense.

Assassin_M
03-21-2015, 10:53 PM
I think you know what I mean :rolleyes:. If you are not aiming correctly the game won't let you shoot. Also if you see the white contour there is no need to aim. The "free-aiming" in AC3 is more like using the mouse to mark an icon than it is proper free-aiming in a TPS-sense.
Eh, still free aiming. If we talk about need, then why do you need aim in RDR? there's the assisted aim, which negates any need for free aim.

Honestly, I prefer AC III's hunting because the whole mechanic makes you feel like a hunter. sure, it's dodgy in some aspects (Animal AI, scattering, bait), but it totally nails the aesthetic element. The sound of the wind, Connor perched up a tree, a deer comes walking. You take your bow and arrow. You hear the sound of your bowstring stretching, to give a more lethal shot. BANG, you shoot. AC IV unfortunately takes that feeling away by simplifying it a lot. RDR is somewhere between AC IV and AC III. However, what trumps ALL of those is the last of us' hunting segment near the middle of the game. AC III was the closest to that.

Farlander1991
03-21-2015, 10:57 PM
Isn't free aiming useful for hunting? Aren't there animals that are not one shot kill unless you headshot them? (there are for sure animals that aren't one shot kill in terms of arrows... though maybe you have to just strong-aim, and not headshot, my memory's fuzzy about this).

Hunting's actually overall pretty interesting in AC3. The economy should've been more hunting based, IMO. And no money/currency.

Sushiglutton
03-21-2015, 11:25 PM
Eh, still free aiming. If we talk about need, then why do you need aim in RDR? there's the assisted aim, which negates any need for free aim.

Because in RDR it's a disabable feature, but it's core to AC3's shooting mechanics.

Ashraf was really proud of the adding free-aim to AC4, meaning he didn't consider AC3 to have that feature:

"So, we don’t talk about it too much but, I love what we did with his guns and the fact that you can free aim now. It feels natural, it feels really cool, its a nice progression of everything. So, yeah, the guns we don’t talk about too much, but I think they are fantastic. We are proud of them."
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/09/07/assassins-creed-iv-black-flag-story-game-details-developer-interview-pax-prime-2013/


Don't know ask why I still remember two year old marketing intervies :rolleyes:



Honestly, I prefer AC III's hunting because the whole mechanic makes you feel like a hunter. sure, it's dodgy in some aspects (Animal AI, scattering, bait), but it totally nails the aesthetic element. The sound of the wind, Connor perched up a tree, a deer comes walking. You take your bow and arrow. You hear the sound of your bowstring stretching, to give a more lethal shot. BANG, you shoot. AC IV unfortunately takes that feeling away by simplifying it a lot. RDR is somewhere between AC IV and AC III. However, what trumps ALL of those is the last of us' hunting segment near the middle of the game. AC III was the closest to that.

I can agree with these points. The tree parkour adds a lot to the experience by making the enviroment more interactive in general which gives you a greater sense of connection to the world.

Farlander1991
03-22-2015, 12:18 AM
Because in RDR it's a disabable feature, but it's core to AC3's shooting mechanics.

Ashraf was really proud of the adding free-aim to AC4, meaning he didn't consider AC3 to have that feature:

"So, we don’t talk about it too much but, I love what we did with his guns and the fact that you can free aim now. It feels natural, it feels really cool, its a nice progression of everything. So, yeah, the guns we don’t talk about too much, but I think they are fantastic. We are proud of them."
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/09/07/assassins-creed-iv-black-flag-story-game-details-developer-interview-pax-prime-2013/


Don't know ask why I still remember two year old marketing intervies :rolleyes:



It's important to note that free aim was supposed to be in AC3. Heck, its useage was shown in one of the first promotional AC3 gameplay trailers/teasers. And there were journalists who have played that build. Just saying.

For whatever reason it got scrapped. And by the time AC4 came out they managed to fix those reasons.

Assassin_M
03-22-2015, 12:37 AM
Because in RDR it's a disabable feature, but it's core to AC3's shooting mechanics.
It still falls under the "need" umbrella. If it's there, then why do the other, harder thing? Sure, you don't shoot if you're not aimed at a target, but so what? it's "technically" free aim, because:
1) You can do it manually
2) There is contextual body part damage


Ashraf was really proud of the adding free-aim to AC4, meaning he didn't consider AC3 to have that feature:

"So, we don’t talk about it too much but, I love what we did with his guns and the fact that you can free aim now. It feels natural, it feels really cool, its a nice progression of everything. So, yeah, the guns we don’t talk about too much, but I think they are fantastic. We are proud of them."
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/09/07/assassins-creed-iv-black-flag-story-game-details-developer-interview-pax-prime-2013/


Don't know ask why I still remember two year old marketing intervies :rolleyes:
Oh, I wont ask, trust me. I have AC II's script entirely memorized, don't ask how.

Lets call AC III's system a "pseudo-free-aim". It's not a full system but it has elements that are there, since as Farlander mentioned, it WAS supposed to be there. That said, Ashraf's comments are most likely referring to the fact that it became MUCH more streamlined:

1) Guards now acknowledge when they'v been shot in the back, in the leg, in the head, etc.
2) The highlight is now gone and only the reticule is taken for aim

That's still a bit farther away from RDR's and GTA's EVEN MORE streamlined free aim. That was my point.



I can agree with these points. The tree parkour adds a lot to the experience by making the enviroment more interactive in general which gives you a greater sense of connection to the world.
Indeed. it's safe to say that if a physical element is not complete or is just wonky, aesthetic elements can go ways.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-23-2015, 06:24 PM
Lack of innovation doesn't mean bad. I can understand why you consider RDR forgettable if you can't remember a game unless it's innovative, but I think it's fairly memorable for people who are able to fondly recall games they enjoyed.

No one is calling AC3 or RDR bad..
I personally love AC3 more than RDR, but AC3 was blatantly inspired by RDR as far as 'how are we going to tackle this empty setting?'
Hence me calling AC3 the RDR of Assassins Creed.. because quite frankly it is... you are either going to REALLY love it or you are going to find it boring.
The point being made earlier is that Rockstar - though they make GREAT quality games aren't taking risks or trying something new the way Naughty Dog or Thatgamecompany does for example...
With an exception to Uncharted 4
This is really the point the article is making,... AAA developers are creating whats proven.. heck even indie studios for the most part just make puzzle platformers
Sure make a 1st person shooter... make a 3rd person action adventure, but do something new with it...
Like I said Assassin's Creed isn't a risk any more... Do I want to see AC disappear? NO
BUT I'm kinda P'd off that Watch_Dogs (AC with guns.. oh wait...ac with cell ph... ummm modern day AC) exists instead of ubisoft taking a risk with something new...
IP isnt enough...
Which brings me to rockstar proving that quality isnt enough either.. RDR is still just GTA but in the wild west

Shahkulu101
03-23-2015, 06:57 PM
Naughty Dog aren't risky developers. Maybe with regards to the writing, but all their games have conventional AAA mechanics and level design that you see in every game these days. Doesn't make them bad games, but it does make them predictable and less interesting. I certainly wouldn't say they are breaking the mold, but they are still one of the best studios in the world.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-23-2015, 07:14 PM
Naughty Dog aren't risky developers. Maybe with regards to the writing, but all their games have conventional AAA mechanics and level design that you see in every game these days. Doesn't make them bad games, but it does make them predictable and less interesting. I certainly wouldn't say they are breaking the mold, but they are still one of the best studios in the world.
I disagree
Sure Crash was an answer to Mario...
But they took the reigns with Jak and Daxter.. That series grew with its audience... it didnt stay for the kids like mario does (not saying mario is JUST for the kids) ... it evolved and grew with the people playing it... have we ever seen anything like that before? No
We can give credit to Super Mario 64 for 3D platforming... But Jak and Daxter created what would be mimicked for the majority of PS2 and xbox's life cycle...
Towards the end FPS took the reigns and became the next gens mimicked style just as western RPGs took the reign towards the end of past gen and will be this gens mimicked style...
But still they moved on from Jak and Daxter and went into action adventure movie style gaming which wasnt a new idea... but on paper who knew it would have been as big as it was, that nathan drake would become a mascot.. it was a risk like assassins creed was... like The Last of Us was...
Im hugely disappointed in Uncharted 4 existing as I thought U3 was a perfect ending and id rather see whats next for them...
Naughty Dog does trilogies.. but theyve never stuck with whats comfortable...
They took what has been proven and they did something new with it....
Which again is what AC did in the beginning and Watch Dogs failed to do... Watch Dogs wasnt new enough..neither is or was RDR

SixKeys
03-23-2015, 08:11 PM
I love Naughty Dog's games, but I wouldn't put them in the same risk-taking category as ThatGameCompany. Like Shahk said, as good as ND's games may be, they're still based around the same conventions as most triple A games (cover-based shooting, zombies, gruff white male protagonists etc.). TGC is a small indie studio that can take real risks because they aren't as dependent on publisher demands.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-26-2015, 06:52 PM
I love Naughty Dog's games, but I wouldn't put them in the same risk-taking category as ThatGameCompany. Like Shahk said, as good as ND's games may be, they're still based around the same conventions as most triple A games (cover-based shooting, zombies, gruff white male protagonists etc.). TGC is a small indie studio that can take real risks because they aren't as dependent on publisher demands.
I didnt say they take the most risk.. im just saying they do take risks.. the color of a protagonists does not equate to risk and im not sure why that is even mentioned...
Risk is in the game style.. not just story like spec ops the line

ze_topazio
03-26-2015, 07:28 PM
Jak and Daxter is a 3D platformer, a pretty popular genre in the 128 bits era.

Uncharted is a third person shooter, a more action heavy Tomb Raider(the classic ones), tps have always been popular.

The Last of Us is a slow paced Uncharted with zombies and survival elements, zombies and survival have been ridiculous popular in the past few years.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-26-2015, 07:35 PM
Jak and Daxter is a 3D platformer, a pretty popular genre in the 128 bits era.

Uncharted is a third person shooter, a more action heavy Tomb Raider(the classic ones), tps have always been popular.

The Last of Us is a slow paced Uncharted with zombies and survival elements, zombies and survival have been ridiculous popular in the past few years.

again nothing to do with genre...
uncharted and Jak were both something new.. not so much the original jak... but jak 2 and jak 3 were

SixKeys
03-26-2015, 11:31 PM
I didnt say they take the most risk.. im just saying they do take risks.. the color of a protagonists does not equate to risk and im not sure why that is even mentioned...


Um, yes it does. In an industry where 98% of video game protagonists are white males and where games are marketed almost exclusively to that demographic, having a non-white as the main character is pretty risky.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-27-2015, 08:56 PM
Um, yes it does. In an industry where 98% of video game protagonists are white males and where games are marketed almost exclusively to that demographic, having a non-white as the main character is pretty risky.

um no it doesnt
youre very shallow if you think sex or race makes a game edgy and risky
thomas was alone you play as freaking squares and rectangles
It doesnt matter to anyone but feminists and racists that want their race represented by a deep pride and ego
I guess we can call COD team risk takers for giving us women in mp LOL

VestigialLlama4
03-27-2015, 09:20 PM
youre very shallow if you think sex or race makes a game edgy and risky

This isn't about edgy. The video game industry is so appallingly racist and sexist that any game, especially a major Franchise title like San Andreas or AC3, with a non-white or non-male protagonist and supporting cast gets marks for guts.

When we talk about edgy in video games, it doesn't mean the same thing as edgy in books or in movies. The dirt-low standards in video games are still crossing hurdles other mediums have moved on from.


It doesnt matter to anyone but feminists and racists

Read a dictionary and see what "racist" means and how the word is used. And be a little more mature and good natured to not conflate feminists with racists.


that want their race represented by a deep pride and ego

Nope, that's whiteboys who complain about how their idea of the ultimate badass is Arnold Schwarzenegger's and Rambo's love child.


I guess we can call COD team risk takers for giving us women in mp LOL

Well, that's certainly something that UNITY didn't do, that's for sure.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-27-2015, 10:08 PM
This isn't about edgy. The video game industry is so appallingly racist and sexist that any game, especially a major Franchise title like San Andreas or AC3, with a non-white or non-male protagonist and supporting cast gets marks for guts.

When we talk about edgy in video games, it doesn't mean the same thing as edgy in books or in movies. The dirt-low standards in video games are still crossing hurdles other mediums have moved on from.



Read a dictionary and see what "racist" means and how the word is used. And be a little more mature and good natured to not conflate feminists with racists.



Nope, that's whiteboys who complain about how their idea of the ultimate badass is Arnold Schwarzenegger's and Rambo's love child.



Well, that's certainly something that UNITY didn't do, that's for sure.
Unity didnt have a woman character for mp because everyone plays as ARNO who is a man...
If you feel your race is entitled to a lead role you are racist...
Key word there is ENTITLED .. its one thing to like to see it.. its another to believe its deserved
Id hate to see the day where an artist (which developers are) go out of their way to add a certain race or sex just so people dont get butt hurt.
I see it a lot when people cry about disney princesses too..
Why are they white?
Because it makes sense for their time period and story?
I doubt any developer says this is the story i want but i HAVE to change this indonesian woman to a white male or it wont sell... its their story and their vision..
There are def times where this isnt the case though like the Heavy Fire series...
probably other war heavy games too..
For the post part though, I believe white male protagonists are a coincidence, not a sign of racism in the industry.

SixKeys
03-27-2015, 10:21 PM
I see it a lot when people cry about disney princesses too..
Why are they white?
Because it makes sense for their time period and story?


Yeah, I would hate for Disney to have ethnic characters in their Řber-realistic fantasy worlds. Superpowers, fairy dust, talking animals, that's all fine, but ethnic characters in a fantasy setting? NOW you're stretching. :rolleyes:

STDlyMcStudpants
03-27-2015, 10:27 PM
Yeah, I would hate for Disney to have ethnic characters in their Řber-realistic fantasy worlds. Superpowers, fairy dust, talking animals, that's all fine, but ethnic characters in a fantasy setting? NOW you're stretching. :rolleyes:

Youre missing the point...
Why strong arm an artist to make a story BASED on race...
The day art becomes about race is the day its no longer art...
i dont care if the lead role is a blue hermaphrodite
Why does it matter?
Its shallow
If your character comes before your story, its going to be unimaginative shallow crap...
Story and worlds come 1st/ 2nd .. its inhabitants come last
If you do this in reverse youre egotistic not artistic

VestigialLlama4
03-27-2015, 10:33 PM
Unity didnt have a woman character for mp because everyone plays as ARNO who is a man...

UNity doesn't have women characters because Ubisoft find it hard to animate women, and faces for that matter :cool:


If you feel your race is entitled to a lead role you are racist...

The only race in the history of the world that ever felt entitled to a lead role are white people.


its one thing to like to see it.. its another to believe its deserved

Do white people deserve to be represented then?, I am just asking. Do they deserve to be more represented than other races, more than the Chinese or the Indians? They are respectively the first and second most populous nations on earth, with America a distant third. But you never get a sense of that watching news, movies, TV, leave alone videogames.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-27-2015, 10:38 PM
UNity doesn't have women characters because Ubisoft find it hard to animate women, and faces for that matter :cool:



The only race in the history of the world that ever felt entitled to a lead role are white people.



Do white people deserve to be represented then?, I am just asking. Do they deserve to be more represented than other races, more than the Chinese or the Indians? They are respectively the first and second most populous nations on earth, with America a distant third. But you never get a sense of that watching news, movies, TV, leave alone videogames.

Nobody in the universe DESERVES anything.
White people dont feel entitled to lead roles... I chose Sam B in dead island because hes the better character for my play style lol... im white and i played as a black guy by choice based on stats :D
Strange i didnt grit my teeth and play as the white football player because my ego wanted a white guy to be the hero

Megas_Doux
03-27-2015, 10:51 PM
Ahh the whole race issue again.....

This might get me in trouble, but I have to say it: Back in day, during one of those "family, love and sex education lessons" on the first years of high school. All of us were tasked to take care of an egg like it was our baby. We were also told to draw facial feaures on it. Coincidentally -not really, that was part of the whole thing- women draw females babies and men, male ones.But not only that, each egg also resembled its owner.........

What┤s my point???? Well, I think is true that the majority of American/european games have white males as protagonists. However, JAPANESE games have a VAST majority of japanese leading characters, korean with their famous "doramas" and "bollywood" with indian leading characters.

With that being said, I find Ubi to be WAY more diverse than many other American/european companies....

STDlyMcStudpants
03-27-2015, 11:04 PM
Ahh the whole race issue again.....

This might get me in trouble, but I have to say it: Back in day, during one of those "family, love and sex education lessons" on the first years of high school. All of us were tasked to take care of an egg like it was our baby. We were also told to draw facial feaures on it. Coincidentally -not really, that was part of the whole thing- women draw females babies and men, male ones.But not only that, each egg also resembled its owner.........

What┤s my point???? Well, I think is true that the majority of American/european games have white males as protagonists. However, JAPANESE games have a VAST majority of japanese leading characters, korean with their famous "doramas" and "bollywood" with indian leading characters.

With that being said, I find Ubi to be WAY more diverse than many other American/european companies....

#Truth it should always be up to the artist... not media pressure to represent a certain orientation or sex

Megas_Doux
03-27-2015, 11:22 PM
Sadly there were some that disliked Connor based on his race. However I think ANY character that followed Ezio would have had, more or less, the same polarizing reception. Ezio is in the top 3 list of EVERY poll about favorite characters of the past generation of consoles, pretty big shoes to fill, mostly for a character like Connor. Ezio┤s one is the kind of personality that most of the times is successful: Witty, womanizer and charming. Ever heard of Robin Hood, El Zorro, James Bond, Dante from the Devil May cry games, Nathan Drake, James bond, Iron Man from the recent movies, Casanova and,Don Juan Tenorio??????

SixKeys
03-27-2015, 11:31 PM
I don't believe it's pure coincidence that we've only had two non-white protagonists in main titles so far. One is Alta´r, who was the very first and the franchise wasn't the big money-making machine it has since become, and the second was Connor, who was a pretty divisive character. We have not seen an ethnic character since him in a main title, only in DLCs and handhelds. Talk about artistic integrity all you want, but it's pure naivete to believe 98% of video game protagonists just happen to be white, scruffy, 30-something men simply because theirs are the stories that are so original they absolutely need to be heard.

Megas_Doux
03-27-2015, 11:55 PM
I don't believe it's pure coincidence that we've only had two non-white protagonists in main titles so far. One is Alta´r, who was the very first and the franchise wasn't the big money-making machine it has since become, and the second was Connor, who was a pretty divisive character. We have not seen an ethnic character since him in a main title, only in DLCs and handhelds. Talk about artistic integrity all you want, but it's pure naivete to believe 98% of video game protagonists just happen to be white, scruffy, 30-something men simply because theirs are the stories that are so original they absolutely need to be heard.



I┤m not saying you are wrong, numbers in "western gaming" are the way you say. However is also true that even a bigger majority of japanese video games have JAPANESE protagonists and about 99% percent of Bollywood and Nollywood are respectively indian and african actors. However I will say it again, Ubi has been more diverse regarding this matter than other companies.


Oh by the way, DON┤T get me wrong, I would KILL for settings like these:

http://www.gameranx.com/img/12-Sep/ac2.jpeg

or

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs21/i/2007/232/c/5/Sunset_on_Babylon_by_Raphael_Lacoste.jpg

Kinda off topic, one indian member of the forums told me he disliked AC brahman because the whole portrayal was cartoonish.

ze_topazio
03-28-2015, 12:33 AM
I don't believe it's pure coincidence that we've only had two non-white protagonists in main titles so far. One is Alta´r, who was the very first and the franchise wasn't the big money-making machine it has since become, and the second was Connor, who was a pretty divisive character. We have not seen an ethnic character since him in a main title, only in DLCs and handhelds. Talk about artistic integrity all you want, but it's pure naivete to believe 98% of video game protagonists just happen to be white, scruffy, 30-something men simply because theirs are the stories that are so original they absolutely need to be heard.

But let's take in consideration that the other games took place in Italy and France and the native population of those countries is white, I don't expect white characters when they go to Asia or Africa but white characters when the game is set in Europe is to be expected.

There's the case of Revelations but that was an Ezio sequel so it's a special case and AC4 was about Caribbean pirates and pirate captains were historically mostly British, of course they could have used a different story, kinda like that of Freedom Cry, but that wouldn't have helped with the illusion of being one of the Caribbean Pirates of legend.

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 01:17 AM
But let's take in consideration that the other games took place in Italy and France and the native population of those countries is white, I don't expect white characters when they go to Asia or Africa but white characters when the game is set in Europe is to be expected.

Okay, but isn't it sensible to ask why the devs are so hung up on exploring European history when there's so much historical material in non-white countries? Why did we need Ezio, the white European man to guide us through Constantinople, one of the most ethnically diverse cities we've had so far? Why was Edward the star of AC4 instead of Adewale? Freedom Cry could have been the main console title and Edward's story just a DLC. Why did we never follow Alta´r's son, Darim, in his travels to Mongolia? Why have we still not gotten a main game in Asia? We have so many games focusing on white men's stories in Europe and America (even the native American hero's story was mostly all about being an errand boy for famous white people). If it was truly about artistic freedom, I think it's doing the writers a disservice to claim these same old stories are really the only ones they can think of to tell.

ze_topazio
03-28-2015, 01:38 AM
That's a different topic, they probably just think that Europe with their fancy cities is more commercially appealing, I already expressed here in this boards how I believe that the wonderful Constantinople and fascinating Ottoman civilization was wasted in one of the most unnecessary sequel of all times, regarding AC4 I already explained that they were trying to give people the illusion of being one of the legendary Caribbean pirates of the XVIII century, and the image that people have of Caribbean pirates is drunk British dudes plundering their fellow countrymen ships which is actually historically correct.

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 07:10 AM
With that being said, I find Ubi to be WAY more diverse than many other American/european companies....

Yeah, they at least try. But you know, I think their marketing team is pretty useless. Like Beyond Good and Evil never got the push it deserved from their side to be the big hit it could and should have been and the lesson people at Ubisoft took after that, it didn't sell because the hero was a woman. And since that game, I don't think Ubisoft has done a game with a female lead. Aveline might be the only one after that.


There's the case of Revelations but that was an Ezio sequel so it's a special case and AC4 was about Caribbean pirates and pirate captains were historically mostly British, of course they could have used a different story, kinda like that of Freedom Cry, but that wouldn't have helped with the illusion of being one of the Caribbean Pirates of legend.

Actually, the historical record is pretty clear on this point. Escaped African slaves account for 25-30% of all Pirate crews. In one case, it was 98%. Whether there was ever a black pirate captain though, I don't know but the reality is that slaves were a big part of the pirate era. BLACK FLAG deserves credit for at least discussing slavery since most Pirate stories never touch that not even Pirates of the Caribbean (ideally, Kiera Knightley's character should be the daughter of slaveowners and her servants are white when they should be black). The fact is people don't associate England or the Carribean with Slavery.


Okay, but isn't it sensible to ask why the devs are so hung up on exploring European history when there's so much historical material in non-white countries?

Yeah, they should be much less timid in exploring China and Japan, or even India which Hutchinson and Corey May were interested in but its unlikely they will ever do now that they made a comic book around it, and Ubisoft will think FAR CRY 4 kitsch-oriental vision of tigers and elephants would scratch that itch for gamers anyway.

In any case, let me say that I don't believe there is such a thing as "white history" or "black history" or "Asian history". It's all about humanity. I don't agree with the mentality that says that Civil Rights history is only relevant to African Americans and no one else, and I don't agree that Napoleon or George Washington (to mention two racist white dudes) are of no interest to minorities.

My main gripes with Ubisoft is not that UNITY doesn't have a black hero. It's that UNITY has an aristocrat as an hero at the time of the French Revolution, a non-Parisian as a hero for a game set in Paris. The fact is European history is pretty diverse too. Like we don't have a single Jewish character in any of these games set in medieval and early modern history. No supporting characters, no NPCs, leave alone protagonists.

rprkjj
03-28-2015, 07:36 AM
Pretty sure you've expressed on multiple occasions that majority protagonists are your biggest gripe. You mention it the most, at least. As for an absence of Jews, when has Judaism ever played a major part in any of the settings? In which setting is it relevant enough to introduce a Jewish character?

Christianity is the only religion that has had any influence in any of the settings besides Islam in AC1 and ACR, so of course they're getting more mentions. Even then, what character besides the pope and the crusadera (duh) has religion played any part other than being some background text in a database entry? Also, since when has Arno been an aristocrat, maybe by birth, but when has it had an actual effect on his character? And since when have you ever given a **** that Arno isn't a Parisian? Guess what, Ezio wasn't a Venetian or Roman, and Edward wasn't Spanish. Honestly, way to pull out the most arbitrary baseless complaint you could think of out of your ***.

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 08:11 AM
As for an absence of Jews, when has Judaism ever played a major part in any of the settings? In which setting is it relevant enough to introduce a Jewish character?

Assassins are protectors of the weak and oppressed aren't they? No one was more oppressed than Jews in this time period. That alone makes their omission rather shocking.

As for which setting would it have been relevant. Well, during the Crusades (AC1) Jews lived in Jerusalem where Saladin promised to protect their lives and properties (we actually see a synagogue in Jerusalem briefly, a nice wooden building with a large Star of David, which is perhaps highly exaggerated). During the same period, in England, Jews were exiled and would not be allowed back until Oliver Cromwell let them in. The word ghetto comes from the Renaissance (AC2), where Jews were segregated and made to live in what Venetians called "Borghetto" (**** heap/garbage dump) since thats what Venetians/Catholics thought Jews deserved to live. We don't see the original Jewish ghetto in Venice. Likewise, Rodrigo Borgia as Pope did a genuinely good deed when he allowed Jews exiled from Spain, Portugal and France to settle in Rome's ancient Jewish quarter (older than Christianity, it goes back to Julius Caesar's era). We don't see the Jewish Quarter in BROTHERHOOD at all and even the Templar videos black flag don't mention Rodrigo's real-life good deeds.

In REVELATIONS, Ottoman Turkey was a haven for Jews exiled from Spain, France and other parts, they became professionals (printers, doctors, bureaucrats). Ideally Sofia Sartor's background and why she stayed in Istanbul after the end of the war and why she is unmarried when she is 31 years old(supremely rare for a bourgeois Italian girl of that time, especially one so pretty) could have been explained if she was Jewish. But the game doesn't take advantage of that at all.

During the French Revolution (UNITY), France became the first nation in European history to give Jews full citizenship and equal rights. The problem is that the guys advocating this were Robespierre and his Merry Men (they also abolished slavery for the first time, because why the hell not).

So to say that the setting isn't relevant to introduce a Jewish character is ridiculous and absurd. The omission is what is shocking here. And you know we all talk about minorities but there are actually very few Jewish characters as well. I think the only game with a Jewish protagonist is GTA : The lost and the damned where the biker Johnny Klebitz is Jewish.

rprkjj
03-28-2015, 06:54 PM
Assassins are protectors of the weak and oppressed aren't they? No one was more oppressed than Jews in this time period. That alone makes their omission rather shocking.

As for which setting would it have been relevant. Well, during the Crusades (AC1) Jews lived in Jerusalem where Saladin promised to protect their lives and properties (we actually see a synagogue in Jerusalem briefly, a nice wooden building with a large Star of David, which is perhaps highly exaggerated). During the same period, in England, Jews were exiled and would not be allowed back until Oliver Cromwell let them in. The word ghetto comes from the Renaissance (AC2), where Jews were segregated and made to live in what Venetians called "Borghetto" (**** heap/garbage dump) since thats what Venetians/Catholics thought Jews deserved to live. We don't see the original Jewish ghetto in Venice. Likewise, Rodrigo Borgia as Pope did a genuinely good deed when he allowed Jews exiled from Spain, Portugal and France to settle in Rome's ancient Jewish quarter (older than Christianity, it goes back to Julius Caesar's era). We don't see the Jewish Quarter in BROTHERHOOD at all and even the Templar videos black flag don't mention Rodrigo's real-life good deeds.

In REVELATIONS, Ottoman Turkey was a haven for Jews exiled from Spain, France and other parts, they became professionals (printers, doctors, bureaucrats). Ideally Sofia Sartor's background and why she stayed in Istanbul after the end of the war and why she is unmarried when she is 31 years old(supremely rare for a bourgeois Italian girl of that time, especially one so pretty) could have been explained if she was Jewish. But the game doesn't take advantage of that at all.

During the French Revolution (UNITY), France became the first nation in European history to give Jews full citizenship and equal rights. The problem is that the guys advocating this were Robespierre and his Merry Men (they also abolished slavery for the first time, because why the hell not).

So to say that the setting isn't relevant to introduce a Jewish character is ridiculous and absurd. The omission is what is shocking here. And you know we all talk about minorities but there are actually very few Jewish characters as well. I think the only game with a Jewish protagonist is GTA : The lost and the damned where the biker Johnny Klebitz is Jewish.

Like I said, influenced. None of the protagonists of the series have even expressed their beliefs about God besides Altair. Think of it like this, religion plays a big part in the AC mythos, except when it comes to individuals, of course besides the Pope and the crusaders and even then I don't remember Christianity or any religion being mentioned by name in the series. It's always been like that, regardless of religions. Although knowing that about Turkey at the time I actually agree that being Jewish would have made a lot of sense for Sofia's character.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-28-2015, 07:08 PM
Okay, but isn't it sensible to ask why the devs are so hung up on exploring European history when there's so much historical material in non-white countries? Why did we need Ezio, the white European man to guide us through Constantinople, one of the most ethnically diverse cities we've had so far? Why was Edward the star of AC4 instead of Adewale? Freedom Cry could have been the main console title and Edward's story just a DLC. Why did we never follow Alta´r's son, Darim, in his travels to Mongolia? Why have we still not gotten a main game in Asia? We have so many games focusing on white men's stories in Europe and America (even the native American hero's story was mostly all about being an errand boy for famous white people). If it was truly about artistic freedom, I think it's doing the writers a disservice to claim these same old stories are really the only ones they can think of to tell.

maybe because the series is about the assassins and templar order (religion (christianity) and power) and not race or setting..
Once again.. making it about race is ego talking....
You point to why wasnt Adawale the main character instead of Edward.. probably because Darby wrote a story about a pirate and the idea of a runaway slave crew member came 2nd as it should have.... Adawale didnt feel like 'we have to add a black guy' he felt natural...
Youre going to point fingers at an artist for not scratching his story up to the point he wrote in a slave character and saying he is the protaginist now just cause we dont have a black assassin on the cover (Avaline doesnt count though..cause even though she had PHYSICAL SHELF SPACE she is a wink at your cry, so we cant count her)
Now to Ezio.... Italy is a staple for the catholic religion.. id say PRETTY damn important place to visit
The templars are European and were rumored to have went to the americas
How dare Ubisoft not make up a timeline to scare off the people here for the history (btw 90% give or take)
How dare they not go to asian cities just so gamers can have their played out wet dream of samurai (BTW constantinople has asian claims as well as european)
How dare they accurately depict the native american race as being manipulated and lied to
We've been to North America..South America...Europe..Asia...
We only have Africa, Australia, and antartica left to visit...
If we dont get a penguin assassin im going to riot
Africa has MAJOR ties in history origin AND religion... its almost a guarantee...
Australia though idk much about that.. i just know if it happens people will cry because the protagonist is white
Point is.. race means nothing... stop making it an issue...

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 07:56 PM
Now to Ezio.... Italy is a staple for the catholic religion.. id say PRETTY damn important place to visit

And even then they leave aside several ethnic influences, like we don't have the games touch on anti-semitism, which by the way is a staple of the catholic religion too.


Point is.. race means nothing... stop making it an issue...

It will continue to be an issue so long as people overreact and think its an issue, which you clearly do.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-28-2015, 08:09 PM
And even then they leave aside several ethnic influences, like we don't have the games touch on anti-semitism, which by the way is a staple of the catholic religion too.



It will continue to be an issue so long as people overreact and think its an issue, which you clearly do.
Im the only one not crying about a race or culture being represented
I dont want to play a game where a character looks a certain way 'just cause' there hasnt been one before

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 08:21 PM
Im the only one not crying about a race or culture being represented

What's wrong about people asking for wider representation in video games? Why over-react? If all you care about is the gameplay why bother if the setting is Ancient China or Egypt. Why do people treat anyone who complains about how women are represented or how minorities are represented as if they are the problem?

To quote Prince Suleiman in REVELATIONS: "The world is a tapestry of many colors and patterns. A just leader would celebrate this, not seek to unravel it." That's all people ask for.


I dont want to play a game where a character looks a certain way 'just cause' there hasnt been one before

The point is AC1 wouldn't have been remotely the same kind of game if instead of an Arab hero, you had what would usually happen in Hollywood - have an European man somehow become an Assassin and fall in love with a local woman and learn the Assassin's Creed. That's the Dances With Wolves approach.

AC3's Haytham section is a parody of that, since Haytham is the White Fantasy writ-large, he marches in, gives orders, makes decisions, woos the Native American princess and the game turns that over by making him a Templar. I find it amusing that Haytham has so many fanboys and people claiming he should have been the hero.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-28-2015, 08:33 PM
What's wrong about people asking for wider representation in video games? Why over-react? If all you care about is the gameplay why bother if the setting is Ancient China or Egypt. Why do people treat anyone who complains about how women are represented or how minorities are represented as if they are the problem?

To quote Prince Suleiman in REVELATIONS: "The world is a tapestry of many colors and patterns. A just leader would celebrate this, not seek to unravel it." That's all people ask for.



The point is AC1 wouldn't have been remotely the same kind of game if instead of an Arab hero, you had what would usually happen in Hollywood - have an European man somehow become an Assassin and fall in love with a local woman and learn the Assassin's Creed. That's the Dances With Wolves approach.

AC3's Haytham section is a parody of that, since Haytham is the White Fantasy writ-large, he marches in, gives orders, makes decisions, woos the Native American princess and the game turns that over by making him a Templar. I find it amusing that Haytham has so many fanboys and people claiming he should have been the hero.

whats wrong with it is it has nothing to do with gaming! they are asking for a shallow representation of a character

pirate1802
03-28-2015, 08:38 PM
Oh hold on there with the bleeding hearts crying about artistic freedom being muffled by those vile PC people. Just hold on there. This is all complete bull and you know why? because on one side of my monitor I have a large pile of the novels I've read recently and on the other side I have my videogame cases. and I find the the protagonists of my novels are way, way more varied in both race and sex than my videogame protagonists. You know why? Because for writers there isn't a big corporate suit holding their pens and dictating what they must write. As a result we have more variety. Same isn't true for games. So this fanatical worry that PC pressure would muffle artistic freedom is complete and utter horsecrap. If anything, the opposite is true. Artistic freedom is already muffled by.

And if you think race and sex doesn't matter then clearly others don't think like you, for if they did we would see more diverse protagonists. But that we still see mostly white dudebro protagonists mean that people want that to happen.

@Megas: Was that one who complained against Brahman me? I don't remember lol. But yeah, Brahman was pretty cartoonish. It almost seemed like reading an Aladdin comic.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-28-2015, 08:45 PM
Oh hold on there with the bleeding hearts crying about artistic freedom being muffled by those vile PC people. Just hold on there. This is all complete bull and you know why? because on one side of my monitor I have a large pile of the novels I've read recently and on the other side I have my videogame cases. and I find the the protagonists of my novels are way, way more varied in both race and sex than my videogame protagonists. You know why? Because for writers there isn't a big corporate suit holding their pens and dictating what they must write. As a result we have more variety. Same isn't true for games. So this fanatical worry that PC pressure would muffle artistic freedom is complete and utter horsecrap. If anything, the opposite is true. Artistic freedom is already muffled by.

And if you think race and sex doesn't matter then clearly others don't think like you, for if they did we would see more diverse protagonists. But that we still see mostly white dudebro protagonists mean that people want that to happen.

@Megas: Was that one who complained against Brahman me? I don't remember lol. But yeah, Brahman was pretty cartoonish. It almost seemed like reading an Aladdin comic.

I feel like books.. example a recent harry potter character are made gay just because
while the last of us and gone home both feature gay character.. Dragon Age Inquisition does as well...
No corporate suit is telling them no to characters they want...
I know it feels nice to victimize... but thats not true
video games have just as much writing freedom as authors
does that mean EVERYTHING makes the game?
No, but they dont make characters gay just to make a statement.. they do it cause its their story and thats just the way it is.. and thats what i like about it
I dont want a statement to be made.. then it feels like cheap publicity

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 08:51 PM
Oh hold on there with the bleeding hearts crying about artistic freedom being muffled by those vile PC people. Just hold on there. This is all complete bull and you know why? because on one side of my monitor I have a large pile of the novels I've read recently and on the other side I have my videogame cases. and I find the the protagonists of my novels are way, way more varied in both race and sex than my videogame protagonists. You know why? Because for writers there isn't a big corporate suit holding their pens and dictating what they must write. As a result we have more variety. Same isn't true for games. So this fanatical worry that PC pressure would muffle artistic freedom is complete and utter horsecrap. If anything, the opposite is true. Artistic freedom is already muffled by.

^ This.

pirate1802
03-28-2015, 08:58 PM
I feel like books.. example a recent harry potter character are made gay just because

Just because? So there's a gay character and it feels just because? maybe that's because there aren't many gay characters around and so when one is put in, it feels intruding, like 'just because' lol.


while the last of us and gone home both feature gay character.. Dragon Age Inquisition does as well...

And you should know that there was a considerable backlash against DA:I because of that. Dudebros complaining that PC is forcing itself in their precious games.


video games have just as much writing freedom as authors

You are delusional if you think that's so. During Rogue's promotional interviews there was a ubi PR guy stage-managing the creative director's (who has the biggest say in a studio) replies. You cannot imagine someone from Penguin doing that to Paul Theroux, for example. He would just laugh them off and show the middle finger. The next time he writes a book, he will just take it to a different publisher. Can Ivan Balbanov do that? (hope I spelled it right.)


No, but they dont make characters gay just to make a statement.. they do it cause its their story and thats just the way it is.. and thats what i like about it
I dont want a statement to be made.. then it feels like cheap publicity

And how will that be decided if a character is there to make a statement or for legitimate reasons? Because clearly, Dumbledore was gay 'just because', but to others his being gay might seem as natural as Harry being straight.

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 08:58 PM
I feel like books.. example a recent harry potter character are made gay just because
while the last of us and gone home both feature gay character.. Dragon Age Inquisition does as well...
No corporate suit is telling them no to characters they want...
I know it feels nice to victimize... but thats not true
video games have just as much writing freedom as authors
does that mean EVERYTHING makes the game?
No, but they dont make characters gay just to make a statement.. they do it cause its their story and thats just the way it is.. and thats what i like about it
I dont want a statement to be made.. then it feels like cheap publicity

You do realize that Dumbledore being gay was only revealed because the movie people wanted to write him straight? They wrote a scene for him in the script where he was talking about being in love with a girl in his youth and J.K. Rowling had to correct them to say he was gay. Wouldn't you know it, the movie people didn't just say "oh, okay, we'll just swap the girl into a boy in his dialogue". No, they chose to scrap that scene entirely because heaven forbid people might have to listen to Dumbledore openly admit he's gay instead of openly talking about himself being straight.

And we know corporate suits are very much involved with the devs' writing and how their games are presented to the public. Elizabeth was completely omitted from the cover of Bioshock Infinite even though she's the second main character. Similarly, the marketing team at Naughty Dog wanted to remove Ellie from the cover of The Last of Us even though she's just as important as Joel, and even though we actually get to play as her. Removing and downplaying important characters due to their gender, race or sexuality is just as much of a statement as forcing them into a narrative.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-28-2015, 09:05 PM
And how will that be decided if a character is there to make a statement or for legitimate reasons? Because clearly, Dumbledore was gay 'just because', but to others his being gay might seem as natural as Harry being straight.
Ellie being gay adds context.. dumbledore being gay adds nothing.. thats how you decide

pirate1802
03-28-2015, 09:07 PM
Ellie being gay adds context.. dumbledore being gay adds nothing.. thats how you decide

Does him being straight adds any context then? :rolleyes:

I-Like-Pie45
03-28-2015, 09:13 PM
omg stop trying to steal white peoples video games you sjws

Assassin_M
03-28-2015, 09:18 PM
Just wanted to bring up Altair one more time. His portrayal should not be compared to Connor's at all.

1) Sure, he's an Arab but he's white. "Oh but Arabs are always portrayed as terrorists", yeah I don't really need to comment on that one.

2) He's NOT a Muslim. Altair was a staunch Atheist from the moment we saw him in AC I till his death. Arab =/= Muslim.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-28-2015, 09:18 PM
Does him being straight adds any context then? :rolleyes:
no... so neither matter..... ;)
Thats the point im trying to make..
People are asking for race instead of character...
I'm saying why not ask for character traits and a certain race and background just so happens to formulate to build that character
I dont care if the main character is white blue or purple...
Im beginning to think everybody prays 'i hope the next ac character is my race' except me because i connect to character traits and not skin color or sexual preferences
they dont matter to me...
If they are gay or indian.. high 5..
just dont do it to be different and make a statement.. do it because thats your character and thats the way it is....
let it add to the story
Not *kills guy* oh btw im gay as he dies lol
Its 100% okay to like the idea of a main protagonist being of certain ethnicity... its not okay though to cry about existing characters not being a different ethnicity... its silly to get angry at a race not being represented in someone elses art...

pirate1802
03-28-2015, 09:25 PM
People are asking for race instead of character...

Nobody asked Rowling to include a gay character. She did it on her own, so what's the problem? And there's what SixKeys said too. It wasn't made clear until the movie guys wanted to portray him as a straight dude.


I'm saying why not ask for character traits and a certain race and background just so happens to formulate to build that character

Because your experiences are intrinsically linked with your race and gender. AC1 would have been very different had it starred Maria Thorpe or Majdaddin.

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 09:25 PM
no... so neither matter..... ;)
Thats the point im trying to make..
People are asking for race instead of character...
I'm saying why not ask for character traits and a certain race and background just so happens to formulate to build that character
I dont care if the main character is white blue or purple...
Im beginning to think everybody prays 'i hope the next ac character is my race' except me because i connect to character traits and not skin color or sexual preferences
they dont matter to me...
If they are gay or indian.. high 5..
just dont do it to be different and make a statement.. do it because thats your character and thats the way it is....
let it add to the story
Not *kills guy* oh btw im gay as he dies lol

Yeah, I hate it when they shove all these straight people in my stories. Like, why did they have to make Alta´r and Ezio straight? Did it add context to their characters? No. I vote we make all characters asexual from now on.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-28-2015, 09:30 PM
Yeah, I hate it when they shove all these straight people in my stories. Like, why did they have to make Alta´r and Ezio straight? Did it add context to their characters? No. I vote we make all characters asexual from now on.
LOL youre telling me romantic interests dont add context to a story about bloodlines? :D

I-Like-Pie45
03-28-2015, 09:33 PM
Sixkeys you are lying

I never hurt you I never heet yoo

SixKeys yooooo are tearing me apart

pirate1802
03-28-2015, 09:33 PM
One can be gay and still leave descendants.

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 09:34 PM
1) Sure, he's an Arab but he's white.

Objectively its true, but in terms of cultural discourse, Altair is definitely not a member of the very exclusive paleface club.


2) He's NOT a Muslim. Altair was a staunch Atheist from the moment we saw him in AC I till his death. Arab =/= Muslim.

Altair not being a practising Muslim doesn't change the fact that he comes from an Islamic culture. Ezio isn't a practising Catholic either but he comes from a Christian culture.

Religion in the medieval world upto the Age of Enlightenment isn't just about "belief in God".

STDlyMcStudpants
03-28-2015, 09:35 PM
One can be gay and still leave descendants.

youre right they can.. wouldnt it be cool if a gay protagonists had to have sex with a woman to continue his family by the preassure of his now existing one and we have to deal with the mental issues and trauma this may have caused?
Now there is context.. you can do something with it more than just add a foot note

SixKeys
03-28-2015, 09:37 PM
LOL youre telling me romantic interests dont add context to a story about bloodlines? :D

Ezio had like a billion romantic interests. They could have skipped all of them and just waited to introduce the last one (Sofia), but they forced us to endure his constant flirting.

And now that they've introduced the blood vials, sexual orientation literally does not matter anymore. We don't even need to establish if the character ever had any interest in men or women. Edward and Adewale could have been celibate and it wouldn't have affected the story, since Abstergo could have gotten their DNA through Helix donators.

Assassin_M
03-28-2015, 09:40 PM
Objectively its true, but in terms of cultural discourse, Altair is definitely not a member of the very exclusive paleface club.
He's the same color skin as Ezio. If you're calling Ezio white, why are you singling out Altair?




Altair not being a practising Muslim doesn't change the fact that he comes from an Islamic culture. Ezio isn't a practising Catholic either but he comes from a Christian culture.

Religion in the medieval world upto the Age of Enlightenment isn't just about "belief in God".
Altair is not a non-practicing Muslim, He's NOT a Muslim, he's an Atheist. Ezio believes in a God. He's most likely Catholic, so true, he's a non-practicing catholic BUT he's not an Atheist, like Altair. The Hashashin of the game have no bearing to the Hashashin of the real world. The in-game Hashashin are not only outside of mainstream Islamic thought but also a lot of their members are atheists.

Altair doesn't come from an Islamic culture. Altair is a staunch Atheist and a Modern liberal. He has no background in Islam, apart from his father whom Altair views as a stranger.

Religion has always been the same, semantic are irrelevant.

VestigialLlama4
03-28-2015, 10:05 PM
He's the same color skin as Ezio. If you're calling Ezio white, why are you singling out Altair?

I am not the one writing the rules. I am just telling you have racial discourse works. Iranians are fairer skinned than Greeks for instance but they will never be considered "white" but Greeks are, as seen in that horrible 300 movie. The exception is in Germany where Greeks are considered "immigrants" and "welfare queens".

This isn't something I made up. I did some research on Indian immigration in America, and until the early 1920s, Sikh Immigrants (who are fairer skinned than other Indians) could still classify themselves as Caucasian, especially Sikhs but that was only because the categories weren't updated yet, they were never truly considered "white".The truth about race discourse is that it is one invented by racists to exclude non-white people from the top of the food chain. The reality is that this continues to dominate how these categories affect social relations, so you can't escape it. In short, Altair isn't white.


Religion has always been the same, semantic are irrelevant.

Well that is just not true at all. Religion has never been the same and semantics are relevant. I mean Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism is a very recent development (and largely a reaction to CIA incompetence). In the early 20th Century you had Arab nationalism which was very secular, before that you had the Ottoman Empire a multi-ethnic cosmopolitan culture, you had the Mughal Emperor Akbar in India who invented a philosophy of syncretism. In the Golden Age of Islam, of which the Asasiyun are a part of, you had Omar Khayam, Averroes and Al-Tabari who were quite skeptical or irreverent about Islam, but that doesn't mean they are culturally apart from Islam the way a modern atheist liberal can be. Those options just weren't open then.

Assassin_M
03-28-2015, 10:21 PM
I am not the one writing the rules. I am just telling you have racial discourse works. Iranians are fairer skinned than Greeks for instance but they will never be considered "white" but Greeks are, as seen in that horrible 300 movie. The exception is in Germany where Greeks are considered "immigrants" and "welfare queens".

This isn't something I made up. I did some research on Indian immigration in America, and until the early 1920s, Sikh Immigrants (who are fairer skinned than other Indians) could still classify themselves as Caucasian, especially Sikhs but that was only because the categories weren't updated yet, they were never truly considered "white".The truth about race discourse is that it is one invented by racists to exclude non-white people from the top of the food chain. The reality is that this continues to dominate how these categories affect social relations, so you can't escape it. In short, Altair isn't white.
What i'm saying is that you can bring up Altair as an example of diversity of nationalities but NOT of skin color. You condemn racial discourse but then accept it, because "you can't escape it". Who cares? When I first arrived in the US, the officer checking my passport was an Indian. Wanna know what his race on his ID card read? Friggin Black.


I mean Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism is a very recent development (and largely a reaction to CIA incompetence).In the early 20th Century you had Arab nationalism which was very secular, before that you had the Ottoman Empire a multi-ethnic cosmopolitan culture, you had the Mughal Emperor Akbar in India who invented a philosophy of syncretism.
You're steering into Politics here, that has nothing to do with religion as theology. Arab nationalism was largely a response to the colonial powers led by Britain. It's deeply rooted in secular elements. Islamic terrorism is a response to the deteriorating state of the middle east and the interference of western powers (one of the earliest Islamic terrorist organization, the Muslim brotherhood, was a force against British colonialism in Egypt).

What they all have in common is a desire for change. Arab nationalism sought to replace the weak and submissive Ottoman authority with a stronger identity.

Most of your examples are incarnations of Muslim states. It has nothing to do with Religion. It's politics.



In the Golden Age of Islam, of which the Asasiyun are a part of, you had Omar Khayam, Averroes and Al-Tabari who were quite skeptical or irreverent about Islam, but that doesn't mean they are culturally apart from Islam the way a modern atheist liberal can be. Those options just weren't open then.
Woah there, Omar Khayam's religious views are not universally agreed upon. His poetry reeked of heresy but there's a lot more to indicate that his poetry was satire, not thought. There's evidence that he was Sufi.
Averroes was never skeptical about Islam, I don't know where you got THAT from.
And Altabari? Skeptical? He might have had some views that weren't completely in line with mainstream Islamic jurisprudence of the time, but he was nonetheless a prominent theologian. He made one of the most influential Tafsirs of the Quran that was translated to Persian.

Altair is more akin to Al-Ma'arri. An atheist.

VestigialLlama4
03-29-2015, 04:50 AM
What i'm saying is that you can bring up Altair as an example of diversity of nationalities but NOT of skin color.

Fair enough.


Woah there, Omar Khayam's religious views are not universally agreed upon. His poetry reeked of heresy but there's a lot more to indicate that his poetry was satire, not thought. There's evidence that he was Sufi.

As I understand it, Sufism originated in India, with Sant Kabir and others, a highly syncretized offshoot. I have no doubt that Omar Khayam would use the satire label to hide his views given that it wasn't okay to be an atheist at the time (or even now).


Altair is more akin to Al-Ma'arri. An atheist.

Yeah, but Al-Ma'arri is an atheist in the context of Islamic culture. That is my point. These designations of religion and ethnicity go deeper than what you think, especially in a pre-modern era.

I-Like-Pie45
03-29-2015, 04:52 AM
Altair is a bahai!

Assassin_M
03-29-2015, 05:52 AM
As I understand it, Sufism originated in India, with Sant Kabir and others, a highly syncretized offshoot. I have no doubt that Omar Khayam would use the satire label to hide his views given that it wasn't okay to be an atheist at the time (or even now).
Not really, it started much earlier and dates back to Persia. It's biggest spread and influence is in India, that's true though.

It wasn't as terrible for atheists back then as it is now, I just brought forth an example in Al-Ma'arri who lived around the same time and was pretty vocal about his anti-theism with no repercussions.



Yeah, but Al-Ma'arri is an atheist in the context of Islamic culture. That is my point. These designations of religion and ethnicity go deeper than what you think, especially in a pre-modern era.
There's no such thing, though. Did you read Al-Ma'arri's works? His views are no different from Sam Harris' or Richard Dawkins. Al-Ma'arri criticized Islam, called its prophets false messengers, said the Quran is more or less BS, said that God is a superstition created to make people miserable and he was even an anti-natalist. He's the model of modern atheism. There's no such thing as a "Muslim Atheist". You're a Muslim or you're not.

Megas_Doux
03-29-2015, 02:03 PM
Couple of things:

1 Race is not about the color of the skin only, but also facial features, bone structure and such.
2 In western media there is a majority of white people indeed, no way to deny that. But the same scenario happens in Japanese media, bolllywod, nollywood. It's a "common" behavior to identify with "your own" at both consciously and subconsciously levels.

However I do think that due to AC overall nature, we need settings in which we can have more variety, China ans Ancient Sumer/Assyria/Babylon are my dreamed choices.



@Megas: Was that one who complained against Brahman me? I don't remember lol. But yeah, Brahman was pretty cartoonish. It almost seemed like reading an Aladdin comic.

That makes it two then, Shotbit was the one who told me so about that comic.

AdrianJacek
04-15-2015, 03:54 PM
Animals in RDR only roam around, until they kill something. Then they spent a couple of minutes eating and then go back to roaming.

There are stations for animals in AC III where you'll see baby bears playing, you'll find adult bears scratching tree trunks, moose fighting, deer drinking from lakes, baby wolves suckling from their mother, a deer family playing around and much more.

Your AC III was effed up, man. I wont talk about technical issues. in my AC III, animals didn't jump on my lap.
I don't remember any baby wolves. Most of my experience with wolves was defending myself when a pack ambushed me. Once it was 8 wolves, I believe.