PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft are History Buffs?



L0lwu7
06-10-2011, 04:23 PM
Just gonna be brief here.

Okay, number one - Ubisoft give the impression that the switch to muskets from crossbows was because of 'modernism' or modernization of the Papal armies. Now, I have done some superficial research and I've found something quite different.

In terms of physics, guns are less powerful than arrows, which is why arrows go through kevlar when you need armor piercing rounds to do the same job with a gun. Inaccuracy here - Ezio takes more damage from gunmen than crossbowmen. This makes no sense, as a sheet of metal will stop a musket shot, which is essentially what Ezio's armor is. A crossbow bolt will go straight through this, and on into the body, rendering armor negligible.

Another thing - the switch from bows to guns was, in most cases, a matter of politics; a gun is harder to make than a bow. If the Papal armies need additional soldiers, they drag people off the streets and give them a gun. Afterwards, they take the gun away. This wouldn't work with a bow because bows can be whittled easily - I tried this and with no past experience of woodwork was able to make a working shortbow with a fair-sized branch and some twine.

The point is, disgruntled ex-soldiers can't take their revenge or revolt for being dumped after a big war if they can't get armaments. That was the real reason guns were used. After a while, bows became 'outdated' which is why crossbowmen are viewed as weak at best, no threat at all at worst.

Basically, gunmen were not tougher than crossbowmen. Also, crossbows were more accurate than early matchlocks. Just sayin'.

Chamboozer
06-10-2011, 04:35 PM
What you said is mostly true. The most important reason for the switch to guns was actually because it is much easier to teach someone to use a gun than it is to use a bow. Thus people don't need to spend their entire lives training to be good bowmen.

Bows were in fact more accurate than guns when used properly, as you said. The problem is that it takes years of training to get a soldier to be good at using a bow, whereas you can teach someone to fire and reload a gun in just one day. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For example in England during the Hundred Years' War peasants were required to start training with a longbow at a really young age, and to practice very, very often. This gave English armies quite the advantage over the French who could not afford to lose their skilled longbowmen in battles. Then guns come along and skilled soldiers no longer are necessary because any average joe can shoot a gun just as well as an expert.

L0lwu7
06-10-2011, 04:45 PM
Again, this is more politics. Armies can be raised and demolished in days, and not one of the soldiers can do anything about it. The Ubi team for Assassins' Creed profess to be history buffs, but they keep on making horrible, horrible mistakes, not about the events, but about the people who caused and took part in them. I can't take a company seriously who make a statement about themselves that isn't true.

Chamboozer
06-10-2011, 04:48 PM
Ultimately it boils down to time. They would need either years to correctly study everything and implement it, or lots of extra money to hire historians to tell them what to do. And unforutnately many historians would love to distort what is presented in the game to fit their worldviews. After all, what they tell Ubisoft to make is going to be what the common public learns about history, and that's not an opportunity that comes along very often.

L0lwu7
06-10-2011, 04:50 PM
So the conclusion here is that Ubisoft are not very nice people.

I enjoyed this conversation. Thanks.

Chamboozer
06-10-2011, 04:53 PM
That's not necessarily true. They simply care about making money and making an enjoyable game, which is in my opinion the correct way to go about it. I doubt they really care about how they present history, or even realize that it radically changes how many people view the Renaissance, the Crusades, or the Ottoman Empire.

L0lwu7
06-10-2011, 04:58 PM
I wouldn't really mind that they distorted history - it's been done before - but they profess in their walkthrough of Brotherhood that, and I paraphrase, "We here at Ubisoft are real history buffs. If we want to include something from history in our game and it doesn't fit our version of events, we'd rather cut it than twist facts to fit our requirements."

Elsewhere in the book they talk about how they don't want to be able to be shot down by somebody with 30 seconds to spare for a Google search.

Well, Ubisoft, you have. Now make your games accurate like you say you do, .

<span class="ev_code_RED">Please watch your Language.</span>

Chamboozer
06-10-2011, 05:09 PM
If they did say that, then it really was an unfortunate statement. However there's a big difference between being a history buff and being an actual historian. There are some things which seem true and make sense on the surface but only change when one looks deeper. To the average person it definately looks like a simple 'advancement in technology' when people started using firearms, just like how at first glance it just looks like Constantinople is diverse simply 'because it is on the crossroads between Europe and Asia'. If they dug deeper they'd find that there's different reasons for both, but it's a lot to ask from a group of people who are busy focusing on making the game. What are they supposed to do when they realize something they just spent weeks on is incorrect? They can't simply scrap it, they have deadlines to meet.

phil.llllll
06-10-2011, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by L0lwu7:

Well, Ubisoft, you have. Now make your games accurate like you say you do,.

You're taking this way too personally and you're not seeing the bigger picture. This doesn't have so much to do with history than it does with game mechanics. What purpose would there be to introduce a new weapon if it was the same or weaker than a previous one?

AEKTZIS_1921
06-11-2011, 04:00 AM
Biggest historical buff in this latest game has been found even before it has been released because Manuel Palaiologos never existed even though ubi guys claim he is a historical figure. A Manuel II Palaiologos existed but died before the city fell, but he was the father of King Konstantine XI Palaiologos who was the last ruler of the Byzantines? This is one major mistake, and even the idea of having a Palaiologos trying to retake the city is wrong.

L0lwu7
06-11-2011, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:

You're taking this way too personally and you're not seeing the bigger picture. This doesn't have so much to do with history than it does with game mechanics. What purpose would there be to introduce a new weapon if it was the same or weaker than a previous one?

I don't care about the game mechanics. In Brotherhood, all soldiers are lambs to be slaughtered. I stood still in a squad of four Papal Guards and it took them five minutes to kill me, even when I wasn't doing anything. The weapons don't matter - they're all weak. What does matter is that they look good while they're being killed, and they don't.

phil.llllll
06-11-2011, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by L0lwu7:
I don't care about the game mechanics. In Brotherhood, all soldiers are lambs to be slaughtered. I stood still in a squad of four Papal Guards and it took them five minutes to kill me, even when I wasn't doing anything. The weapons don't matter - they're all weak. What does matter is that they look good while they're being killed, and they don't.

What? You do realize this is a game right? If you want that kind of accuracy you should look elsewhere.

L0lwu7
06-11-2011, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:
What? You do realize this is a game right? If you want that kind of accuracy you should look elsewhere.
I know this is a game. What I'm about is that they said their philosophy, above all else, is historical accuracy. They've not stuck to that. In a way, it's unethical.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Please do not bypass the Language Filter.</span>

reini03
06-11-2011, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by AEKTZIS_1921:
Biggest historical buff in this latest game has been found even before it has been released because Manuel Palaiologos never existed even though ubi guys claim he is a historical figure. A Manuel II Palaiologos existed but died before the city fell, but he was the father of King Konstantine XI Palaiologos who was the last ruler of the Byzantines? This is one major mistake, and even the idea of having a Palaiologos trying to retake the city is wrong.

You're wrong. Ubi's right.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Palaiologos

Manuel Palaiologos (or Palaelogos) (1455-1512) was the youngest child of Thomas Palaiologos...

He might or might not have tried to retake the city. Come on, that doesn't matter. As said above, it's a game. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate. But you say Ubi is doing it completely wrong without even saying the truth either.

thornebrook
06-11-2011, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by L0lwu7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:
What? You do realize this is a game right? If you want that kind of accuracy you should look elsewhere.
I know this is a game. What I'm about is that they said their philosophy, above all else, is historical accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where/when did they say this? Just curious, I haven't seen a quote like this from them anywhere. But then I don't watch dev diaries or behind the scenes stuff often.

phil.llllll
06-11-2011, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by L0lwu7:
I know this is a game. What I'm about is that they said their philosophy, above all else, is historical accuracy. They've not stuck to that. In a way, it's unethical.

You missed the point. There's historical accuracy and then there's the game part (e.g. the story, magical chairs and apples, and the game mechanics). They stick to historical accuracy when it suits them but don't forget you're playing a game that's basically rewriting history along the way.

In the end, history is a backdrop and nothing more.

misterB2001
06-11-2011, 04:56 AM
Um they make it clear it is BASED upon historical events and people. They choose to stick quite close to the truth in most things but occasionally twist things to support their needs.

It's only a game!

SplinterSpelBer
06-11-2011, 07:02 AM
A detailed video showing some experienced archers shooting at medieval armor;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs

"This wouldn't work with a bow because bows can be whittled easily - I tried this and with no past experience of woodwork was able to make a working shortbow with a fair-sized branch and some twine."
"In terms of physics, guns are less powerful than arrows, which is why arrows go through kevlar."

I'm practising archery myself, and you talk about archery, arrows and bows as if there is only one sort of bows. When you start practising archery, you'll use a 30 pound bow that could just penetrate the skin of an unarmoured deer. If you want to use a heavier bow that can penetrate armor, you'll need to train for years.
A gun will probably penetrate armor;
"Back and breast plates continued to be used throughout the entire period of the 18th century and through Napoleonic times, in many European (heavy) cavalry units, until the early 20th century. From their introduction, muskets could pierce plate armour, so cavalry had to be far more mindful of the fire." (Wikipedia)

Guns are more modern than bow, and they give you the ability to penetrate armor without taking years of training. So this "Ubisoft give the impression that the switch to muskets from crossbows was because of 'modernism' or modernization of the Papal armies." is probably true.

AEKTZIS_1921
06-11-2011, 08:27 AM
ok so i did a bit of investigation and even though my initial comment wasnt 100% accurate it proves how insignificant Manuel Palaiologos was. He wasn't the successor of the crown of Constantinople instead it was given to his brother Andrew Palaiologos who in turn sold his right to the crown to Charles VIII of France. Manuel isnt even listed as a Byzantine Emperor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...f_Byzantine_Emperors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_Emperors)

reini03
06-11-2011, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by AEKTZIS_1921:
Manuel isnt even listed as a Byzantine Emperor.
It's quite obvious that only Byzantine Emperors are listed as Byzantine Emperors. You've written it for yourself - he wasn't one. Nobody has ever said that he was.

Black_Widow9
06-11-2011, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by misterB2001:
Um they make it clear it is BASED upon historical events and people. They choose to stick quite close to the truth in most things but occasionally twist things to support their needs.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Chamboozer
06-11-2011, 06:40 PM
As far as historical accuracy goes the Ottoman Empire is one of the most sensitive topics for me as it is my speciality in study, but so far I've been mostly satisfied with what Ubisoft has shown. They're gonna make mistakes and I'm fine with that.

Just please Ubisoft, don't use a modern map of Europe and Asia when you're looking at it during the 16th Century! It's incredibly easy to find a map from 1511. Made me rage during Brotherhood. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif