PDA

View Full Version : How does Unity tie in with the French Revolution



Thayin2012
12-12-2014, 08:21 AM
This thread does have lots of spoilers!

In my understanding, the French Revolution went something like this:

Louis XVI decides he needs to increase taxes, assembles the Estates General. However, the third estate realises he does not intend to solve any of their problems and instead forms the National Assembly, taking the Tennis Court Oath etc.
Then, the more violent events happen, storming of the Bastille, March to Versailles, reforms of the Church and the attempted escape of the Royal family, then the excecution of the King.
Following that, you have the formation of various political clubs, the outbreak of war and then the reign of terror.
Then, the Directory is formed, Napoleon soon comes into power, and France has a supreme ruler again.



My question is, where do these events fit in with the game?

I know that the estates General was prominently featured early in the game. Did the storming of the Bastille happen when Arno was imprisoned with Bellec? Was the march to Versailles represented by the Women's March co-op mission?

I really feel like Ubisoft missed a great opportunity by not including the execution of the King at all in the story, and did not explore a section of the story with Napoleon as much as they could have.

Finally, does anyone else find it really interesting how the last mission of Rogue happens during the first real mission of Unity?

STDlyMcStudpants
12-12-2014, 08:25 AM
ending of rogue was one of my favorites of all times..
I found that no historical characters other than leonardo have been used to their full potential

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 10:07 AM
My question is, where do these events fit in with the game?

I know that the estates General was prominently featured early in the game. Did the storming of the Bastille happen when Arno was imprisoned with Bellec? Was the march to Versailles represented by the Women's March co-op mission?

One user Pr0methus1962 came up with a timeline for the entire events:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/952229-Unity-Timeline-(helps-players-chronologically-integrate-storyline-and-co-op-missions)

As for the History, I have to say the game is highly falsified version of the Revolution. That includes single-player, co-op and side missions.
Check out this thread here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-SPOILERS

SenseHomunculus
12-12-2014, 01:21 PM
One user Pr0methus1962 came up with a timeline for the entire events:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/952229-Unity-Timeline-(helps-players-chronologically-integrate-storyline-and-co-op-missions)

As for the History, I have to say the game is highly falsified version of the Revolution. That includes single-player, co-op and side missions.
Check out this thread here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-SPOILERS

The games are all works of fiction, not documentary treatises.

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 01:22 PM
The games are all works of fiction, not documentary treatises.

Yes, thank you for contributing to the discussion. If you have anything really new to say, then please go ahead.

SenseHomunculus
12-12-2014, 01:31 PM
Yes, thank you for contributing to the discussion. If you have anything really new to say, then please go ahead.

Well, when someone says it's "falsified history" which has a decidedly negative connotation, I'm gently reminding everyone that it's meant to be a work of fiction, nothing more. Holocaust deniers, for example, "falsify history". Game publishers produce works of fiction.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 02:20 PM
The games are all works of fiction, not documentary treatises.

Well, it seems Creative Director, Alex Amancio, disagrees with you. He said:


"What we actually try to do, and I think this is just a personal belief that we have, is to avoid reducing history... We try very hard to portray things as factually as possible." (http://time.com/3471390/assassins-creed-unity/)

So maybe not "documentary treatises", but a bit more than merely works of fiction. At least according to the Creative Director. Not that he did a great job meeting the standard he supposedly set for Unity, but still.

And there's a big difference between the historical fiction created by someone like George Garrett, Hilary Mantel or even Sharon Kay Penman, whose works are based heavily on an actual history that the author clearly reveres, and the historical romance fiction created by someone like Diana Gabaldon, in which history is merely a setting that can be heavily skewed to suit the author's desires. Assassin's Creed used to be closer to the former category, whereas Unity dives head first into the latter category. The result is not an improvement.

Yes, the Assassin's Creed games are works of fiction. That doesn't mean they have to be stupid.

But if all you want is "renaissance faire" quality from Assassin's Creed, go ahead and enjoy. But as for me, I'd like these games to get back to the franchise's roots, which involved real history, because as I see it, getting a feel for the real history is so much more interesting than merely playing dress-up.

SenseHomunculus
12-12-2014, 03:25 PM
I guess it's that I take what development people say for publicity with a huge block of salt. I generally have no preconceptions as to the degree of historical accuracy in any AC game, and so am not disappointed when it doesn't stick closely to actual history. It's interesting if/when it does, but it doesn't break the game for me otherwise. And this from someone who exclusively reads non-fiction books. Go figure.

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 03:26 PM
Well, when someone says it's "falsified history" which has a decidedly negative connotation, I'm gently reminding everyone that it's meant to be a work of fiction, nothing more. Holocaust deniers, for example, "falsify history". Game publishers produce works of fiction.

Well UNITY is far and away the most untruthful, deceitful and phony story ever made about the French Revolution. Even the Scarlet Pimpernel is a documentary next to it. You can even accuse the story of "Revolutionary Denial."

So when I say it falsifies history, I mean it, that link I put above shows in detail where they messed up, every mission and side mission.

SenseHomunculus
12-12-2014, 03:43 PM
Well UNITY is far and away the most untruthful, deceitful and phony story ever made about the French Revolution. Even the Scarlet Pimpernel is a documentary next to it. You can even accuse the story of "Revolutionary Denial."

So when I say it falsifies history, I mean it, that link I put above shows in detail where they messed up, every mission and side mission.

No specific examples necessary, I agree it's not historically accurate. Saying it "falsifies history" implies it should be something that it's not. If the disclaimer at the beginning said that "the following is a recreation of historical events as they occurred", then I'd agree with you. It's based on historical events and persons, so if they even mention Napoleon Bonaparte in passing, it's based on a historical person regardless of the context they portray him. Maybe not as historically accurate as some people might like, but that's entirely subjective.

I guess I don't understand why you seem to take it as a personal slight by Ubisoft. Did the King Washington DLC upset you so much, too? That couldn't possibly veer more off historical course if it tried.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 03:45 PM
I guess it's that I take what development people say for publicity with a huge block of salt...

Well the thing is, Assassin's Creed games always used to match Amancio's statement, so it's not just publicity - it used to be 100% true. So your assertion that these games are not meant to be historical is just false - it's only true when it comes to Unity.

The whole point I'm trying to make here is that Assassin's Creed used to aspire to more than that. You don't seem willing to see that, but it's true nevertheless.

Hans684
12-12-2014, 03:50 PM
There was a revolution?

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 03:52 PM
Saying it "falsifies history" implies it should be something that it's not. If the disclaimer at the beginning said that "the following is a recreation of historical events as they occurred", then I'd agree with you. It's based on historical events and persons, so if they even mention Napoleon Bonaparte in passing, it's based on a historical person regardless of the context they portray him.

Look would you like it if someone made a game, a story, movie or TV show where the Civil War is about how the Evil North came and took the land away from those genteel and kindly Southern Plantation Owners. That can have artistic license too. But it would be disgusting nonetheless.

This game tells a similarly pernicious lie that the people didn't want Revolution, were manipulated by a bunch of evil psychopaths to turn against their Kindly King and other aristocrats, that there was no real food crisis except for stuff artificially manipulated by these all-powerful evil people and they framed the King for something he didn't do. The fact that democracy as we know it (Universal Suffrage, Anti-Racism, Right to Popular Protest) was first seen in the French Revolution doesn't even get a token mention.


Maybe not as historically accurate as some people might like, but that's entirely subjective.

All I expected was it be more accurate than Scarlet Pimpernel or A Tale of Two Cities...that was my only real yardstick, even those books are more pro-revolutionary (even if it is countered by typical English propaganda).


I guess I don't understand why you seem to take it as a personal slight by Ubisoft. Did the King Washington DLC upset you so much, too? That couldn't possibly veer more off historical course if it tried.

Actually George Washington in real-life was offered by some to become King of America and he refused time and again. The DLC takes that real-life story and creates a cool fiction that gives Washington a heroic note that the main game doesn't give him.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 04:06 PM
...even if it is countered by typical English propaganda...

Hey now, settle down. I'm English, and I think a lot of English people would be against the kind of propaganda you're talking about, which is not typically English, but typically ruling class.

Kayewla
12-12-2014, 04:09 PM
I actually felt it took more of a neutral approach to the revolution. It doesn't glorify nor vilify it. The French Revolution is portrayed as the chaotic period it was. And to claim Assassin's Creed Unity to be "far and away the most untruthful, deceitful and phony story ever made about the French Revolution" is quite honestly wrong, and it shows a great deal of bias on your part, VestigialLlama4.

No, it isn't entirely historically accurate. And yes, it does portray certain people in a bad way - most noticably Robespierre. But that doesn't make it "falsifying history".

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 04:24 PM
...No, it isn't entirely historically accurate. And yes, it does portray certain people in a bad way - most noticably Robespierre. But that doesn't make it "falsifying history".

But it does falsify history:

The Royal Family ignored the people, ruined France's economy and tried to instigate a foreign power's invasion of France. The game treats them as if they are entirely innocent.
Danton was a war profiteer who instigated the Terror. Unity paints him as a selfless hero who was against the Terror all along.
Saint-Just was a single-minded revolutionary whose love of the common people was so great that he willingly sacrificed himself to defend the revolution. Unity shows him as the equivalent of Leatherface from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Jacques Roux was a priest who only wanted true equality for the people. Unity paints him as a vicious psychopath who gets his jollies from strangling people to death.
Robespierre was, at worst, a person who stood by while his friends were executed. Unity shows him gloating over Danton's death.

"Not entirely accurate" is the understatement of the year. I mean, if a game showed Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States of America, as a guy who cooked and ate black babies, would you say that was "not entirely accurate"? Hopefully not. It's a gross and insulting falsification of history. So is Unity.

DumbGamerTag94
12-12-2014, 04:36 PM
Actually George Washington in real-life was offered by some to become King of America and he refused time and again. The DLC takes that real-life story and creates a cool fiction that gives Washington a heroic note that the main game doesn't give him.

Firstly as to your Civil War comment. Actually I wouldn't mind if a tv show movie or game that doesn't paint the Union as the all holy and angelic righteous hand of American history. And I'm an American from the Northern States myself. The truth of the matter is that the Union burned whole cites. Raped and pillaged throughout the south(on orders to do so). Destroyed homes crops and livelihoods(and not just of the slave owning planter class either. More effected was the poor working class that had no slaves). The Union also suspended Constitutional rights during the war. And you could be held in prison without proper trial during the war on suspicion alone. Then there's the horrible conditions in Union POW camps(which were pretty aweful on both sides but I personally hold the union even more responsible in this regard for 2 reasons. 1 they had far more funding to take proper care of prisoners. 2 they were suppoesed to exemplify the moral high ground.).

So I myself am a huge US history buff and a die hard Unionist when it comes to the Civil War based mainly on anti-slavery and Anti-nullification reasons. Yet I do not blindly absolve my faction of all sin simply because I agree with them. So I wouldn't be upset with this depiction of the north as it is historical fact. No matter how much I revere the Union I cannot blindly excuse their evils simply because I agree with their goals. Ends justifying the means is a very Templar mind set friend! Unlike you with the Jacobin I do not allow myself to look upon my favorite historical figures and era with rose colored glasses.

As for George Washington bein offered the King of the US. That is outright false. That's based on a very loose interperatation of an actual series of events that would have allowed Washington to seize the Crown of the US. However nobody ever offered him King. Ever. It's not factual. How DARE YOU falsify history by spreading this Ilk!!!!

Shahkulu101
12-12-2014, 04:39 PM
But it does falsify history:

The Royal Family ignored the people, ruined France's economy and tried to instigate a foreign power's invasion of France. The game treats them as if they are innocent.
Danton was a war profiteer who instigated the Terror. Unity paints him as a selfless hero who was against the Terror all along.
Saint-Just was a single-minded revolutionary whose love of the people was so great that he willingly sacrificed himself to defend the revolution. Unity shows him as the equivalent of Leatherface from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Jacques Roux was a priest who only wanted true equality for the people. Unity paints him as a vicious psychopath who gets his jollies from strangling people to death.
Robespierre was, at worst, a person who stood by while his friends were executed. Unity shows him gloating over Danton's death.

"Not entirely accurate" is the understatement of the year.

The story is biased, but those examples make it sound like you wanted it to be fully one sided too but on the end of the spectrum you prefer. Robespierre reputation is way more dubious than that - you make him sound completely innocent. If he was portrayed as such it would be just as bad as the portrayal of him as a complete monster in the final game.

Let's not forget that Abstergo rewrites history and the animus shows us 'what really happened'. In the Assassin's Creed Universe, that's who Danton was and the descriptions of him in history books are false. Danton was an enemy of the Templar's in the game after all.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 05:19 PM
Firstly as to your Civil War comment. Actually I wouldn't mind if a tv show movie or game that doesn't paint the Union as the all holy and angelic righteous hand of American history.

But that's not what Unity does. If all it did was show the Jacobins, warts and all, I'd be fine with that - they certainly had warts - a lot of warts, but their failures came almost certainly from fears of counter-revolution, not from the innate psychopathy that the game seems to ascribe to them.

As I said before, Unity does the equivalent of claiming that Jefferson Davis ate babies. If its ire was directed at the Union, it would have Lincoln raping captured Confederate spy Rose O'Neal Greenhow. Now while Jefferson Davis was no angel, he was no baby-eater, and while Lincoln was no saint, he was no rapist. Similarly, Saint-Just was no angel, but he did not wear waistcoats made from human skin, and while Robespierre was no saint, he did not gloat over Danton's execution. One man among those Unity maligns was almost certainly a good guy - Jacques Roux, yet Unity has him strangling his own devotees.

And these are men who furthered the cause of human rights to a degree unheard of in history up to that point, and while some of them undoubtedly committed terrible crimes, they at least deserve some recognition for the good they did, and not just the bad. And the bad things they did were bad enough - why invent stuff they did not do? That's what I don't understand.

Unity goes far beyond political spin. What it does is called character assassination, defamation, libel.

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 05:27 PM
Hey now, settle down. I'm English, and I think a lot of English people would be against the kind of propaganda you're talking about, which is not typically English, but typically ruling class.

For the record, some of my favorite Historians of the French Revolution are British. ;)

George Rude, Alfred Cobban(a conservative who nonetheless wrote perceptively about Robespierre). Or in the 19th Century, George Henry Lewes (paramour of George Eliot) who wrote a sympathetic biography of Robespierre when it was controversial to do so. The French Revolution and Robespierre inspired the Chartist Movement and you know I even like ****ens' A TALE OF TWO CITIES since Madam Defarge is such a cool character(I am pretty sure ****ens realized too late that she was more entertaining than he wanted her to be).

Actually, English right-wingers are more fair than the Americans to the French Revolution, though most of them tend to be more sentimental towards Talleyrand and people who lost their stuff in the Revolution(since naturally it evokes fears of what could happen to them).


And to claim Assassin's Creed Unity to be "far and away the most untruthful, deceitful and phony story ever made about the French Revolution" is quite honestly wrong, and it shows a great deal of bias on your part, VestigialLlama4.

Okay, tell me which, according to you is the most untruthful and phony story about the Revolution? Just for the sake of argument.


As for George Washington bein offered the King of the US. That is outright false. That's based on a very loose interperatation of an actual series of events that would have allowed Washington to seize the Crown of the US. However nobody ever offered him King. Ever. It's not factual. How DARE YOU falsify history by spreading this Ilk!!!!

I apologize for my looseness in phrasing. All I wanted to say was that Tyranny is a metaphorical gloss on that historical anecdote and dramatizes Washington's wisdom and rectitude, that was my intent. I didn't mean to imply, I realize now how badly it sounds, that the people or the other Founding Fathers wanted to offer it to him, I did not mean to intend that and I'm sorry.


Actually I wouldn't mind if a tv show movie or game that doesn't paint the Union as the all holy and angelic righteous hand of American history. And I'm an American from the Northern States myself. The truth of the matter is that the Union burned whole cites. Raped and pillaged throughout the south(on orders to do so). Destroyed homes crops and livelihoods(and not just of the slave owning planter class either. More effected was the poor working class that had no slaves). The Union also suspended Constitutional rights during the war. And you could be held in prison without proper trial during the war on suspicion alone. Then there's the horrible conditions in Union POW camps.

Well that's what the Jacobins and the Commitee did in the Terror, they committed war crimes, detained people without trial, and of course they executed people(a line Lincoln thankfully didn't cross) but at the end of the day, the enemies of the Jacobins were defending an obsolete and conservative(as well as antisemitic) system, being paid by foreign powers to do so, while the Jacobins were defending liberty and democracy for all, and just like Lincoln, they abolished slavery during wartime. This comparison was even made in that time you know, people called Thaddeus Stevens the "American Robespierre".

As for a movie that doesn't paint the Union as all holy and Angelic, see GANGS OF NEW YORK.


No matter how much I revere the Union I cannot blindly excuse their evils simply because I agree with their goals. Ends justifying the means is a very Templar mind set friend! Unlike you with the Jacobin I do not allow myself to look upon my favorite historical figures and era with rose colored glasses.

You are dodging the question = Would you like a game where the North, Lincoln and the Radical Republicans are portrayed the way they are in UNITY. Would you like a portrayal where Lincoln is a baby-eating psychopath, who struts like a supervillain, would you like a portrayal of the Southern Gentry as sympathetic innocents who lost their way of life?

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 05:32 PM
As I said before, Unity does the equivalent of claiming that Jefferson Davis ate babies.

I am not sure you mean Jefferson Davis, he was the guy in charge(or rather chief patsy) of the Confederates, ergo, a "bad guy" though he may had other qualities.

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 05:43 PM
The story is biased, but those examples make it sound like you wanted it to be fully one sided too but on the end of the spectrum you prefer. Robespierre reputation is way more dubious than that - you make him sound completely innocent. If he was portrayed as such it would be just as bad as the portrayal of him as a complete monster in the final game.

I agree with this. In fact in my long post on the historical element in the game, I mentioned that I didn't have too many issues about how Robespierre was shown in the single player(as opposed to Brotherhood and Side Stories). Before UNITY, I certainly did think that Robespierre would be the main villain of the game and I was sure he would be the Final Boss as it were. But I expected that Ubisoft would show him in a more interesting light than before. Several writers and commentators(such as Robert Rath in The Escapist) expected Robespierre to be an Assassin gone extreme and that it would be a nice dark game. The fact that they mentioned in INITIATES(but not in the main game, how convenient) in Eseosa's Letters that Robespierre's government abolished slavery hinted they might show a more complex picture. Instead we got a stupid game and stupid story.

Anyone who knows anything about History knows that Robespierre would never be a Templar as per the Series Criteria.


Let's not forget that Abstergo rewrites history and the animus shows us 'what really happened'.

So Ubisoft can do whatever it wants - "In other words, we can make anything we want. Well then, I don't know why we bothered to call the Assassins Asasiyun and not show them to be drug addled nutjobs like every other story on the subject, I don't know why we didn't make Leonardo this permanently old dude who sleeps with the Mona Lisa even if the dude was gay, I don't know why we didn't make Machiavelli a Mafia Don in Renaissance Italy but show him as a Public Servant, or why we didn't portray the Americans like the Flawless Abolitionist Heroes they were in THE PATRIOT" and so on.

All they had do, was be fair to their earlier standards.

Kayewla
12-12-2014, 05:43 PM
But it does falsify history:

The Royal Family ignored the people, ruined France's economy and tried to instigate a foreign power's invasion of France. The game treats them as if they are entirely innocent.
Danton was a war profiteer who instigated the Terror. Unity paints him as a selfless hero who was against the Terror all along.
Saint-Just was a single-minded revolutionary whose love of the common people was so great that he willingly sacrificed himself to defend the revolution. Unity shows him as the equivalent of Leatherface from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Jacques Roux was a priest who only wanted true equality for the people. Unity paints him as a vicious psychopath who gets his jollies from strangling people to death.
Robespierre was, at worst, a person who stood by while his friends were executed. Unity shows him gloating over Danton's death.

"Not entirely accurate" is the understatement of the year. I mean, if a game showed Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States of America, as a guy who cooked and ate black babies, would you say that was "not entirely accurate"? Hopefully not. It's a gross and insulting falsification of history. So is Unity.

I disagree.

- The game treats the Royal Family as ignorant and incapable of enlightened rule, which is exactly how they were.
- Danton is widely disputed to this day, and I believe the developers played it safe with him. Personally I never liked the man and would have preferred to see him portrayed according to my own idea of him. But he certainly wasn’t painted as a selfless hero in the game. I simply have to disagree on that.
- I don’t remember seeing Saint-Just in the game yet, so I can’t comment on that.
- As for Jacques Roux, I will have to agree that he is shown as a psychopath, which he wasn’t as far as we know. Although his doings aren’t as well-documented as many other figures of the French Revolution, it is an unfair portrayal of him.
- And then we have Robespierre, a complicated man indeed. I feel like he shouldn’t have been a Templar to begin with. That is where the major fault lies.

The story certainly does show a lot of different sides of the French Revolution, some biased and some not. But I have to say that I agree with Shahkulu101. By the sound of it, you want it to fit in with one specific side of the spectrum, which you prefer. So I'd suggest you explore the discourse and the development of the historiography of the French Revolution, as this is a discussion that will likely never end.
And we have always known that in the game Abstergo are historical revisionists. Let’s not also forget that even today history is clouded, and the game merely presents us with ideas to fill in the blanks, so to speak. So do all pieces of historical fiction.


All they had do, was be fair to their earlier standards.

EDIT:I can agree on that. This isn't as well thought-out as their previous titles, and is of a lower standard.

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 05:57 PM
And we have always known that in the game Abstergo are historical revisionists.

Huh...what we see in the game comes from the Animus and we are told repeatedly that its accurate in the game, even by the Assassins themselves. The Animus is meant to be objective.


Abstergo Industries revises the history by badly editing it, that's what BLACK FLAG shows, with those parody videos and hilariously off-base information, but it shows that by emphasizing how badly it is.


But he certainly wasn’t painted as a selfless hero in the game. I simply have to disagree on that.

Watch the mission "Danton's Sacrifice" where he tells the hero that he wants to willingly sacrifice himself for the Republic. Danton never expected to be sent to the guillotine, he overestimated his influence at the time and that's why he was so brazen in his trial and before that.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 06:07 PM
By the sound of it, you want it to fit in with one specific side of the spectrum, which you prefer...

No. I'd be fine with Robespierre et al being shown as they were. I have no dog in this fight - the French Revolution is the perfect example of good people doing bad things. The problem I have is not political - it's not about defending who's closest to my political philosophy. It's about common decency - i.e. not lying about people and making them out to be worse than they are. I keep thinking "What if I were related to Jacques Roux? How would I feel about my ancestor being so badly maligned by this game?"

These were real people, and their descendants and families don't deserve them to be turned into vicious caricatures and cartoon villains by a game or any other medium. But hey, I'd have no problem if the game had made Robespierre and Saint-Just into villains, as long as they were the complex and defensible villains that previous AC games have given us - i.e. villains whose namesakes the writer at least has the decency to respect. I'd be fine with that, but the writers didn't do that.

And what they did to Jacques Roux is simply unforgivable. The game's treatment of this man is shameful. I'd like to talk with whoever wrote that scene (the intro to the co-op "Les Enragés" scenario) and ask them how they can defend such an outright and disgusting lie about a man whose only crime was that he wanted to improve the lot of the poor and disenfranchised. It's essentially the equivalent of showing someone like Dr. Martin Luther King strangling members of his congregation for kicks. I mean, who does that sort of thing? The KKK - they would do that. Is that the level of fairness we should expect from the game's writers? I don't think so.

Kayewla
12-12-2014, 06:21 PM
Huh...what we see in the game comes from the Animus and we are told repeatedly that its accurate in the game, even by the Assassins themselves. The Animus is meant to be objective.


Abstergo Industries revises the history by badly editing it, that's what BLACK FLAG shows, with those parody videos and hilariously off-base information, but it shows that by emphasizing how badly it is.



Watch the mission "Danton's Sacrifice" where he tells the hero that he wants to willingly sacrifice himself for the Republic. Danton never expected to be sent to the guillotine, he overestimated his influence at the time and that's why he was so brazen in his trial and before that.

A fair point with the Animus. But I will refer to my next sentence: "Let’s not also forget that even today history is clouded, and the game merely presents us with ideas to fill in the blanks, so to speak." In the game the Animus fills out the blanks.

I know a few historians who would disagree with you on Danton. As I said, there are many opposing views on the topic. Athough I have to note that I do personally agree with you.

EDIT: Pr0metheus 1962, I can see your reasoning there, especially in the case of Jacques Roux. But I still get this notion that you do have a certain bias on this topic, and it seems others here have noticed it too. I sincerely apologise if that is untrue - we're not here to discuss each other, so that is my fault for bringing that up.
It seems we somewhat agree on all of this, but it's the severity of Ubisoft's failures that we see differently.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 06:27 PM
Everyone has a bias. But that's not the point, is it. The fact is, the game grossly misrepresents some of these characters. This is an objective fact. And whether I'm far right, far left or somewhere in the middle doesn't change the fact that these historical people are being treated horribly unfairly. Heck, I'd say the same if the game showed Marie Antoinette bathing in the blood of peasants, or if a game showed Augusto Pinochet torturing babies (I mean, he was a bad guy, but not that bad). Lies are lies, no matter which side of the political fence you're on. My overriding point is that Assassin's Creed used to be better than that, and it should still be better than that.

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 06:30 PM
I know a few historians who would disagree with you on Danton. As I said, there are many opposing views on the topic. Athough I have to note that I do personally agree with you.

I know, I actually like Danton quite a lot. For me his death was pointless and cruel but it was largely his fault. If he had stayed low and kept on the side, he could have become France's first President(which I would hazard was his ambition). He's a peacetime politician who made poor decisions in his timing. I like Danton for his ambiguity and mystery. I mean the great thing about his story is that you'd never have predicted from the start that the hypocritical, two-faced, corrupt Revolutionary would end up becoming a martyr of the Republic. That's an ambiguous story preserved in the greatest play of the Revolution - Danton's Death by Buchner.

DumbGamerTag94
12-12-2014, 06:50 PM
You are dodging the question = Would you like a game where the North, Lincoln and the Radical Republicans are portrayed the way they are in UNITY. Would you like a portrayal where Lincoln is a baby-eating psychopath, who struts like a supervillain, would you like a portrayal of the Southern Gentry as sympathetic innocents who lost their way of life?

But I don't see that as being the same as what unity is. Sure there's some unfair things(but AC3 made Washington out to look like an Indian hating murderer which couldn't be farther from the truth but you don't see me crying about it and hating that game). Namely the major issues of representation I saw being:

-Danton being a goody two shoes and being completely opposed to Robespirre and the reign of terror. When in reality he was originally one of Robespirres allies. And an archetect of the reign of terror(who eventually flip flopped on the issue). He also is depicted as a hero during the Austrian Conspiracy hunting down and killing spies. But yet he is convieniently left out of the main storyline September Massacres where he called for(and may have possibly participated it the jury is still out on that) murdering tons of innocent prisoners for fear they would sympathize with Austrian invaders. They should have bloodied Dantons hands a bit and made him a more grey character than the bright white knight he comes across as.

-St. Just being a flesh wearing psycho. That was just downright unfair. It unsubstantiated and based in post revolutionary propaganda. However he is not anything close to a major character and doesn't even show up at all in the game as well as this being a situation buried in one of the Paris stories so it really doesn't bother me all that much. Yet that doesn't excuse it's Inaccuracy. St Just was far from an innocent angel. They could have shown his meaner/crueler side via some other method that's more suited to reality. This was probably the worst of the "slander" in ACU by far.

There were a lot of in game non-cutscene moments during the game that actually shed light on the true nature of Robespierre rather than the cocky sadist he appears to be if you only watch cutscenes. So I actually do not have many issues at all with Robespierre's representation. These subtle cues actually help distance him from the radical Templar inner circle and also show his more guilty bleeding heart side. Rather than the cold person in cutscenes. Also keep in mind he comes across the worst in the Assassin commentated intros to coop missions which is essentially assassin propaganda and can't be taken purely at face value. I can elaborate more on these later but before I do that I'd also like to know examples of where you supposedly see:

-Pro Royalist/Aristocracy is innocent vibe

-the game is supposedly against the "evil poor" as you say

-How the people aren't rising up for themselves but rather manipulated as you claim

Because these are things that I either did not see at all in the game or that are so minor or brief that I could hardly call them a central part of the plot. I'm only curious to see where you're evidence for such things comes from as well as cases of "slander" I may have missed. Id just like to have your side first so I can compare notes because in many cases I am not seeing the same thing at all or at the least to a much smaller extent.

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 07:24 PM
There were a lot of in game non-cutscene moments during the game that actually shed light on the true nature of Robespierre rather than the cocky sadist he appears to be if you only watch cutscenes. So I actually do not have many issues at all with Robespierre's representation. These subtle cues actually help distance him from the radical Templar inner circle and also show his more guilty bleeding heart side. Rather than the cold person in cutscenes. Also keep in mind he comes across the worst in the Assassin commentated intros to coop missions which is essentially assassin propaganda and can't be taken purely at face value.

I agree regarding the single player campaign, I said at the time in my long post that I didn't have too many issues with how Robespierre is shown there. It was only seeing the Brotherhood Missions that I got really pissed off because those cutscenes were the f--king pits. I mean the sad part is those Brotherhood Missions are there for history buffs, its not part of the main game, they could have shown an elaborate video that was fairer and balanced and given an option to skip cutscenes for co-op gamers. Instead we get garbage after garbage. And those missions in terms of gameplay didn't need that, itw as just a map for Co-Op players to move around.


I can elaborate more on these later but before I do that I'd also like to know examples of where you supposedly see:

-Pro Royalist/Aristocracy is innocent vibe

Well for one thing the sympathetic Assassins/Templars are aristocrats and nobleman - Mirabeau, Francois, Elise, Arno. The working class Assassin we see is Pierre Bellec and he's not quite sympathetic. The game sentimentalizes and obscures Mirabeau's great personal ambition (not that that's a bad thing, he was a great man and coming after the appallingly unfair feudalism of the Old Regime, its inhuman for people not to have ambitions) and corruption. They also see Mirabeau as the only man stopping France from falling into Terror which even pro-Mirabeau historians admit isn't true. The truth is Mirabeau overestimated his influence with the King and the King was already conspiring against the Revolution and he was probably using him as an unwitting accomplice.

The main thing is the trial and execution of the King which is totally, and utterly false. The trial did not come down to one vote, I sourced and checked that in my long article. It had a majority. The lack of context of the war which Marie Antoinette and the King supported and sabotaged. Marie Antoinette on hearing of the Girondins agitating on the war actually said quite cruelly, and accurately ("These imbeciles have no idea that they are helping us because all the powers will join in.") It shows the event as not something that was popular and a consequence of the King's own actions but as a Templar Show-And-Tell project to prove how EVIL they are. And then you have Louis XVI give that sympathetic speech on the scaffold, blubbering sympathetically. I mean I sympathize with the real King, but it's like how I sympathize with Billy the Kid or Blackbeard or other outlaws, you feel bad for them even if you know they did something wrong.


-the game is supposedly against the "evil poor" as you say

-How the people aren't rising up for themselves but rather manipulated as you claim

All those little memory cutscenes. The bad guy says they must create starvation and frame the King for hoarding food and incite the people to violence. The fact that most of the street archetypes are Extremists and are dressed as "Sans Culottes" who are presented as Templar Thugs always(the real sans-culottes were anarchic, and unaffiliated with any party, and allied with the Jacobins, to their regret, late in the revolution). The Storming of the Tuileries, the birth of the Republic, shows the Assassins dismissing it as a sideshow to real concerns of covering Mirabeau's corruption. Napoleon then comes and dismisses the Revolution as "nonsense"(which was not what he said at that time by the way-in 1793, he loyally and courageously sided with the Jacobin Republic at a low ebb, and was ran out of Corsica for that, with his house and home burned down, he didn't plan on becoming Emperor or Dictator at that time).

The game's portrayal of Napoleon is especially pernicious because it essentially implies that the Revolution is fake and not true Democracy(He reversed all the few pro-women Revolutionary laws and brought slavery back after it was abolished-none of these facts are acknowledged in the game) and that Napoleon is somehow more honest and better than what came before(despite the fact that Napoleon called the Committee of Public Safety the only real governmnet of the Revolution).

I can think of a few pro-Revolutionary Brotherhood and side missions(mostly with Theroigne de Mericourt), probably added late when their own history consultant (Jean-Clement Martin) told them that their story was "royalist" to which they must have tweaked the side missions because the story was already written. And even there they slander it, by having Theroigne being attacked by EVIL Revolutionaries for being a woman, when she was attacked by fellow female revolutionaries for being a Girondin(women-on-women violence must end!) and the person who saved her was that Monster Marat. I mean they are deliberately twisting the facts here because this anecdote is quite well known and Theroigne is not otherwise a well known figure.

DumbGamerTag94
12-12-2014, 08:07 PM
@Vestigial
On Robespierre. I'm glad you agree on the main story. As for the side content as I said those intos are assassin propaganda remember. And the assassins didn't like Robespierre. But even in these there is some redemption to be found. For example I think it's during the "Dantons sacrifice" mission. You infiltrate Robespierre's house. While inside you overhear some guards commenting on how Robespierre has locked himself away and even "seemed Ill". Which is true to historical fact. He was actually crying and sick over having to execute his former friend(shown in game as well as history). Also in the main campaign at the jacobin meeting mission. Robespirre is giving a speech rather than being with the Templars for their secret meeting. Implying that he isn't very well in touch with the inner circle and doesn't have a full understanding of what he's a part of. So it's presumable that Robespierre is more of a Templar puppet than a mastermind. And they serve little more than as the springboard that helped him gain power. His level of "templarness" is shown to be pretty low. And as for him being outside to "taunt" Danton. I think that was just so the player would understand why Danton was saying his fameous line. Because I doubt anyone would recognize Robespierre's house. So that was done just for contextual reasons I think because that actual historic line of Dantons is pretty cool and foreshadowing. Also the coop must be taken together with the main plot as they are continuations of the main story. Not a seperate plot all together. So any character development in either should be added to the other. Rather than two seperate Robespierres

As for the kings trial. I don't think the exact number of votes is that significant to the overall story. As we discussed once before the combined No and Stay of execution votes were very close to the votes in favor of death immediately. So the immediate execution didn't have a decisive majority of the vote. While it's not a tie. The vote was fairly close. So I'm not offended by this change as it has little to no impact besides to make Lepelitier(or however you spell it) more significant and dramatic. As well as give us a solid reason/purpose for a target.

The kings speech. That actually happened so I don't see how that's at all pro royalist. The King actually did try to defend his actions and such at the guillotine. But just like in the game drums were ordered to roll to drown him out. So you can't really get upset at that as it is how it actually happened.

I do think they should have added a mission about the King and Queen trying to escape. However it does make it in the newspapers so it isn't ignored.

Yes the assassins support aristocrats. But they are of the moderate position such as Mirabeau and Lafayette(who for some unexplained reason isn't in this game even though he knows of the assassins). These were people that were Aristos yes. But they fought to give the people rights and prevent the country from decending into vengeful mass executions and class/partisan civil war. Which after these men and the Girondin were removed from power is exactly what happened and continued to happen for the next 100 years.

So I would say the story is pro-moderate. If we were having opulent parties with wealthy barons eating cake while the poor riot outside then I would say I agree with your accusation that the game is Pro Aristocracy. But the only aristocrats the game sides with are those that were willing to sacrifice/limit the very power that being an aristocrat granted them. In other words. Logical men. Not radicals.

And as for the people being manipulated. That's not true of the beginning of the game. They weren't manipulating their food and such before the coup of the Templars. Everything up until the death of De la Serre is purely the people. Thus why de la Serre was willing to work with the assassins to replace the monarchy. Because if he stayed with that plan it wouldn't work out. Then there's also the Women's March and such that show how the people were rising up without Templar coaxing. Where the manipulation comes into play is the fermenting of radicalism. The Templars wanted to make the people blood thirsty. And promote the radical politicians and such so that they could bring about anarchy. To paraphrase the Templars "bring about true chaos so that when the time comes the people will submit willingly to complete controll"

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 08:17 PM
I just want to illustrate that for me it's not just about historical accuracy. The game greatly exaggerates Theroigne de Mericourt's role in the revolution, but in doing so it actually brings a number of issues to the forefront in a way that actually educates - for instance the Women's March. Without Theroigne, it would be less personal. This is historical fiction done right, because it uses fiction to make the real story more effective.

What I don't like so much is when they show Theroigne being beaten by a bunch of Jacobin men. This serves to twist the truth to fit the "All Jacobins are bad" storyline. And the thing is, the real story is actually more interesting. Theroigne was beaten by a group of Jacobin women who didn't like her Girondist sympathies. She was actually saved by Marat (a Jacobin who hated the Girondists). I mean, that's a great story, especially since Marat is kind of vilified as a radical nut these days. They gained nothing by twisting the truth here, and they lost a lot. Marat doesn't appear in the game except as a dead body, and one of the most interesting, influential and complex characters of the revolution is just passed over and sidelined. This is historical fiction done poorly - it twists the facts and makes the story less effective.

DumbGamerTag94
12-12-2014, 08:29 PM
I just want to illustrate that for me it's not just about historical accuracy. The game greatly exaggerates Theroigne de Mericourt's role in the revolution, but in doing so it actually brings a number of issues to the forefront in a way that actually educates - for instance the Women's March. Without Theroigne, it would be less personal. This is historical fiction done right, because it uses fiction to make the real story more effective.

What I don't like so much is when they show Theroigne being beaten by a bunch of Jacobin men. This serves to twist the truth to fit the "All Jacobins are bad" storyline. And the thing is, the real story is actually more interesting. Theroigne was beaten by a group of Jacobin women who didn't like her Girondist sympathies. She was actually saved by Marat (a Jacobin who hated the Girondists). I mean, that's a great story, especially since Marat is kind of vilified as a radical nut these days. They gained nothing by twisting the truth here, and they lost a lot. Marat doesn't appear in the game except as a dead body, and one of the most interesting, influential and complex characters of the revolution is just passed over and sidelined. This is historical fiction done poorly - it twists the facts and makes the story less effective.

I don't see how it matters at all that the people who beat her are male or female???? The whole point of that was her anger tward the jacobin. Why does the sex of the assailants matter??? It was still the jacobin who beat her. Marat saving her also doesn't make him a saint by any means. A man imposing to stop violence against a women in the 18th century??? That's hardly to be considered a rarity. That doesn't make him any less radical or violent. It just shows that he possessed at least some form of an idea of common decency. And besides that the jacobin preferred to execute their opponents. Not torture them that's far too cruel lol. They had some decency you know!!! Lol.

Ultimately I don't see how that little minute Inaccuracy changes anything of significance

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 08:30 PM
@Vestigial
On Robespierre. I'm glad you agree on the main story. As for the side content as I said those intos are assassin propaganda remember. And the assassins didn't like Robespierre. But even in these there is some redemption to be found. For example I think it's during the "Dantons sacrifice" mission. You infiltrate Robespierre's house. While inside you overhear some guards commenting on how Robespierre has locked himself away and even "seemed Ill". Which is true to historical fact. He was actually crying and sick over having to execute his former friend(shown in game as well as history). Also in the main campaign at the jacobin meeting mission. Robespirre is giving a speech rather than being with the Templars for their secret meeting. Implying that he isn't very well in touch with the inner circle and doesn't have a full understanding of what he's a part of.

That stuff must have been put late in the game as an afterthought, it counts for very little. Robespierre is a Templar. He calls out to Germain for help, he knows where Germain is located, information like that wouldn't be handed down to just anybody. He was a Templar in the game. He later sells out his own spy when he unearths a secret Templar meeting in the Brotherhood Missions.


As for the kings trial. I don't think the exact number of votes is that significant to the overall story.

It is significant because it was an ACTUAL royalist legend cooked up after Napoleon's downfall. The legend was that the people were misled by fanatics and evildoers into calling for the Revolution and French people were content to be loyal subjects, an aburd lie and legal fiction. The Conspiracy Theory of the Illuminati was put out by a nasty right-wing Priest Abbe Barruel who said that the Jacobins was a front for secret societies like the Illuminati and the Masons. Other French conservatives(Joseph de Maistre for one) criticized Barruel for his poor writing and Maistre pointed out that he was a Freemason and a royalist(and it turns out that Louis XVI and his brothers were Masons too, it was just some silly society thing). But that idea got picked up by English conservative, Edmund Burke who blamed the revolution on a conspiracy of "Jew Brokers" and that started the whole Jewish Conspiracy thing. The Protocols of Zion was inspired by Barruel's work.

So to say that it isn't significant is dishonesty.


As we discussed once before the combined No and Stay of execution votes were very close to the votes in favor of death immediately. So the immediate execution didn't have a decisive majority of the vote.
Again read this link:
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0sigPXBq4IEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+King%27s+Trial+David+Jordan+Third+Appel+Nor mal&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qj-LVLCzGoicugTY1ILIBQ&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The idea that No and Stay could combine to form a tie is an absurdity. Death with Delaying Conditions was counted as a separte category and was never combined as a merging with clemency. It was a Girondin strategy to divide voters so that the Full Regicides could have a small Majority with the Clemencies, hoping to attract fence sitters, but it failed big time and it only hardened others to go thedistance.


The kings speech. That actually happened so I don't see how that's at all pro royalist. The King actually did try to defend his actions and such at the guillotine. But just like in the game drums were ordered to roll to drown him out. So you can't really get upset at that as it is how it actually happened.

The point is again Context. It's framed in the background of the Bad Guy giving a Villain Speech to the Hero, and he says the Louis XVI is dying because his great ancestor whacked De Molay and that he's doing it to make a statement. This is plainly bulls-it and a royalist fabrication.


But they fought to give the people rights and prevent the country from decending into vengeful mass executions and class/partisan civil war.

And these people don't have the slightest responsibility for that? As for the Girondins, let me quote DAVID A. BELL, ""Out of a toxic mixture of ignorance, wishful thinking, and pure, naked ambition, the Girondins were pushing France towards wars that would last for twenty-three years and take millions of lives." In which fantasy land does that strike anyone as a sane solution. The Girondins weren't evil or malicious, they were just stupid and incompetent, even dumber than Marie Antoinette.


So I would say the story is pro-moderate. If we were having opulent parties with wealthy barons eating cake while the poor riot outside then I would say I agree with your accusation that the game is Pro Aristocracy.

It's there throughout. Arno meets Elise at a glittering fancy ball, the background chatter has some shallow class grumbling but it's largely a romantic moment for Arno. Later he comes back to Versailles and pines for his childhood like a pathetic wreck and he and Elise mourn the old world, sad that it was being radically shifting. The idea that it provided oportunities to tens of thousands of people doens't enter his lovestruck puny little brain.


Where the manipulation comes into play is the fermenting of radicalism. The Templars wanted to make the people blood thirsty. And promote the radical politicians and such so that they could bring about anarchy.

The point is that stuff we think as radical wasn't thought so then. Camille Desmoulins, now seen as a moderate, wrote a pamphlet telling Parisians to string people up the lamposts, and they called him "The Lantern Attorney". Nobody had a great deal of sympathy for the Revolution's early victims at the time. Theroigne de Mericourt personally executed aristocrats as well. The idea of a simple divsion that only a few bad apples did violence at the time is just not true.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 08:30 PM
...So I would say the story is pro-moderate...

If you can call what started out as the most radical party "moderate", and if you can call a pro-war party "moderate", then yes. The Girondins' problem was that they didn't know what they wanted, and even if they had, they didn't have the competence to get it. They got France involved in the stupidest war imaginable, in some hare-brained scheme to spread the revolution. In the meantime they couldn't even control France, or the king.

In my view, the Girondins were being gulled by the Royalists. I think if they had held onto power, the revolution would have failed and the people would have had to endure many more years of some kind of absolute monarchy, because the Girondins were incompetent.

Basically, the Assassins in this game choose to support a party of incompetent morons who are dragging France into oblivion. And when the assassins are not doing that, they're frittering away their time helping ungrateful aristocrats to escape the guillotine. I mean, it's like the Assassins have suddenly become the fricken Keystone Kops. Arno, throughout the game, is both clueless and ineffective, because he's doing "bob-a-job" missions and he's never tasked with doing anything that might have an impact on anything, and he doesn't even seem to ever notice that there's a freaking REVOLUTION GOING ON ALL AROUND HIM. He finally tracks down the main bad guy, not by some fantastic Eagle Vision sleuthing, but because Elise just tells him where he is. The writing is so bad that Arno is clueless about the ideas of the revolution and is basically reduced to a useless tool of anyone who tells him to do anything.

And all of this could have been so much better if the writers had just done a halfway decent job finding a story WITHIN the complex and intriguing historical narrative that exists. Instead, they chose to fabricate a lame fictional story based on... jeez, I dunno - maybe the fact that Ubisoft only serves decaf in the staff cafeteria? Heck, they were so brain-dead and de-caffeinated that they didn't even bother to write any reason for Arno's magical return to the Brotherhood. He just pops back into his robes one day and starts killing folks again.

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 08:37 PM
I don't see how it matters at all that the people who beat her are male or female????

I think at this point you are being intellectually dishonest if you don't accept "how it matters". One scene has Jacobin thugs whip Theroigne in an inch of a life while calling her a harlot and that "Robespierre has no place for the likes of you", the meaning to a small child by the way is plainly that these Jacobins are Witch Burning Evil Nazi Types who Hate Women.

If you are going to call it a "little minute inaccuracy" then I am afraid you are clutching at straws. I don't see why you are saying that the game is still a fair representation on historical grounds if you call every mistake we cite as "Tiny inaccuracy" when it clearly adds to up a venomous smear campaign and falsification of history.

DumbGamerTag94
12-12-2014, 09:08 PM
I think at this point you are being intellectually dishonest if you don't accept "how it matters". One scene has Jacobin thugs whip Theroigne in an inch of a life while calling her a harlot and that "Robespierre has no place for the likes of you", the meaning to a small child by the way is plainly that these Jacobins are Witch Burning Evil Nazi Types who Hate Women.

If you are going to call it a "little minute inaccuracy" then I am afraid you are clutching at straws. I don't see why you are saying that the game is still a fair representation on historical grounds if you call every mistake we cite as "Tiny inaccuracy" when it clearly adds to up a venomous smear campaign and falsification of history.

I think you take this wayyyyyy to personally is all. I think it's more than apparent you're a far left liberal who is just butthurt his idols are made bad guys in a work of fiction. I don't see how this makes the jacobin sexist at all when it makes no lick of difference who or what did the whipping. Your liberal brain can't seem to register the reality of the situation being displayed in this scene. Your twisted brain looks at this and sees "Man beating Woman=Sexist". What the hell does it matter??? It would have the same impact if it were women beating women. Men beating a man. Or even women beating a man the latter 3 I highly doubt would even have wriggled your liberal mindset and you wouldn't have batted an eyelash.

The fact of the matter is that Miracourt was beaten by JACOBINS because of POLITICAL REASONS!!! A HUMAN BEING WAS BEATEN WITHIN AN INCH OF THEIR LIVES TO SEND A MESSAGE! Why the hell does it matter that it's a woman or a man????? It's a Human being!!!! The fact that it's somehow more permissible the way it happened in history astounds me.

This is what irritates me the most about radical liberals they focus so much on the minutia of the situation. They completely miss the broader problem. People are beating other people and executing them for disagreeing with them!!! Oh? Well that's ok as long as they accomplish their goals! But it was a woman! A WOMAN!!!! THOSE SEXIST BASTARDS!!!! ILL SEE THEM BEATEN AND EXECUTED!!!!

Do you not see the contradiction??? the hypocracy??? Calling this version of Miracourts abuse sexist is in and of itself making you a sexist. You are crating different circumstances and different concequences for the same crime only differentiating on the basis of sex.....which is???......sexism!!!!

So excuse me if I don't see how this is a relevant issue to that scenario! This was a case of Jacobins beating a person because of opposing them(the whole damn point of that cutscene!). And you're more worried about what sex the person was cracking the whip!!! Sex wasn't even the issue at hand here!!! Are you that blind???

It's just strange to me. This liberal tendency to be preoccupied with race or gender. It implies a latent racism/sexism within themselves that perhaps they are just feeling guilty for having these feelings themselves. Overcompensating by trying really really hard to prove they aren't racist or sexist


Oh and before I forget to mention!: measuring how upset you are about something by the implications it "allegedly" would have on a small child(which by the way shouldn't be playing a M/18+ rated game). Is foolish. So measure everything by the intelligence level of a child either shows that A: you think the world is filled to bursting at the seems with stupid masses who are no smarter than children, and you are far more intelligent than all of them(which is a tad elitist might I add)(holding yourself above the huddled poor masses how noble and liberal of you! Sweet hypocracy). Or B: you measure by child IQ levels because they are your own opinions/perceptions meaning by your own admission you have the intelligence of a small child. So which is it??

It's best you contemplate things like an adult looking at it from an adult perspective.

VestigialLlama4
12-12-2014, 09:23 PM
I don't see how this makes the jacobin sexist at all when it makes no lick of difference who or what did the whipping. Your liberal brain can't seem to register the reality of the situation being displayed in this scene. Your twisted brain looks at this and sees "Man beating Woman=Sexist". What the hell does it matter??? It would have the same impact if it were women beating women. Men beating a man. Or even women beating a man the latter 3 I highly doubt would even have wriggled your liberal mindset and you wouldn't have batted an eyelash.

You are distorting my argument and statement into something that isn't, I am afraid. I expected better of you.


Calling this version of Miracourts abuse sexist is in and of itself making you a sexist. You are crating different circumstances and different concequences for the same crime only differentiating on the basis of sex

I am merely stating what happened and how the distorted version creates a false narrative, that wrongly maligns and adds to the smear campaign of the game. You are creating a phony interpretation based on your silly presumptions and fantasies of me and my political positions.


This was a case of Jacobins beating a person because of opposing them(the whole damn point of that cutscene!).

No the point of the cutscene is to show the Downfall and shutting down of the Jacobin Club after Robespierre's downfall. In real life, the Jacobins were shut down and persecuted by right-wing mobs called Muscadins who beat and killed with impunity in events called the White Terror. These are facts. It was the Muscadins who attacked the Jacobin Club and beat women who attended there(Robespierre was quite popular among working-class women at the time, and while he wasn't a feminist, he wasn't a misogynist which the Thermidorians were). In the game, the narrative is that the Jacobins are the ones who commit a crime that their enemies actually did(and which they protested at the time to no avail). They put in Theroigne to create sympathy and obscure the facts and demonize a bunch of people unncessarily. And the whole attempting to escape France has shades of ex-Nazis fleeing Rat Tunnels.


It's just strange to me. This liberal tendency to be preoccupied with race or gender.

It has nothing to do with liberal. If you are not white, wealthy and male(and heterosexual for that matter), these are facts of your identity and social role. Only White, Rich and Male can imagine a perfect fantasyland of perfect race and gender blindness, when as we can see that is plainly not true of life.


It implies a latent racism/sexism within themselves that perhaps they are just feeling guilty for having these feelings themselves. Overcompensating by trying really really hard to prove they aren't racist or sexist

There is a word in Psychology, what is it called...ah Projection. You obviously cannot acknowledge and confront my positions rationally so you created a fantasy version of my argument and respond to that. That's quite alright, I've been guilty of that in my past but as they say, acceptance is the first step.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-12-2014, 09:53 PM
I think you take this wayyyyyy to personally is all. I think it's more than apparent you're a far left liberal who is just butthurt...

...It's best you contemplate things like an adult looking at it from an adult perspective.

LOL. Oh, now the veil is lifted. Yeah, "WE'RE" the ones with a political bias, and "YOU'RE" the adult with an adult perspective. 'Cos unbiased adults always call other folks "butthurt far left liberals" when faced with reasoned arguments.

Yeah, you're real mature and not at all biased.

By the way, there's no such thing as a "far left" "liberal". It's kind of a contradiction in terms, since liberalism has always tended to be a centrist ideology. Unless you mean "left, but still liberal", so not too far left. But I don't think you mean that. I think maybe you mean "radical". Or heck, call it "Commie", "Red" or "Anarchist", or even the lame "Leftie" - those words are surely far closer to what you mean. "Liberal" is a half-baked insult at best.

DumbGamerTag94
12-12-2014, 10:26 PM
@Vestigial
As fun as it is playing word games with you whereby you accuse me of the very things I just accused you of.(I must admit the cleverness did make me chuckle)(it reminded me of the adult equivalent of the kids phrase "oh yeah....well I'm rubber you're glue...whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you"! Lol)

But you are clearly no child and are an intelligent person and I would rather not sully what can be a productive intellectual cooperation by allowing our discussions to become mired in political word grumbling.

But here's what we can do. We can come to agreement about what we do agree on.
I as a Conservative can admit that revolutionary conservatives were not great or innocent by any means.
-mobs
-beating the radicals that opposed them
-starting unnescescary war
-etc
And I'm sure you can agree that the radical Leftists committed much of the same crimes.

The fact of the matter is that both side did horrible things and dare I say were just as bad as eachother in many senses. Nobody is "good" nobody is "bad". However personal beliefs may lead one to believe one way or the other. Myself with the Girondin and you with the Jacobin.

But at the end of the day they had to tell a story. And the thing about a story is it needed a perspective. And either way they went it would have been a train wreck. If Arno had instead been pals with Robespierre rather than Mirabeau. People like myself may be just as up in arms as you have been about this game. But they chose to make Arno on the side of the Girondin. He had to be on someone's side. As you yourself have said/quoted a Parisian having no opinion of the revolution is like a New Yorker not caring about 9/11. The story had to skew in one direction or the other. That's just how it is. Weather or not you think that's the right side or not is irrelevant. That's the perspective they told their STORY. It's not a textbook. It is biased. Yes. But that's because it's told from a persons perspective. If I had you write me a book about it I would guarentee your perspective would prove very pro Robespirre and sans coullets.

I don't think the issue is so much that they butchered events as Most(and I specifically mean most as St Just is outright slandered and Danton is treated very leniently while not factually wrong omittences were clearly made for him) of what they show is factually what happened. However I think the problem is more that they had to bend things and show it from the perspective of Arno who happens to be Girondist leaning. So it ends up casting a light that is favorable to Girondin and makes Jacobin look bad.

But this is nothing new to AC. I think you just notice it more now because it's a period you are very very interested/invested in. I have the same problem with AC3. It is so decidedly Anti-Colonial Washington is evil/Colonists are all horrid racists tone to the narrative. Which I take some umbridge too. However this is largely due to the perspective the game is played from. And while I don't find the representation to be "fair"(we don't see the colonial attempts to avoid war with natives, or the colonies of the north outlawing slavery, the native tribes that sided with the US, or Washington working to help natives after the war...instead we are given what leads us to believe colonists were all racist pigs)I will confess that most of it is based on historical fact. Or in some cases very loosely or falsified facts like "King Washington" beig a job offer. And while I don't think it's completely fair to the colonials what it does do is accurately present what a person of Connors point of view would have thought of everything. So I don't get upset because I have to look at it through his eyes. And AC3 is my favorite AC ironically.

This is just the way AC is and has been. You're favorite side won't always be THEIR right side. My favorite wasn't the good guys in AC3. Your favorite wasn't the good guys in ACU. We all have to give some and take some unfortunately. Nobody has the definitive "right". The only truely neutral AC is AC1 because the assassins are their own completely seperate entity/city state during the Crusades. Rather than trying to influence events they only sought peace. Whereas going into hiding rather than as a regional faction they ended up having to play politics.

So can we just agree to disagree?? Maybe next time your side will be the good guys who knows??

DumbGamerTag94
12-12-2014, 10:38 PM
LOL. Oh, now the veil is lifted. Yeah, "WE'RE" the ones with a political bias, and "YOU'RE" the adult with an adult perspective. 'Cos unbiased adults always call other folks "butthurt far left liberals" when faced with reasoned arguments.

Yeah, you're real mature and not at all biased.

By the way, there's no such thing as a "far left" "liberal". It's kind of a contradiction in terms, since liberalism has always tended to be a centrist ideology. Unless you mean "left, but still liberal", so not too far left. But I don't think you mean that. I think maybe you mean "radical". Or heck, call it "Commie", "Red" or "Anarchist", or even the lame "Leftie" - those words are surely far closer to what you mean. "Liberal" is a half-baked insult at best.

Ok admittedly I got a bit carried away. I just got very frustrated and foolishly raged over what I perceived as avoiding my point that it was Jacobins that beat Miracourt. In regard to the overall narrative of the story it really makes no difference whatsoever the sex of her assailants as she went to kill them all because they were jacobin and they beat her because she was Girondist. Her sex and the sex of the assailants would not change that.

That is what I meant to be saying but my hot headedness got the better of me. I am sorry.