Welcome to discussion
Original poster mitsunari3 73 posts
i couldn't find AC in that list;
but Witcher, Skyrim, botw, gta etc.
more restrictions wouldn't make a game "phenomenon".
igrvks 5 posts
"Eivor is not a homicidal maniac"
According to who? I have completed 23% of the game so far and Eivor has slaughtered, decapitated and impaled literally hundreds of people.
"You cant just go around slaughtering people because muh honor"
You do realize that when you raid a village with your war party, the red glowing "bad guys" are the brothers, sisters, spouses and parents of the villagers? They don't just materialize out of thin air and be inherently evil, deserving death? They are literally defending their home from a invading horde, which is lead by the player.
After you have raided a village, burned down the houses, robbed the entire place of all the valuable materials and killed a huge amount of their working age population it is literally a ridiculous stretch to claim that not being able to kill the remaining villagers who now face almost certain starvation come next winter is somehow a merciful act and shows the compassion and humanity of Eivor/the Animus user.
Icey04585 6 posts
I got something to say to the OP and anyone who agrees with him...
THIS GAME IS NOT WATCH DOGS, GTA, or whatever [censored] game you are comparing it to. Not the same developers, not the same stories, not the same anything. Your mental homicidal fantasies that you're too chicken to carry out in real life, DO NOT apply here. "BASED ON" does NOT mean every single [censored] detail in existence gets implemented. It's a god damn game, shut the [censored] up. Some of the same mechanics apply, yes, but do you want the same damn game with just a repaint? Cuz that's what it sounds like, you want the same game as every other thing you listed or title in the AC franchise, just different art styles and different colors. Go write a book? They did write a book, in digital 3d interactive form and it's called Assassin's Creed: (insert secondary title here)
igrvks 5 posts
"THIS GAME IS NOT WATCH DOGS, GTA, or whatever [censored] game you are comparing it to."
Would you please highlight which posts in this thread are directly comparing this game to either of those titles?
"Your mental homicidal fantasies that you're too chicken to carry out in real life"
I'm not going to even bother trying to explain how juvenile and problematic that phrase is but would like to point out that the decapitation, impalement and cutting off limbs happens automatically in the combat, regardless of player input or desire.
The development team made the player cut off heads as a design choice. The development team made the player burn down villages and rob their resources as a design choice. It is really weird that killing "civilians" is where Eivor draws his moral line as a design choice given all the atrocities and war crimes the player is not only encouraged to do but made to do regardless if they want it or not.
If there was a option to complete entire raids in stealth and there would be non lethal takedowns this design choice would be much easier to understand. The player should be able to decide how to approach combat, instead of having abritrary morality lines drawn in the sand.
@icey04585 just because you can’t tell the difference between real life and a video games doesn’t mean we have the same issue, if wanting death in a game makes a person a psycho in your eyes you need some serious help there cupcake because that actually proves your the one living in make believe land, but keep up with your REEEEEEEE screaming, seems to work for goofs like you
@dbgager But he IS a viking, and as such, should be allowed to kill as a viking would. This is why Ubisoft should stop making AC games, as much as I love them. I understand the premise that this is the origin of the Assassin as we know them in the AC series, but Eivor IS a viking in this case and NOT an assassin early on, so the ability to kill innocents/NPC's as part of a raid should have been included. It makes no sense, just like not having one-handed swords in the game.
@mitsunari3 The story is that you're reliving memories through an Animus. If that person didn't kill civilians, then it is breaking the story to do so. It's not "parenting" it's keeping in line with series lore. If you're playing as a good guy, typically, they don't needlessly murder civilians. You can't just go around murdering people in The Witcher 3 can you?
@igrvks Now this is a much more reasonable argument. This moral debate makes sense. The only thing I can see that creates this line in the sand is the ability of the "enemies" to fight back. At one point, a character says something on the lines of "What's the fun in fishing if the fish has no chance of killing me back?". That's about the only distinction I can make between fighting the soldiers and slaughtering civilians. Sure you're burning their homes and pillaging their wealth, but they still keep their lives. And yes, the hundreds of soldiers you decapitate every 2 minutes aren't necessarily bad guys, just soldiers defending their homes. But the distinction is they have the ability to kill you, the civilians do not.
@kid_ghostly but this person would not exist as a Viking at anypoint if they had the attitude they do in game as a Viking raider, they wouldnt be accepted into a raiding party thus the story would not happen at anypoint, making the story impossible from any stand point.
if we’re living their life then this story has completely different Vikings then real world history and Ubisoft should admit that. As it’s a pretty big insult to people like me who come from an actual Norse back ground and Ubisoft pushing nice guy viking crap.
they respected Native American history, Egyptian history and all others, yet with the Vikings it feel like they said “let’s make up our own Vikings” and It’s very noticeable
@kid_ghostly and it’s not asking for us to mass murder civilians, but let us play the actual Viking we are during a raid, as our Viking would not be at the point they are if they haven’t proven themselves a few times during raids, and Vikings did not hold a lot back in raids, hell a lot of us Norse have to accept that our great great great great etc grand daddy’s were rapists and murderers, it sucks but it’s true and our culture knows it
@i_am_david_ Just because you can't kill civilians and have certain restrictions on the Animus doesn't "make the game a movie now". Maybe you want to relive things as the ancestor, and play out the story to see what happens. It's not just watching, it's doing. There's plenty to like about linear story games, some that don't even have open worlds, it just may not be your preferred genre. You still choose which areas you go to first, how you complete certain objectives, which characters to kill/spare, and many other choices that impact the story itself for varying experiences, so this isn't even a linear game from that sense.
Also, this game marks a pretty significant step BACK to the series' roots. We see old MD characters return, classic AC social stealth, story missions very reminiscent of old school AC (see Lunden Arc), story structure setup like old AC (each arc is essentially a memory sequence) and the return of home base that you can upgrade similar to AC II. This game was clearly not made for Odyssey fans, it was made with intention of satisfying old AC fans while still keeping most of the RPG elements from the newer games. If you dislike that, that's fine. But just as people who liked Odyssey told old school fans, maybe this game wasn't meant for you then.
@frosthound030 Ubisoft already has a tenuous history of "respecting" various cultures. They have always walked a line of being "historically accurate" to a point, but never fully there. For one, the entire premise of reliving memories through DNA is already pretty ridiculous. They turned George Washington into a mad tyrant. They showed pyramids being built thousands of years AFTER they were already built in Odyssey. There's a string of historical inaccuracies for every game, USUALLY made for the purpose of the story or game-y reasons.
SouldrinkerLP 316 posts
Seems like people love being parented by ubisoft tho:
Massive sales and double the player base of Odyssey.
They made it pretty clear in interviews that they want to get back to the roots of old ACs. Seems like this was absolutely right to do.
Edit: Even physical sales the game is #1 in UK
Of course this doesn't mean that the desync should stay. But it's part of their plan to go back to the roots which resulted in these sales. So much to the "loud minority" argument.
@frosthound030 There's a lot of conflicting history with Vikings. I think at this point, they aren't necessarily seen by academics as any more bloodthirsty or vicious than any other culture at the time. They did [censored], pillage, and burn, but what exactly were the crusades to the Christians? They also traded, assimilated, and intermarried with other cultures too. I think painting them as only bloodthirsty savages or purely globalist explorer's with good intentions are both historically false and not complex enough. That's also why I think this game has the same contradiction. One moment you're burning the houses of innocent villagers and massacring their soldier family members, the next you're bartering for peace and avoiding unnecessary bloodshed.
@kid_ghostly for me it’s moments in our culture that are documented that showed the Vikings went after civilians a lot but not always, moments like the old Jarls Arinbjörn and Egils raid on the Frisians, when they sent the whole village into flight and chased after them after the fight was done and killed and enslaved most of them, but yes Viking are not blood thirsty mass murderers and they did have restraint, History is a bit of a diluted thing for Vikings, but people also forget killing wasn’t so frowned apon as it is today back then, especially if that person was of a different culture or race, i mean If your culture looks at another culture as dogs they’ll kill them like dogs in the past.
It was a crappy time back then for cultural warfare