The side that isn’t getting up in arms over historical inaccuracies in the AC series, which has always been at best “history adjacent” and heavy on embellishment anyway?
Certainly you don’t mean the side that waited until the embellishment involved a black person to start giving a fuck right?
Interesting article. Disappointing to see that it’s likely Yasuke’s role in history was greatly embellished just to sell books to the Western world. And disappointing to see that Ubisoft didn’t do their due diligence in researching him.
That being said, the game is a blast to play. Historical inaccuracies aside, I’d say it’s the best entry in the Assassin’s Creed series since Black Flag, which was also fraught with historical inaccuracies.
I hate to break it to you but the cyclops in AC Odyssey isn’t real either. They’ve never been historical accurate. They are loosely inspired by past events at best.
Before I begin my retort, I feel I should preemptively defend myself against those who only assume the worst in others: The only dog I have in this fight is the dog of objectivity. Dogjectivity. Objectividog?
Anyway, comparing a real person to a fictional monster is missing the point. I love the game and I really like Yasuke’s part of the story, but it’s inconsistent with Ubisoft’s previous approach of keeping the events and characters as true to history as good gameplay would allow, while throwing in bits of embellishment here and there to keep things fun.
I honestly wouldn’t change anything about the game, but there should maybe be a disclaimer that Yasuke’s real role in history is not truly known, but they chose the most fun version of events, even if it’s likely untrue.
It’s not missing the point like you claim. It’s you applying an expectation of realism on a series that never had it.
it’s inconsistent with Ubisoft’s previous approach of keeping the events and characters as true to history as good gameplay would allow
In pervious games they mention DaVinci and his creations for the Assassin’s. He was a real person. But he didn’t craft weapons for a league of Assassin’s. Plenty of their games have historical figures, acting like this is the first one to take liberties is silly.
but there should maybe be a disclaimer that Yasuke’s real role in history is not truly known, but they chose the most fun version of events, even if it’s likely untrue.
As they have done with many events and figures in past games. Someone has already taken the time to break this down in great detail. The TL;DR is they never had historical accuracy like you seem to think, ever.
Look, I’m not really that invested in this, and yeah, the disclaimer idea was dumb. I just love Assassin’s Creed for many reasons, one of which is its historical accuracy. Sure, it’s no replacement for a real history lesson, but every game has been one of the most accurate portrayals of its respective slice of history in pop culture.
It’s about expectations. There are obvious embellishments in each game - Da Vinci’s inventions, the cyclops & minotaur, Norse gods, etc., and those are fine because they’re obvious fantasy in otherwise-mundane worlds. The only reason people care about the whole Yasuke thing (or the only reason they should care) is because his story is not obvious fantasy; those not versed in Japanese history would assume his story in the game to be mostly true to historical records, because it’s all mundane.
I get that you like it for historical accuracy but I’m just saying it wasn’t there. The link I gave shows how it never was. It never was accurate man. AC Shadows is just more if the same, not some departure from it.
Yasuke isn’t special. They’ve done this with tons of people, they did it with Cleopatra for instance. They did it with lots of real people, just look at that link that breaks it down.
I think the real end to the culture war nonsense came after Thomas Lockely was caught red handed fabricating the words of people who allegedly met “black samurai” Yasuke to embellish his story, rewrite Japanese history to be more “diverse”, and sell books, which was a while ago. Or in other words, it was proven beyond any doubt that the very premise of AS:S was, itself, “culture war nonsense”.
It should be pretty clear which side was in the right.
Next you’re going to tell me the alien artifacts in the AC games don’t have any historical grounding?!
Dude no way I just saw the templars using the apple of eden the other day
Damn! Was a dude in white spidermaning up a wall around them too?!
The side that isn’t getting up in arms over historical inaccuracies in the AC series, which has always been at best “history adjacent” and heavy on embellishment anyway?
Certainly you don’t mean the side that waited until the embellishment involved a black person to start giving a fuck right?
Interesting article. Disappointing to see that it’s likely Yasuke’s role in history was greatly embellished just to sell books to the Western world. And disappointing to see that Ubisoft didn’t do their due diligence in researching him.
That being said, the game is a blast to play. Historical inaccuracies aside, I’d say it’s the best entry in the Assassin’s Creed series since Black Flag, which was also fraught with historical inaccuracies.
I hate to break it to you but the cyclops in AC Odyssey isn’t real either. They’ve never been historical accurate. They are loosely inspired by past events at best.
Before I begin my retort, I feel I should preemptively defend myself against those who only assume the worst in others: The only dog I have in this fight is the dog of objectivity. Dogjectivity. Objectividog?
Anyway, comparing a real person to a fictional monster is missing the point. I love the game and I really like Yasuke’s part of the story, but it’s inconsistent with Ubisoft’s previous approach of keeping the events and characters as true to history as good gameplay would allow, while throwing in bits of embellishment here and there to keep things fun.
I honestly wouldn’t change anything about the game, but there should maybe be a disclaimer that Yasuke’s real role in history is not truly known, but they chose the most fun version of events, even if it’s likely untrue.
It’s not missing the point like you claim. It’s you applying an expectation of realism on a series that never had it.
In pervious games they mention DaVinci and his creations for the Assassin’s. He was a real person. But he didn’t craft weapons for a league of Assassin’s. Plenty of their games have historical figures, acting like this is the first one to take liberties is silly.
As they have done with many events and figures in past games. Someone has already taken the time to break this down in great detail. The TL;DR is they never had historical accuracy like you seem to think, ever.
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/s/ddIAYuUgzg
Look, I’m not really that invested in this, and yeah, the disclaimer idea was dumb. I just love Assassin’s Creed for many reasons, one of which is its historical accuracy. Sure, it’s no replacement for a real history lesson, but every game has been one of the most accurate portrayals of its respective slice of history in pop culture.
It’s about expectations. There are obvious embellishments in each game - Da Vinci’s inventions, the cyclops & minotaur, Norse gods, etc., and those are fine because they’re obvious fantasy in otherwise-mundane worlds. The only reason people care about the whole Yasuke thing (or the only reason they should care) is because his story is not obvious fantasy; those not versed in Japanese history would assume his story in the game to be mostly true to historical records, because it’s all mundane.
I get that you like it for historical accuracy but I’m just saying it wasn’t there. The link I gave shows how it never was. It never was accurate man. AC Shadows is just more if the same, not some departure from it.
Yasuke isn’t special. They’ve done this with tons of people, they did it with Cleopatra for instance. They did it with lots of real people, just look at that link that breaks it down.