7 ms·

> > Inspired by historical events and characters, this work of fiction was designed, developed, and produced by a multicultural team of various beliefs, sexual

> > Inspired by historical events and characters, this work of fiction was designed, developed, and produced by a multicultural team of various beliefs, sexual orientations and gender identities. > This statement is making ... implicit [claims] (our diverse team means this game was produced in a careful, sensitive way) Ah, I think that's a misunderstanding of why the statement is there. It's not to claim that the game is therefore produced in a careful way. Certainly not an accurate way! It's just saying you shouldn't take offense at any details in it (accurate or not). Like, "we probably had someone with the same ethnicity/religion/gender as you and they were fine with it". It's fall out from the original being set in Palestine, which they called "The Kingdom" in an attempt to bypass offense.

enkid 6y ago
Having someone with an ethnicity present while making something offensive isn't a great defense for the offensive thing.
- Bishonen88 6y ago
  No, but it's still better than not having such a person around at all.
  - veddox 6y ago
    I find the two pretty orthogonal...
    - clankyclanker 6y ago
      Exactly. The statement is designed to be a meaningless deflection, a mental “nothing to see here, move along,” for cultural awareness.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      How so? Presumably an individual from a specific background is more likely to be able to evaluate slights against that background, vs a random individual. Individual experiences vary, but it's a helluva better start than... you know... not.
      - Dirlewanger 6y ago
        Because it's complete nonsense. With this logic, I can make a game about the Belgians colonized the Congo, leave out all that business about slaves on plantations, maiming said slaves on plantations for not meeting their quotas etc., portray the Belgians as magnanimous bringers of culture, and then say "oh, well, we had British people involved in the making of the game so it's OK"
        zentiggr 6y ago
        I think the closer parallel to the game opening text would be if Congolese residents were involved?
        ethbr0 6y ago
        > "... so it's OK" Did they say that? Regardless of the end product, I'd rather support something that had the involvement of some of the subgroups involved that are depicted in the media, than support something that had the involvment of none. We can debate up and down on the relative efficiency and whether there's a better way to achieve informed representation. But I think it's a stretch to say involving more diverse viewpoints is worse than not.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        They may be better than a random individual, but they will be surrounded by their superiors who don't understand or necessarily respect their point of view. Imagine having a meeting with ten people mostly above your rank psyched about an idea and you have to start the argument that it's inappropriate. Now imagine needing to do that every day. Even with everyone involved having the best intentions, that task seems doomed to fail.
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  I absolutely agree with that! I was just presenting what I presume was the company's defense.
- awakeasleep 6y ago
  Someone with the authority to speak for your identity groups took part in the drafting of the quoted defense, and they were fine with it.
bluGill 6y ago
Considering the anti-christian tone of the game I think they were completely missing Christians. (I haven't played the game, so I'm taking the article's word on how it portrays Christians as fact, which might or might not be true) You cannot claim diversity if you are missing a faction - even if the faction is one you consider against your beliefs.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  In light of the parent comment, we should presume that the team had Christian representation and those Christians were fine with it, not that there were no Christians. There’s a lot of media that uses caricatures to vilify Christians (“Easy A” comes to mind), but there is relatively little uproar from Christians about it. They don’t seem to be very sensitive apart from a small handful that our society cherry-picks as the basis for our stereotypes (e.g., the Starbucks Christmas cup fiasco was literally one guy and Buzzfeed ran that story like it was a nationwide Christian movement).
  - gwd 6y ago
    Let's try your formulation in a different context and see if it works. Imagine someone saying this in the '50s: > There's a lot of media that uses caricatures to vilify [Blacks], but there is relatively little uproar from [Blacks] about it. They don't seem to be very sensitive apart from a small handful... I assure you, Christians are aware of how poorly they're portrayed by the media, and aren't happy about it. It seems to me that this is one of many factors that led many Christians to support Trump. "Representation matters" -- indeed it does; and I'm not sure I've seen anyone on TV or in movies that looks like me or the people in my church. Even when they're trying to put people in a positive light, you can tell that it's someone trying to guess what it's like from the outside, not someone who understands it from the inside.
    - teachrdan 6y ago
      The actual lived conditions matter, too. In the 1950s, Black Americans were harassed, beaten and killed for registering to vote; no such discrimination against Christians has ever existed in the US, or even in North America or Europe, where the games we're talking about are largely developed and marketed. I agree that Christians are sometimes treated more critically in popular culture. But this is simply criticizing those in positions of power. It's hard to argue that ethnic or other minorities enjoy those levels of power in any of the places these games are made or marketed. To quote a certain comedian: "Christians won the world. The Christians won everything. If you don't believe me, let me ask you a question. What year is it?" https://vimeo.com/215910765 https://vimeo.com/215910765
darwinwhy 6y ago
I saw it as a trigger warning for the small but strangely vocal contingent of gamers who still reek at the presence of non white-male characters in video games.
tclancy 6y ago
I've been playing the game and was thinking last night that statement is (to me) an anachronism: it made sense in the first game where it was clearly dealing with the Middle East and choices made for the sake of a more playable game may have come across as culturally insensitive and started problems online. It felt a lot less likely people in the current world would be upset at or read deeply into the depictions of old Norse and Saxons, but it looks like I was wrong. I would suggest, as the author seems to propose but not allow, many of the issues are there for the sake of game play: I am currently using a flail and questioning my choice every time I get whacked because the thing takes a week and a half to pull start. But it's the strongest one-handed weapon currently available to me. So it makes for interesting tradeoffs in a way "axe v sword" might not. A similar case could be made for fudging the details about sexual equality among the old Norse. I doubt anyone is watching the game imagining Vikings were tender and considerate self-reflective modern males; it just makes the story flow better than having to watch a cut scene of 10 dudes throwing food at each other in conference.
charwalker 6y ago
All characters and events in this [media type], even those based on real people, are entirely fictional. Pretty sure all voices are impersonated as we didn't have the same recording tech about 1000 years ago. I think you have the right idea with this claim. It's a statement of the diversity of the development team not a promise the content is perfectly PC or historically accurate to the smallest detail.
mwfunk 6y ago
Seriously, do people not remember that this statement was first made for the first game, in 2007, at a time when so much of what was in the game could've been a political lightning rod? You're playing someone from an organization that was historically associated with Islam, going around killing Crusaders (and everyone else, but still) in the Middle East during the Middle Ages. This was the time of the 2nd Bush administration, the occupation of Iraq was still in full swing, and the news was still filled with daily fearmongering about Muslims and imminent terrorist attacks. IIRC this was still the era of the color coded terror threat levels that the DHS would issue, and that was still getting cited every day on TV nows as if it were the weather or sports scores. Basically it was a batshit crazy collection of historical, religious, and political trivia that was used as the background for the game's narrative, but at that time there was so much potentially controversial stuff if anyone took it too seriously that it could become a marketing nightmare. Boycotts from Christian groups and/or right wing nutjobs claiming that the game would encourage children (gotta think of the children!) to become Islamic terrorists. That sort of thing. It was a complicated game to market in that atmosphere. All sorts of different groups could have latched on to it as the epitome of how video games rot kids minds and turn them violent. It doesn't require anyone to actually do anything violent, it's just fuel for a gazillion fearmongering rants for Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. All they would have to do is describe the game and demonize Ubisoft for making it; instant ratings gold. They've continued having that statement at the beginning of each game, at this point as more of a tradition I think. Once the franchise was established, and got out of the Crusades, it gradually lost its potential to be a lightning rod for politically- or religiously-motivated anti-video game criticism. Although let's not forget the later game in which you have a boss fight vs. a historical pope who ended up being the villain in that game. Considering how freaked out certain demographics got by things like The Passion of the Christ (the movie), it's not much of a stretch to imagine somebody like Glen Beck going on an anti-video game crusade (no pun intended), throwing gasoline on the fire by going on and on every night about how these evil Canadians made this evil video game where you play an assassin from an order that was historically Islamic, where you're literally sneaking in to the Vatican to kill a historical pope (albeit with non-historical superpowers). Therefore kids are being brainwashed by Ubisoft to become Islamic terrorists right before our eyes. You know, Glen Beck stuff. So it's really always just been a marketing CYA thing to reassure everyone that the game wasn't made with any particular political/religious/historical agenda. Admittedly, "we've got Catholics therefore we're obviously not in favor of assassinating popes" and the like is the "but I've got black friends" excuse for racism, but FWIW the intention was to proactively disarm accusations of biases or hidden agendas. It was not to be some sort of diversity statement. But of course, it goes without saying that even if it was a statement of pride in diversity (which it wasn't), WHO THE EFF CARES. People getting triggered by such things need to go back to their safe spaces on Parler or wherever. So much projection from the 8chan kids. Who cares.
justnotworthit 6y ago
"It's ok: My best friend is black"? It might be the author's explanation, via standpoint theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory https://meaningoflife.tv/videos/43188 https://meaningoflife.tv/videos/43188 But it probably started out how you said ("Let's not anger any muslims....") and turned into something else.

enkid 6y ago

Having someone with an ethnicity present while making something offensive isn't a great defense for the offensive thing.

Bishonen88 6y ago
No, but it's still better than not having such a person around at all.
- veddox 6y ago
  I find the two pretty orthogonal...
  - clankyclanker 6y ago
    Exactly. The statement is designed to be a meaningless deflection, a mental “nothing to see here, move along,” for cultural awareness.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    How so? Presumably an individual from a specific background is more likely to be able to evaluate slights against that background, vs a random individual. Individual experiences vary, but it's a helluva better start than... you know... not.
    - Dirlewanger 6y ago
      Because it's complete nonsense. With this logic, I can make a game about the Belgians colonized the Congo, leave out all that business about slaves on plantations, maiming said slaves on plantations for not meeting their quotas etc., portray the Belgians as magnanimous bringers of culture, and then say "oh, well, we had British people involved in the making of the game so it's OK"
      - zentiggr 6y ago
        I think the closer parallel to the game opening text would be if Congolese residents were involved?
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        > "... so it's OK" Did they say that? Regardless of the end product, I'd rather support something that had the involvement of some of the subgroups involved that are depicted in the media, than support something that had the involvment of none. We can debate up and down on the relative efficiency and whether there's a better way to achieve informed representation. But I think it's a stretch to say involving more diverse viewpoints is worse than not.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      They may be better than a random individual, but they will be surrounded by their superiors who don't understand or necessarily respect their point of view. Imagine having a meeting with ten people mostly above your rank psyched about an idea and you have to start the argument that it's inappropriate. Now imagine needing to do that every day. Even with everyone involved having the best intentions, that task seems doomed to fail.
quietbritishjim 6y ago
I absolutely agree with that! I was just presenting what I presume was the company's defense.
awakeasleep 6y ago
Someone with the authority to speak for your identity groups took part in the drafting of the quoted defense, and they were fine with it.

bluGill 6y ago

Considering the anti-christian tone of the game I think they were completely missing Christians. (I haven't played the game, so I'm taking the article's word on how it portrays Christians as fact, which might or might not be true) You cannot claim diversity if you are missing a faction - even if the faction is one you consider against your beliefs.

throwaway894345 6y ago
In light of the parent comment, we should presume that the team had Christian representation and those Christians were fine with it, not that there were no Christians. There’s a lot of media that uses caricatures to vilify Christians (“Easy A” comes to mind), but there is relatively little uproar from Christians about it. They don’t seem to be very sensitive apart from a small handful that our society cherry-picks as the basis for our stereotypes (e.g., the Starbucks Christmas cup fiasco was literally one guy and Buzzfeed ran that story like it was a nationwide Christian movement).
- gwd 6y ago
  Let's try your formulation in a different context and see if it works. Imagine someone saying this in the '50s: > There's a lot of media that uses caricatures to vilify [Blacks], but there is relatively little uproar from [Blacks] about it. They don't seem to be very sensitive apart from a small handful... I assure you, Christians are aware of how poorly they're portrayed by the media, and aren't happy about it. It seems to me that this is one of many factors that led many Christians to support Trump. "Representation matters" -- indeed it does; and I'm not sure I've seen anyone on TV or in movies that looks like me or the people in my church. Even when they're trying to put people in a positive light, you can tell that it's someone trying to guess what it's like from the outside, not someone who understands it from the inside.
  - teachrdan 6y ago
    The actual lived conditions matter, too. In the 1950s, Black Americans were harassed, beaten and killed for registering to vote; no such discrimination against Christians has ever existed in the US, or even in North America or Europe, where the games we're talking about are largely developed and marketed. I agree that Christians are sometimes treated more critically in popular culture. But this is simply criticizing those in positions of power. It's hard to argue that ethnic or other minorities enjoy those levels of power in any of the places these games are made or marketed. To quote a certain comedian: "Christians won the world. The Christians won everything. If you don't believe me, let me ask you a question. What year is it?" https://vimeo.com/215910765 https://vimeo.com/215910765

darwinwhy 6y ago

I saw it as a trigger warning for the small but strangely vocal contingent of gamers who still reek at the presence of non white-male characters in video games.

tclancy 6y ago

I've been playing the game and was thinking last night that statement is (to me) an anachronism: it made sense in the first game where it was clearly dealing with the Middle East and choices made for the sake of a more playable game may have come across as culturally insensitive and started problems online. It felt a lot less likely people in the current world would be upset at or read deeply into the depictions of old Norse and Saxons, but it looks like I was wrong. I would suggest, as the author seems to propose but not allow, many of the issues are there for the sake of game play: I am currently using a flail and questioning my choice every time I get whacked because the thing takes a week and a half to pull start. But it's the strongest one-handed weapon currently available to me. So it makes for interesting tradeoffs in a way "axe v sword" might not. A similar case could be made for fudging the details about sexual equality among the old Norse. I doubt anyone is watching the game imagining Vikings were tender and considerate self-reflective modern males; it just makes the story flow better than having to watch a cut scene of 10 dudes throwing food at each other in conference.

charwalker 6y ago

All characters and events in this [media type], even those based on real people, are entirely fictional. Pretty sure all voices are impersonated as we didn't have the same recording tech about 1000 years ago. I think you have the right idea with this claim. It's a statement of the diversity of the development team not a promise the content is perfectly PC or historically accurate to the smallest detail.

mwfunk 6y ago

Seriously, do people not remember that this statement was first made for the first game, in 2007, at a time when so much of what was in the game could've been a political lightning rod? You're playing someone from an organization that was historically associated with Islam, going around killing Crusaders (and everyone else, but still) in the Middle East during the Middle Ages. This was the time of the 2nd Bush administration, the occupation of Iraq was still in full swing, and the news was still filled with daily fearmongering about Muslims and imminent terrorist attacks. IIRC this was still the era of the color coded terror threat levels that the DHS would issue, and that was still getting cited every day on TV nows as if it were the weather or sports scores. Basically it was a batshit crazy collection of historical, religious, and political trivia that was used as the background for the game's narrative, but at that time there was so much potentially controversial stuff if anyone took it too seriously that it could become a marketing nightmare. Boycotts from Christian groups and/or right wing nutjobs claiming that the game would encourage children (gotta think of the children!) to become Islamic terrorists. That sort of thing. It was a complicated game to market in that atmosphere. All sorts of different groups could have latched on to it as the epitome of how video games rot kids minds and turn them violent. It doesn't require anyone to actually do anything violent, it's just fuel for a gazillion fearmongering rants for Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. All they would have to do is describe the game and demonize Ubisoft for making it; instant ratings gold. They've continued having that statement at the beginning of each game, at this point as more of a tradition I think. Once the franchise was established, and got out of the Crusades, it gradually lost its potential to be a lightning rod for politically- or religiously-motivated anti-video game criticism. Although let's not forget the later game in which you have a boss fight vs. a historical pope who ended up being the villain in that game. Considering how freaked out certain demographics got by things like The Passion of the Christ (the movie), it's not much of a stretch to imagine somebody like Glen Beck going on an anti-video game crusade (no pun intended), throwing gasoline on the fire by going on and on every night about how these evil Canadians made this evil video game where you play an assassin from an order that was historically Islamic, where you're literally sneaking in to the Vatican to kill a historical pope (albeit with non-historical superpowers). Therefore kids are being brainwashed by Ubisoft to become Islamic terrorists right before our eyes. You know, Glen Beck stuff. So it's really always just been a marketing CYA thing to reassure everyone that the game wasn't made with any particular political/religious/historical agenda. Admittedly, "we've got Catholics therefore we're obviously not in favor of assassinating popes" and the like is the "but I've got black friends" excuse for racism, but FWIW the intention was to proactively disarm accusations of biases or hidden agendas. It was not to be some sort of diversity statement. But of course, it goes without saying that even if it was a statement of pride in diversity (which it wasn't), WHO THE EFF CARES. People getting triggered by such things need to go back to their safe spaces on Parler or wherever. So much projection from the 8chan kids. Who cares.

justnotworthit 6y ago

"It's ok: My best friend is black"? It might be the author's explanation, via standpoint theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory https://meaningoflife.tv/videos/43188 https://meaningoflife.tv/videos/43188 But it probably started out how you said ("Let's not anger any muslims....") and turned into something else.