5 ms·

> That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate See, that makes some sense if you're doing high fantasy and shit that's set in

> That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate See, that makes some sense if you're doing high fantasy and shit that's set in a wholly fictional world. But just because some parts of a game are not realistic does not mean you should just forget about even trying. It makes no sense. > If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't add something because it wouldn't be historically accurate You're treating this as if it was an excuse for some sin. If I want to make a werewolf story in Belle Époque Paris, there could be some historically accurate black African representation, but if the setting is the middle Ages it would be just stupid and lazy -- UNLESS there is some effort to bring some lore into it. And that's the main problem I have here. Suspension of disbelief and all that. Just adding $tokenblack012 and $eastasian499 to a setting where they don't implicitly belong is just lazy pandering.

pas 6y ago
It's lazy, but maybe it just makes more money than not adding them. I mean people won't boycott it (not that they ever really work) for having $tokenDiverseFeature, but maybe the game sells better for that. Obviously, ideally people would not identify with a game character (and with other humans) based on color/sex/gender but on a moral/ideological level. But apparently we're not there yet.
dagw 6y ago
but if the setting is the middle Ages it would be just stupid and lazy And here is the crux of our disagreement. I see it simply as an aesthetic choice. An art director got bored and thought adding some different looking knights might be fun. Personally I'm far more 'offended' by overly unrealistic weapons and combat in my 'historical' games than I am by an unrealistic number of women soldiers.
JeremyNT 6y ago
You realize that the premise of this series is that, in a distopian near future, scientists unlock the ability for people to access their genetic memories and inhabit the bodies of their ancestors, who were guided by alien forces and augmented with powerful technological relics. The AC series really never asks you to take it very seriously. To the extent that actual history is present, it's almost like fan service.
- viraptor 6y ago
  It may not ask you to take it seriously, but it says "now you're in a period based on reality you know and a specific culture". The sci-fi part is pretty disconnected from the history part. Compare that to time travel in dystopian future in the last bioshock where you have some known elements but you also project fire from your hands to fight a mecha-lincoln. That establishes a parallel universe where anything goes and it doesn't matter what you borrow into the story.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  Yeah so in that universe it's technically possible / lore-able to have Africans in medieval England. It's also technically possible to have neanderthals by the same account yet we don't see any. The problem is, it's not motivated by any story element, only by diversity compliance checkbox-ticking which is definitely not in-universe.
- hhjinks 6y ago
  Well, the first game wanted to be taken seriously. That went out the window with the second game.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > To the extent that actual history is present, it's almost like fan service. if this were true, it would certainly nullify most of the critiques from TFA. the meticulous attention to detail in creating historically accurate (or at least plausible) set pieces works against this argument.
kemayo 6y ago
> but if the setting is the middle Ages it would be just stupid and lazy -- UNLESS there is some effort to bring some lore into it. The article we're commenting on does make the point that people of African / Asian descent being present in middle-ages Europe isn't unreasonable: "I will say that, as travelers and traders, it is not crazy that people with these backgrounds might be in England, even in the ninth century. The decision to include so many characters from Asia and so few from Africa is a bit more frustrating; I’d expect to see a lot more North Africans in 9th century England than either Middle Eastern or East/Central Asian characters (because it is closer, as a matter of trade-routes)." The article's quibble is mostly with it concentrating them into your settlement, rather than around pre-existing trade hubs. It's still a stretch to have a randomly diverse community... but the "historically accurate black African representation" is probably enough that you don't have to work at explaining a minority of diverse characters.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  I'm not too familiar with that period, but North African probably doesn't mean 'black' ?
  - kemayo 6y ago
    The answer there seems to be "it's complicated", and some cursory research turns up a whoooooole lot of what I'd characterize as "angry nationalist arguments" that makes it difficult to get a good picture of what might have been going on a thousand years ago. Majority Arab with a healthy mix of black people seems reasonable, though.

pas 6y ago

It's lazy, but maybe it just makes more money than not adding them. I mean people won't boycott it (not that they ever really work) for having $tokenDiverseFeature, but maybe the game sells better for that. Obviously, ideally people would not identify with a game character (and with other humans) based on color/sex/gender but on a moral/ideological level. But apparently we're not there yet.

dagw 6y ago

but if the setting is the middle Ages it would be just stupid and lazy And here is the crux of our disagreement. I see it simply as an aesthetic choice. An art director got bored and thought adding some different looking knights might be fun. Personally I'm far more 'offended' by overly unrealistic weapons and combat in my 'historical' games than I am by an unrealistic number of women soldiers.

JeremyNT 6y ago

You realize that the premise of this series is that, in a distopian near future, scientists unlock the ability for people to access their genetic memories and inhabit the bodies of their ancestors, who were guided by alien forces and augmented with powerful technological relics. The AC series really never asks you to take it very seriously. To the extent that actual history is present, it's almost like fan service.

viraptor 6y ago
It may not ask you to take it seriously, but it says "now you're in a period based on reality you know and a specific culture". The sci-fi part is pretty disconnected from the history part. Compare that to time travel in dystopian future in the last bioshock where you have some known elements but you also project fire from your hands to fight a mecha-lincoln. That establishes a parallel universe where anything goes and it doesn't matter what you borrow into the story.
himinlomax 6y ago
Yeah so in that universe it's technically possible / lore-able to have Africans in medieval England. It's also technically possible to have neanderthals by the same account yet we don't see any. The problem is, it's not motivated by any story element, only by diversity compliance checkbox-ticking which is definitely not in-universe.
hhjinks 6y ago
Well, the first game wanted to be taken seriously. That went out the window with the second game.
leetcrew 6y ago
> To the extent that actual history is present, it's almost like fan service. if this were true, it would certainly nullify most of the critiques from TFA. the meticulous attention to detail in creating historically accurate (or at least plausible) set pieces works against this argument.

kemayo 6y ago

> but if the setting is the middle Ages it would be just stupid and lazy -- UNLESS there is some effort to bring some lore into it. The article we're commenting on does make the point that people of African / Asian descent being present in middle-ages Europe isn't unreasonable: "I will say that, as travelers and traders, it is not crazy that people with these backgrounds might be in England, even in the ninth century. The decision to include so many characters from Asia and so few from Africa is a bit more frustrating; I’d expect to see a lot more North Africans in 9th century England than either Middle Eastern or East/Central Asian characters (because it is closer, as a matter of trade-routes)." The article's quibble is mostly with it concentrating them into your settlement, rather than around pre-existing trade hubs. It's still a stretch to have a randomly diverse community... but the "historically accurate black African representation" is probably enough that you don't have to work at explaining a minority of diverse characters.

BlueTemplar 6y ago
I'm not too familiar with that period, but North African probably doesn't mean 'black' ?
- kemayo 6y ago
  The answer there seems to be "it's complicated", and some cursory research turns up a whoooooole lot of what I'd characterize as "angry nationalist arguments" that makes it difficult to get a good picture of what might have been going on a thousand years ago. Majority Arab with a healthy mix of black people seems reasonable, though.