PDA

View Full Version : Political jabs, really?



Jahandar
06-18-2011, 01:32 PM
I liked the conspiracy elements in the first two games, the stories dealt primarily with the bigger picture, and the Templars vs the Assassins on a global scale throughout history. In brotherhood though, its like everything has devolved into just U.S. politics.

For instance, in one of the architectural descriptions, they even make a jab regarding healthcare reform. I mean, really? And how many times do I need to hear them scapegoat capitalism?

I'm not a republican or a democrat, teapartyer or liberal (and I don't feel like discussing the merits of either side in a game forum), I just find it really jarring when it looks like a game is trying to sell me a message by making random comments on current politics.

Blind2Society
06-18-2011, 02:06 PM
I noticed this as well and was somewhat put off by it. However, I soon forgot about it and couldn't have cared less.

Anyway, Ubisoft, leave that crap out of the games. We play games to escape reality and explore a different world so to speak. We do not need to be reminded of the current botched up state of the world or your feelings on the matter. It really hurts the immersion factor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Black_Widow9
06-18-2011, 02:18 PM
Aren't we under the assumption that Shaun put together all of the extra information about places/people? IMO, that's his personality coming through as you are reading them. He interjects it often actually if you read them all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jahandar
06-18-2011, 03:00 PM
Yeah, you could interpret some of it as just being Shaun's character, but it also comes through in the rift cluster puzzles for "The Truth."

I haven't finished the game, so I don't know if what I've seen is as far as it goes or what.

Since my OP I've read an article (http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/12/11/assassins-creed-brotherhoods-hidden-liberal-political-agenda-revealed-ubisoft-writer-embedded-modern-day-political-references-in-assassins-creed-brotherhood/) where they said they were trying to push the current politics more this time around, and see how people responded.

Personally, it just didn't resonate for me. Otherwise though, its still an outstanding game so far.

payrob07
06-18-2011, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Jahandar:
Yeah, you could interpret some of it as just being Shaun's character, but it also comes through in the rift cluster puzzles for "The Truth."

I haven't finished the game, so I don't know if what I've seen is as far as it goes or what.

Since my OP I've read an article (http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/12/11/assassins-creed-brotherhoods-hidden-liberal-political-agenda-revealed-ubisoft-writer-embedded-modern-day-political-references-in-assassins-creed-brotherhood/) where they said they were trying to push the current politics more this time around, and see how people responded.

Personally, it just didn't resonate for me. Otherwise though, its still an outstanding game so far.

I am a strong willed capitalist and I hate when games force that crap on you. Either way, modern politics should be left out.

Why not jab at Canadian politics, oh yeah, that's right... America is everything to everyone but Americans.

I found that really funny while in Europe. People over there pay attention to our economy more than us. But based off of Sec of Defense Gates' comments at the NATO conventions, its obvious why they do.

kriegerdesgottes
06-18-2011, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Blind2Society:
I noticed this as well and was somewhat put off by it. However, I soon forgot about it and couldn't have cared less.

Anyway, Ubisoft, leave that crap out of the games. We play games to escape reality and explore a different world so to speak. We do not need to be reminded of the current botched up state of the world or your feelings on the matter. It really hurts the immersion factor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I agree with this.

Calvarok
06-18-2011, 08:49 PM
So you're fine with religious jabs but not political ones? I'm a Christian. I understand that the church has gotten really out of control and done some terrible things, sometimes. But I don't believe that a super-advanced previous society created humans, and that Christianity is based on misinterpretations. However, since I know that this is a work of fiction, I can live with the world I'm playing the game in being different from my own.

Brotherhood basically said that one of the most famous examples of communism was influenced by Templars. In doing so, they made bad things happen.

It didn't say anything about what is the right form of government, just that Templars had used it to their advantage.

What is there to be offended about that? Ubisoft shouldn't stray from the important issues. Doing that DETRACTS from immersion. This is just like the Turkish people getting upset about the main force of the Byzantines being under Templar control.

They're not taking sides. The Byzantines are being controlled by the Templars. Maybe the Ottomans are just as bad, but at least the Ottomans are not trying to enslave the entire world. The Assassin's priority is the eradication of the Templars. They will side with anyone who's not as bad as them to do it.

Once the Templars are taken care of, the Assassins can start thinking about what "normal" people are right and wrong.

Right now, they are not biased. Once the Byzantines are out from Templar control,they can become allies.

Back to the OP. the architecture descriptions are reflective of Shaun, who is an opinionated guy. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. The Assassins strive to let people believe and do what they want, as long as it doesn't harm or control others.

EDIT:
And to those of you telling Ubisoft to censor themselves, you're talking a lot like Templars. Everything Shaun says is not reflective of what the dialogue writers actually believe. They just take the time to put characters and events into the game who have opinions, and let you figure out for yourself which one you think is right.

kriegerdesgottes
06-18-2011, 09:23 PM
No I am annoyed by the political and religious jabs.

Calvarok
06-18-2011, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
No I am annoyed by the political and religious jabs.
My point is that they are not jabs. They're just pointing out the very real facts about stuff. And they're presented only as the views of a group or single character, not as what is actually right. Sounds like you just TLD;DR'd my post.

ThaWhistle
06-18-2011, 09:47 PM
as a historian, the religious jabs at the catholic church of the 15th and 16th centuries are based on historical stuff enough that it can be excused as part history, part creative license, but the modern political/economic shpiel is borderline patronizing.

the stuff about capitalism, especially with regards to consumerism was incredibly ironic considering this game has so much merchandise attatched to it. i made a thread here about it before. to me it was like seeing che guevera shirts on sale at chain stores in the mall.

As a game series that's universe is based in a world similar to ours, the modern economic commentary seems borderline patronizing, and the political stuff somewhat lazy storywriting. big bad republicans? ooooh, scary, yet cliche. as i've said before, the story writers have gotten plain lazy with who the bad guys are in this game. in AC1, it was centered around relativity, and more ambiguous. now its just bad guy= bad, good = good.

Calvarok
06-18-2011, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
as a historian, the religious jabs at the catholic church of the 15th and 16th centuries are based on historical stuff enough that it can be excused as part history, part creative license, but the modern political/economic shpiel is borderline patronizing.

the stuff about capitalism, especially with regards to consumerism was incredibly ironic considering this game has so much merchandise attatched to it. i made a thread here about it before. to me it was like seeing che guevera shirts on sale at chain stores in the mall.

As a game series that's universe is based in a world similar to ours, the modern economic commentary seems borderline patronizing, and the political stuff somewhat lazy storywriting. big bad republicans? ooooh, scary, yet cliche. as i've said before, the story writers have gotten plain lazy with who the bad guys are in this game. in AC1, it was centered around relativity, and more ambiguous. now its just bad guy= bad, good = good.

The games used people who were legitamately terrible people historically. I don't see what's wrong with that. Not all Templars are guided by the desire to actually make the world a better place.

I understand that the stuff about the Catholic church being opressive, and many religions being led by people who oppressed their followers at some point, but I don't feel offended from knowing the truth. In truth, I don't feel offended by anything at all in the game, since it's its own narrative.

About capitalism, the writers of the game aren't allowed to decide what merchendise gets sold branded with it.

I think it's great that Ubisoft allows them to question how good that whole idea is for people.

Quite honestly, I don't think they're trying to say who's right or wrong. They're making a fictional universe where some of the more nebulous concepts have been influenced by evil, but aren't really evil themselves, nessesarily.

I really think people take it too seriously.
AC's writers are never shy to make main characters disagree on certain points. Sister Tedora believes in a God, Ezio does not. Machiavelli belives that the people are nessecarily evil, most assassins do not. Shaun belives lots of cynical stuff about modern times, maybe Lucy or Rebecca have a counter to his arguments. It's not being presented as black and white, at all.

ThaWhistle
06-18-2011, 10:30 PM
well, really, lorenzo de medici was nearly as bad as the borgias, but he was on the right side of the renaissance. in the mission in the castello lucrezia mentioned lorenzo's shenanigans. hell, even machiavelli as portrayed in game isn't how he as a person would have been. the characters in ac1 were alot less cookie cutter good guy bad guy archetypes.

and with regards to the merhandise, the game is itself merchandise. the concept is the same as going to pay 10 dollars for a movie about the evils of capitalism. and in a work of fiction like this, the irony kind of kills the suspension of disbelief

Calvarok
06-18-2011, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by ThaWhistle:
well, really, lorenzo de medici was nearly as bad as the borgias, but he was on the right side of the renaissance. in the mission in the castello lucrezia mentioned lorenzo's shenanigans. hell, even machiavelli as portrayed in game isn't how he as a person would have been. the characters in ac1 were alot less cookie cutter good guy bad guy archetypes.

and with regards to the merhandise, the game is itself merchandise. the concept is the same as going to pay 10 dollars for a movie about the evils of capitalism. and in a work of fiction like this, the irony kind of kills the suspension of disbelief

The game is not about STOP CAPITALISM NOW. It's about "Stop controlling people with a system of any kind". The current way of getting paid for storytelling is through selling it to consumers. Writers don't have much say in the matter. And for me, it helps my suspension of disbelief when characters in the game talk about things in an uncensored way.

Of course I understand that the games make some characters more on the side of "good" than others, but really, even that is not fixed. Lorenzo isn't portrayed as being perfect in the game, he's just portrayed as not being as controlling and bad to have running his place as the Borgia.

There are database entries that talk about the things that he did. They don't sugarcoat the bad stuff.

Machiavelli as a person was known to have had an admiration for Cesare Borgia, and not to have been an assassin. But, if he were really the administrator of an order of assassins, would anyone have really known? He may have admired the way Cesare rose to and maintained power, but he also understood that him having a PoE was a really bad thing.

We don't know everything about historical characters, and Ubi tries to make sure that what each character does is somewhat plausible when reading the info we do have.

It handles it's complex and controversial themes better than, say, an anti-war first person shooter. The gameplay does not have Shaun aiding capitalism. So why should he support it just because? Because the game wouldn't exist without it? So they should blatantly not give characters opinions on things that would lead to them not liking games?

So there absolutely can't be an assassin who is totally against video games, and portrayed as a nice guy?

I dunno. It feels like an unessecary restriction to place on characters.

ThaWhistle
06-18-2011, 11:15 PM
what i meant about machiavelli was the whole term "macchiavellian" really was not how machiavelli would have thought. while in hte prince he did admire cesare borgia, and even worked under him, he was a republican through and through and while he certainly though the methods he described in the prince were effective at ruling, he most likely did not believe it was the RIGHT way to rule. thats beside the point.

the point i was originally making was that writers have been taking the easy way when deciding who the baddies are.

doesn't anyone remember that huge twist at the end of AC1? the moral dilemma altair faced throughout the game?

granted, the game had the benefit of being the only thing in its universe, and as can be seen in any large franchise(like star wars) is that principles and story telling methods get diluted or changed or for some reason emphasized in different iterations.

but as alot of people would tell ya, the gameplay in AC1 wasn't terribly great, but the story was. in several ways, it seems like it wasn't as focused in the last two games(especially ACB). While AC1 felt original, ac2 and acb felt less so. And whatever the writers intentions were, it was lost in the relative lack of originality.

Jahandar
06-19-2011, 12:10 AM
Quite honestly, I don't think they're trying to say who's right or wrong. They're making a fictional universe where some of the more nebulous concepts have been influenced by evil, but aren't really evil themselves, nessesarily.

Well most of the bits about Capitalism that I've seen so far are not from Shaun, but in the rift clusters for learning "The Truth."

What you describe is what they did mostly in the first two games, the complaint is that they strayed from this a bit too much in Brotherhood. When they focus on things like health care reform and specific Supreme Court decisions, then we aren't dealing with "nebulous concepts" anymore, but specific issues.

Whereas in the previous games we were treated to an exploration of the moral questions involved, in Brotherhood we get things like pictures of Monica Lewinski and Sarah Palin on a chess board.

That just kind of cheapens the experience a bit, in my opinion.

Blind2Society
06-19-2011, 07:29 AM
^Well said sir.

BingChandler
06-19-2011, 08:20 AM
All AC games have an agenda that Ubisoft is trying to push. Just part of the game experience in my opinion.

Athiesm, global warming, capitalism, American politics, etc. have all been touched upon to lesser or greater degrees. Honestly, the opening screen itself tries to ensure you of how multicultural Ubisoft is; they know how controversial many of the ideas in the game are to people.

I just hope the final message of AC isn't that human overconsumption and actions (i.e. global warming) are the catastrophe TWCB allude to. That would be far too much of a cliche copout to the story, in my opinion.

Just remember Ubisoft is trying to get their message across through AC and don't let it bother you too much.

Mr_Shade
06-19-2011, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Black_Widow9:
Aren't we under the assumption that Shaun put together all of the extra information about places/people? IMO, that's his personality coming through as you are reading them. He interjects it often actually if you read them all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Indeed that was also my impression..

And as we know, Shaun has some very particular feelings on some subjects.. LOL

However I think that being a game such as it is, people should not read too much into things, such as religion and other topics in the game, since it will never appeal to everyone..

Calvarok
06-19-2011, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Jahandar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Quite honestly, I don't think they're trying to say who's right or wrong. They're making a fictional universe where some of the more nebulous concepts have been influenced by evil, but aren't really evil themselves, nessesarily.

Well most of the bits about Capitalism that I've seen so far are not from Shaun, but in the rift clusters for learning "The Truth."

What you describe is what they did mostly in the first two games, the complaint is that they strayed from this a bit too much in Brotherhood. When they focus on things like health care reform and specific Supreme Court decisions, then we aren't dealing with "nebulous concepts" anymore, but specific issues.

Whereas in the previous games we were treated to an exploration of the moral questions involved, in Brotherhood we get things like pictures of Monica Lewinski and Sarah Palin on a chess board.

That just kind of cheapens the experience a bit, in my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What the point of calling out specific things in The Truth in Brotherhood is is to show how the Templars have worked throughout history, and things that in real life may have been thought to be or may actually have been bad luck, incometence, or profiteering, in the AC universe, is actually Templar machinations. I personally find my experience of stories cheapened when they get too scared of using real historical figures, even though it's their own work of fiction.

I never really found AC1's story to be very original once I realized that the guys all did extremely disgusting stuff and said "but I did it to keep people safe" later. One or two of them even acnowledged that what they did was terrible, but they liked it. And that happens NINE times. And then the only interesting ones are the 10th one, Robert, where you find out Al Mualim's just as bad, and Al Mualim to a lesser degree, because of all the crazy apple stuff that happens.

I still think that the twists at the end of Ezio's first game, and the twist with Desmond in brotherhood were much better, and were bolstered by having a more sprawling and multi-storied main game.

AC1 was really kinda predictable to me, I never trusted Al Mualim and literally facepalmed when Altair got angry at him and then trusted him like a loyal puppy after he said some entirely unconvincing stuff.

If AC2 had gone on with introducing guy after guy who was supposedly SOO horrible and then trying to make him seem misguided, again and again, I may have not liked it as much. It's an ok narrative trick. But if you kill a bunch of people who REALLY deserve it, the misguided ones seem more sympathetic.

Bipolar Matt
06-19-2011, 05:48 PM
I was irritated by this. I love Ubisoft, but here they are making all kinds of money off of this cash cow of a video game series, and they are bashing captialism, the very system that makes it possible for them to make said money.

Also...they make it seem like the Communist Revolution was a good thing. The two most murderous regimes in history have both been Communist (USSR under Stalin and China under Mao). Not sure what they were thinking with this angle.

Abeonis
06-20-2011, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by BipolarMatt:
I was irritated by this. I love Ubisoft, but here they are making all kinds of money off of this cash cow of a video game series, and they are bashing captialism, the very system that makes it possible for them to make said money.

Also...they make it seem like the Communist Revolution was a good thing. The two most murderous regimes in history have both been Communist (USSR under Stalin and China under Mao). Not sure what they were thinking with this angle.

The Russian Revolution was a good thing, it's purpose was to bring about a Marxist state, not a Cummunist one. The idea of Marxism is, in itself, the perfet system, but unfortunately, that cannot work in practice, and we get the USSR and Communist China.

Inorganic9_2
06-20-2011, 03:07 AM
"Minstrels plying their trade within the city limits are asked not to perform the popular lay "The Little Boy of Prussia". It has caused several priests to suffer embarrassing physical 'juttings' in public."

El_Sjietah
06-20-2011, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Abeonis:
The Russian Revolution was a good thing, it's purpose was to bring about a Marxist state, not a Cummunist one. The idea of Marxism is, in itself, the perfet system, but unfortunately, that cannot work in practice, and we get the USSR and Communist China.
A government type that cannot work in practice is always a bad one.

Blind2Society
06-20-2011, 09:31 AM
Oddly enough I just watch Enemy at the Gates and one of the last lines was very fitting.

''I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love.''

Bruno_Berg
06-20-2011, 09:41 AM
I think it's silly to get upset or even bothered by it really. I mean, it's a work of fiction and it makes for a good background story/main story even if it clashes with my own view of the world.

Jahandar
06-20-2011, 04:36 PM
Just to clarify, I don't mind if a game's ideology disagrees with my own. I just found the political jabs revolving U.S. politics to be a bit jarring, regardless if I agreed with them or not.

They made a specific effort in Brotherhood to involve more current politics, but in my opinion it just cheapened the experience when they've gone from focusing on world movements to the petty political meanderings of a single nation.

ShaneO7K
06-20-2011, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by BipolarMatt:
I was irritated by this. I love Ubisoft, but here they are making all kinds of money off of this cash cow of a video game series, and they are bashing captialism, the very system that makes it possible for them to make said money.

Also...they make it seem like the Communist Revolution was a good thing. The two most murderous regimes in history have both been Communist (USSR under Stalin and China under Mao). Not sure what they were thinking with this angle. They add things like these in to make the fiction of the games more interesting and slightly more believable. And when it is things we relate it is easier for us to find an interest in finding out where they are going with the topic. It pretty much gives a better, deeper story and adds to certain characters personality.

People are looking too much into it and getting offended by a video game which is painting a slightly bad picture of their country, while if it was another place there would be close to no need for argument. At the end of the day it looks like people are getting a little too patriotic over a video game.

Blind2Society
06-20-2011, 04:56 PM
This is the second time I got to use this today http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2440/officespace.png

The argument has little to do with patriotism if at all. It's simply, as Jahandar said, jarring. All day long we have to listen to these politicians and new media stations blabber on about all this crap. The last thing I want is to be jolted out of my AC trance by modern day politics. I equate it to the feeling Desmond must have after a long session in the animus. I suppose it's not that big of a deal. It doesn't take me very long to get back into it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jahandar
06-20-2011, 05:37 PM
Exactly; its not about getting offended (it takes a lot more than a game to offend me), its just a noticeable difference from the approach of the previous game, so we are discussing whether the new shift in focus towards current U.S. politics is better than the more global outlook of AC2.

I don't think it makes the story or conspiracy any deeper. In fact, just the opposite. AC2 went to great lengths to use its research to build elaborate conspiracies throughout history on a global scale. By contrast, things like copy and pasting pictures of easy targets like Monica Lewinsky vs Sarah Palin comes across as a bit lazy and makes for a more shallow experience, since its all so focused on one nation's politics.

I think Ubisoft itself considered focusing on current American politics to be an experiment that may or may not work out. As AC:B writer Jeffrey Yohalem said regarding the new focus "weíll see how it turns out, or if they end up clamping down in the future," so we're just giving our honest reactions as random people playing their game.

El_Sjietah
06-20-2011, 06:03 PM
The difference between references to presentday politics and politics in history, is that we know what effect the politics in history had on the world. A lot of the issues addressed in Brotherhood are still developing, so grouping them with either Templar or Assassin virtues comes off as preaching rather than adding depth to the AC universe.

Blind2Society
06-20-2011, 06:08 PM
I'm just going to let Jahandar talk from now on. He's hit the nail on the head so many times over I no longer feel the need to post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Calvarok
06-20-2011, 09:52 PM
Well it really makes sense that the most powerful country in the world would be the one that the Templars have worked the hardest to infiltrate and influence.

I really don't see whats wrong about using things that would be obvious targets. They're not obligated to only use history where all the participants are dead. They have to explain how the Templars fit into the very-close to our present time. I don't know what you were expecting, for them to ignore every political figure in that last 10 years. They didn't pull any punches including lots of them in historical settings.

So, yeah, we're learning more about how the "modern" templars have affected the world and who they are. So what? Is Ubisoft really obligated to search out the really hard targets when talking about ANYTHING? A lot of stuff in The Truth in brotherhood was really hazy on who actually did what, or used situations you wouldn't have thought of at first.

Most things are going to be obvious, just like they've been from AC1-Rev. You think the Crusades is a hard and low-profile target?
What about the Templars themselves? Pretty obvious, and inspired by existing conspiracy stories.

I really don't know why you think they should stray from mentioning events from the present that seem ripe for conspiracy theories, but they can do whatever they want with the past.

EDIT: and also, they didn't just focus on America the whole time. A lot of it was about the Cold War, which involved several nations.

EDIT2: So you're sick about hearing about real-world politics? And that's the only reason you dislike them actually following through with the modern part of the conspiracy theory?

If they made up the entirety of the public modern times in AC, I think I'd be far more taken out of the immersion than if there was an issue about health care that had been discussed a lot on the news in t he last while and it was in the game. The premise of the modern times is that it's very similar to ours. Granted, Africa has been decimated (which makes you wonder if Sarah Palin actually learned where it is right away in AC)
and there's crazy weather, but still, much the same. Just saying that everything up until 2012 happened with Hara Salin, or a random event that didn't happen in real life happened with her, is a bit cheap.

Jahandar
06-21-2011, 02:50 PM
Sorry Calvarok, I'm going to ignore much of your post because it looked like maybe you were going into spoiler territory and I haven't finished the game.

I will say though that when you have "The Truth" sequences framing recent supreme court decisions in the way they do and Shaun prattling about healthcare reform, any alert person playing is going to grow wise to the fact that the game is not just telling a story anymore but also trying to sell a message.

It's like if you're playing some game and suddenly a dude comes along to tell you that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's not a message many people would care to be sold by a video game either. They can of course ignore it and move on, but it was still a jarring experience that pulled them out of the game for a moment, and raised a flag that the game now has a message to sell.

That last bit is the most damaging to the quality of the game, it's not so much the message itself, it's being sold one.

It's like what happens to Rock & Roll when it becomes Christian Rock, suddenly its not just about the music anymore. They are trying to sell you a message, and that detracts from the experience.

Calvarok
06-21-2011, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Jahandar:
Sorry Calvarok, I'm going to ignore much of your post because it looked like maybe you were going into spoiler territory and I haven't finished the game.

I will say though that when you have "The Truth" sequences framing recent supreme court decisions in the way they do and Shaun prattling about healthcare reform, any alert person playing is going to grow wise to the fact that the game is not just telling a story anymore but also trying to sell a message.

It's like if you're playing some game and suddenly a dude comes along to tell you that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's not a message many people would care to be sold by a video game either. They can of course ignore it and move on, but it was still a jarring experience that pulled them out of the game for a moment, and raised a flag that the game now has a message to sell.

That last bit is the most damaging to the quality of the game, it's not so much the message itself, it's being sold one.

It's like what happens to Rock & Roll when it becomes Christian Rock, suddenly its not just about the music anymore. They are trying to sell you a message, and that detracts from the experience.

I disagree. Pretty much any music that has lyrics is presenting a message, and I don't agree with most of the messages in music. However, I have never disliked a song purely for its message. It's not the words, but how they're used with the music, and more specifically, the content of the music.

The Assassin's goal is to stop people from being told what they have to do.

You'll notice Shaun doesn't get into a discussion with Desmond about why he should believe anything. He just states his own personal opinion.

Sure, that might be an opinion shared by one of the writers, but if you're going to write a convincing character, you have to let a little of yourself come through.

Shaun having opinions makes sense, since his character is opinionated. Simple as that.

And he only references real-world present-day things directly very very very rarely. I think I could count the instances on my fingers.

I hardly see how a game that tells the characters "Don't believe anything you hear unless you've been shown irrefutable proof, and don't let anyone tell you what to believe" could effectively "sell" a message that is not presented as the gospel truth, just an offhand comment by a supporting character.

This is probably why the writers feel safe giving characters opinions.

EDIT: and ultimately, no matter how I feel about actually assassinating people "for the greater good" in real life, I still enjoy doing so in a simulated environment. I like the vibe of being a powerful assassin. I like the sneaking and the fighting. I just don't advocate the murder of anyone who actually exists.

So what that means is: I take the enjoyment of the game with a grain of salt.

This is why I don't believe that this game is advocating murder, or demonizing a nation, or telling me what party to vote for.

Calvarok
06-21-2011, 11:50 PM
Just wanted to post this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJD4usfK5d0

Jahandar
06-24-2011, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
I hardly see how a game that tells the characters "Don't believe anything you hear unless you've been shown irrefutable proof, and don't let anyone tell you what to believe" could effectively "sell" a message that is not presented as the gospel truth, just an offhand comment by a supporting character.


Except its not just one character, the same sentiment is also presented in the rifle clusters for what is ironically titled "The Truth."




However, I have never disliked a song purely for its message.



Well, I have, so I think we're just looking at it from completely different perspectives. However, I have enjoyed having the conversation with you and the others who've posted here on both sides.

Cheers.

Bipolar Matt
06-24-2011, 03:31 PM
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Barack_Obama

I thought this was kind of funny.

RzaRecta357
06-25-2011, 09:52 AM
I still don't see why you're getting upset.

Did you expect them to keep pulling random facts out of history that not many people know? Or a surprise in the form that HEY these politicians in our time today are templars.

So? You expect the templars to NOT be all of America? Especially when it's so easy to write for? Them having all that money? Power? Urge to war and try to be the best? Exactly.

I'm sure they're all over the world in the next game anyway.

It's called not trying to do the same thing over and over.

AC2 had tons of politics from the early 1900's and then some.

What? You expected a re-hash of these events? Give me a break. As time goes ahead, more and more of the world keep their eyes on America.

George Bush was a templar and I'm sure most of the Presidents were as the templars had the money to do so.

In fact, the Assassin's would of stopped George bush if the events of the comic books didn't happen.


I don't know, I guess I just don't get what the complaining is for. I mean, if you're getting sore about the game getting more modern then you might as well quit now.

The game is slowly going forward in time everytime and I'm sure the next one will have items and gear that make people sore and especially in the Desmond scenes when it's full on modern and he saves the day.

Calvarok
06-25-2011, 05:41 PM
Assassin's Creed is a work of fiction and should not be taken quite so seriously as all that. That said, it's art and art sometimes attempts to hold up a mirror to reality to point out different things... kind of like ancient fables or nursery rhymes. So, although it isn't pointing out any specific conspiracies, perhaps it does contain little life lessons, like "don't be mean to people" or "don't just blindly go along without ever using any critical thinking."

It makes perfect sense in Assassin's Creed fiction for the Templars to be behind capitalism, and all the stupid things that governments have done. Totally ignoring these things makes the game feel shallower, and like a total re-write of recent history. That is the kind of thing that breaks MY immersion.

And even if the writers actually don't approve of ANY of the terrible and stupid things that political figures, be they american, russian, english, or whatever have done, then what does it actually matter?

If they said "Osama Bin Laden was a hired Templar terrorist", and they said it because there was evidence in recent history of him being a dangerous terrorist, and they commandeered that fact to turn it into a plot thread, would you have a problem with that?

If they said "George Bush wrecked the country, but he was doing it for Templar gain", and they said it because the country did decline under George, who made a lot of bad descisions, and they commandeered that fact and turned it into an interesting plot line, would you have a problem with that?

The story of present-day AC is not about a few unknown Templars attacking world leaders. It's the story of secret Templars BEING most of the world leaders. And it uses just enough real-world facts that it could seem possible, if we accepted the existence of powerful objects.

It's not about the GAME having a political agenda to sell. The GAME has stabbing, shooting, stealth, and action to sell.

The STORY is the thing that makes you stop and think: holy crap. The extent of this conspiracy would really scare me if it was real, and I want to know how all of this fits in.

Due to them working within stuff that has happened, they can post a date or location, and people can see it, and research what happened on that day, and accurately predict plot points. That is what makes AC amazing. It continually surprises us whith what they use to fill in the blanks of stuff you can't possibly know from watching the news or researching history. And sure, none of it's real. But it's interesting.

Jahandar
06-28-2011, 06:05 PM
It's the story of secret Templars BEING most of the world leaders.

In that case, you should actually expect Obama to be painted as the next modern Templar villain, since you want them to focus on current events. He is just as bad as Bush anyway, so they would have just as easy a time vilifying him and it would be even more relevant to current politics. Bush has been out of the spotlight for years now.

All you who want to push modern politics you should support Obama as one of the next modern templar villains.

Do any of us expect that to actually happen though? Not really. My point is not to attack Obama, I'm just pointing out that if it were just world leaders in general that were villains (on both sides) as you say, that would actually be better (and more interesting story-wise, painting the two parties disputes as a distraction while they actually work together to gain power). But does anyone really expect them to do this? No.

That would assume the new writer they hired for Brotherhood's current events parts was objective and just trying to contribute to a great story, but he has already shown a bias, and so far his personal views have been more important than the story, and they stick out like a sore thumb. To those of us who have caught onto this, we find it a jarring eyesore on an otherwise great plot. The rest of you may enjoy your bliss.

iN3krO
06-28-2011, 06:15 PM
Just inmerse in that universe that ubisoft had created....

Ubisoft's Templars: Capitalists (politicians)
Ubisoft's Assasins: Hippies (peace bro)

Politic problems are adressed to templars cuz they are in fact the politics in that universe and the heros (those against the politics) are assassins cuz it's a templar vs assassins war, politicians vs green world (or how it's named).

Stop saying ubisoft is saying they are against anything in the reality, they are just using real facts to make us (gamers) think they were caused by the TvA (templars vs assassin's) war making as inmerge in the game (when i see joanna d'arc while playing aoe2 i just think, ah she had a PoE that's why she's so overpowered).

Calvarok
06-28-2011, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Jahandar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's the story of secret Templars BEING most of the world leaders.

In that case, you should actually expect Obama to be painted as the next modern Templar villain, since you want them to focus on current events. He is just as bad as Bush anyway, so they would have just as easy a time vilifying him and it would be even more relevant to current politics. Bush has been out of the spotlight for years now.

All you who want to push modern politics you should support Obama as one of the next modern templar villains.

Do any of us expect that to actually happen though? Not really. My point is not to attack Obama, I'm just pointing out that if it were just world leaders in general that were villains (on both sides) as you say, that would actually be better (and more interesting story-wise, painting the two parties disputes as a distraction while they actually work together to gain power). But does anyone really expect them to do this? No.

That would assume the new writer they hired for Brotherhood's current events parts was objective and just trying to write a great story, but he has already shown a bias, and so far his personal views have been more important than the story. To those of us who have caught onto this, we find it a jarring eyesore on an otherwise great plot. The rest of you may enjoy your bliss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

World leaders on both side WILL be Templars. They have a fairly major headquarters in Italy, I'd bet on Italy being at least partially Templar controlled.

And there are several things they could do with Obama: one, they could say that he wasn't meant to be elected, and that Bush was supposed to stay president. Two, they could say that Bush completed whatever his mission was, and they planted or turned enough people in the goverment so that Obama would unknowingly help their cause.

Three, Obama is a Templar. I too find it unlikely that they will go with the last one, but the first two, or maybe something even more interesting, sound like a good idea.

I'm confused as to how you know that this guy's personal view are more important than the story. There are things that the US has done that are stupid, and he pointed out a single one of them in a very Shaunish way. The references to recent politics are seriously not a big deal. They're just logical jumping off points for Templar involvement in the world. And yes, I say THE WORLD, because there are references to lots more than just american politics and corporations.

I have no idea how you could possibly end your post in such a condesending way when all you have said is
"I think that Assassin's Creed is biased against present day american politics, and I have record of about three instances that don't totally confirm this theory."

"Enjoy my bliss" indeed.

I see every time that they talk about world leaders or forms of government in a way that suggests that they dissaprove. And you know what? They're all valid points. If Assassin's Creed straight up said that all belivers in a higher power are idiots, I would be offended and annoyed. But instead, they say that there are many men and women who will use others faith in despicable ways, and maintain that it's OK to believe in something, as evidenced by Sister Tedora. She knows that what men believed were gods were actually just super-advanced. But she still believes that a god exists. And she is presented as an open-minded and reasonable person.

When Shaun talks about health care, he's talking about how a district was growing so big, that it was outside the city walls and vulnerable to attack. The Senate only approved the building of new walls after the district was invaded and sacked. Obviously, it relates quite well to health care reform, since there was no action taken until the situation had expanded to the point where bad things were happening. That is a stupid thing that happened with the US. No denying it. But you have to remember, this is SHAUN we're talking about. He compared Europe to HERPES. Did you really expect him to be the type who would avoid gloating about issues that don't affect his country of origin?

I see all the references, I just haven't seen any indication that they're being mand solely for the purpose of slamming the US, and I've seen quite a few positive ones, as well.

I'm not in "Bliss". I just don't jump to conclusions, and at the end of the day, I've realised that Assassin's Creed is a game that talks about controvertial things. I expect it. And I give them a fair chance to prove to me that the references were valid, and so far, they all have been.

Jahandar
06-29-2011, 12:43 PM
Except, as you keep forgetting, it isn't just Shaun. Pretty much any time American politics come into play, Republicans are the bad guys, Democrats are the heroes.

I mean, really? Who would say that except someone shilling for the Democrats.

Keep in mind, I am not a Republican. It just raises a red flag for me whenever a story starts going off-road to bash only one side so obviously.

What's next, Al Gore was an assassin?


EDIT: Wow, apparently Al Gore WAS affiliated with the assassins (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Al_Gore). lol, but of course the writing isn't getting lazy or predictable at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Calvarok
06-29-2011, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Jahandar:
Except, as you keep forgetting, it isn't just Shaun. Pretty much any time American politics come into play, Republicans are the bad guys, Democrats are the heroes.

I mean, really? Who would say that except someone shilling for the Democrats.

Keep in mind, I am not a Republican. It just raises a red flag for me whenever a story starts going off-road to bash only one side so obviously.

What's next, Al Gore was an assassin?


EDIT: Wow, apparently Al Gore WAS affiliated with the assassins (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Al_Gore). lol, but of course the writing isn't getting lazy or predictable at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The problem with you're argument is you're forgetting one thing.

The story is supposed to be about the Templars being the group that's the most powerful. They're the ones who're controlling everything. And the story follows history as clos as possible. So tell me, is it possible to make the Templars the most powerful group if they say that Templars were in the group that was less powerful? No. Republicans in power at that time, Templars were in power at that time = Republican Templars. And you can bet your bacon that there were Templar spies on either side anyways. It's just that they're only backing ONE side.

The story is supposed to be predictable in that the most powerful organization in modern times is Templar. We've known that since AC1.

machinista
06-29-2011, 01:25 PM
Also...they make it seem like the Communist Revolution was a good thing. The two most murderous regimes in history have both been Communist (USSR under Stalin and China under Mao). Not sure what they were thinking with this angle.

Yeah, if you ignore the billions of people killed by colonialism, contemporary neocolonialism, worldwide famine as a consequence of the introduction of capitalist relations in non-capitalist countries and a gaping inequality in resource distribution, oil-oriented wars and military coup d'etats all motivated by - wait for it - capitalism.

Also, if the game makes the Templars out to be out for power, then it would be nonsense to place them as anything but big-league capitalists. We live under capitalism, you can't honestly expect the major leaders to be what? Hardcore anarchists?

Also, as someone who sympathizes with radical leftist politics, believe me when I say that the irony of a multi-million company attacking capitalism was lost on no one. That doesn't mean it makes sense for people to get touchy because someone made a few jabs at their beloved system. It's not like the "leftist" message of a fictional story made by a gigantic company is going to actually affect anything.

Jahandar
06-29-2011, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:

The problem with you're argument is you're forgetting one thing.

The story is supposed to be about the Templars being the group that's the most powerful. They're the ones who're controlling everything. And the story follows history as clos as possible. So tell me, is it possible to make the Templars the most powerful group if they say that Templars were in the group that was less powerful? No. Republicans in power at that time, Templars were in power at that time = Republican Templars. And you can bet your bacon that there were Templar spies on either side anyways. It's just that they're only backing ONE side.


Well, then we can hope that now that the Democrats are in power, we might see the balance shift a little. As someone who is a member of neither party, I think it would at least keep things interesting.



Originall posted by machinista:
Yeah, if you ignore the billions of people killed by colonialism, contemporary neocolonialism, worldwide famine as a consequence of the introduction of capitalist relations in non-capitalist countries and a gaping inequality in resource distribution, oil-oriented wars and military coup d'etats all motivated by - wait for it - capitalism.


I'm trying not to stray too far off-topic, but I think you are forgetting that capitalism is just an economic system wherein people as opposed to governments control the means of production and there is a separation of government from economics.

Colonialism, wars for resources, etc are the actions of governments, if the motives are for commercial profit it means companies and government are mixing, so it can't really be called capitalism.

I'll defend the writers on this point. So far they have usually been clear that the Templars are just using the capitalists and making lip service to free markets and such, when really they have an oligarchy of sorts behind the scenes with all the power.

TheLeoCrow
06-29-2011, 02:34 PM
Persinally, I didn't mind those parts, in fact i did like them for what they were (fiction), regardless of my personal political (or religious) beliefs.

I do not think that a character's opinions reflect the creator's opinions (the characters i have created often expressed and justified opinions opposite to what i believe). Nor did I think that they creators of the game tried to push an agenda on us.

Furthermore, it didn't make me think that they were blaming one political side alone but every political side. It is my belief that every religious/political/social institution has at some point been (or will be) manipulated for specific purposes. That is the impression that subject 16's puzzles (or opinions) and shaun's opinions gave me.

That's just my 2cents, if anyone is offended in any way by my post, they can sent me a pm explaining why and i will delete it. Since it seems like a flammable topic i will try to stay away from it from now on

Bipolar Matt
06-29-2011, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by machinista:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also...they make it seem like the Communist Revolution was a good thing. The two most murderous regimes in history have both been Communist (USSR under Stalin and China under Mao). Not sure what they were thinking with this angle.

Yeah, if you ignore the billions of people killed by colonialism, contemporary neocolonialism, worldwide famine as a consequence of the introduction of capitalist relations in non-capitalist countries and a gaping inequality in resource distribution, oil-oriented wars and military coup d'etats all motivated by - wait for it - capitalism.

Also, if the game makes the Templars out to be out for power, then it would be nonsense to place them as anything but big-league capitalists. We live under capitalism, you can't honestly expect the major leaders to be what? Hardcore anarchists?

Also, as someone who sympathizes with radical leftist politics, believe me when I say that the irony of a multi-million company attacking capitalism was lost on no one. That doesn't mean it makes sense for people to get touchy because someone made a few jabs at their beloved system. It's not like the "leftist" message of a fictional story made by a gigantic company is going to actually affect anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a very politically minded person myself, I don't like to think in terms of left and right anymore. Those terms are meaningless today. For example, neo-conservatism today is considered right-wing, yet it was the brain child of Leo Strauss, who was hardly what anyone today would call a conservative. It also features many ideas put forth by Leon Trotsky; again, not a conservative by any means.

I realize capitalism isn't perfect and that is greatly abused by many. But I do believe average people should have the right to earn a very good life for themselves with hard work and by the same token should not have things handed to them or redistributed to those who want a free ride in the name of "fairness."

What you described in your first paragraph is hyper-capitalism. A very rich and powerful few abusing the system for their own gains. And yes, old-style hardline Soviet Communism makes perfect sense for a Templar front. Government control of lives for the greater good. Perfect fit for Templar ideology.

Your points are not lost on me, however. and I can't say I disagree with you totally.

Torro747
06-29-2011, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Jahandar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Calvarok:

The problem with you're argument is you're forgetting one thing.

The story is supposed to be about the Templars being the group that's the most powerful. They're the ones who're controlling everything. And the story follows history as clos as possible. So tell me, is it possible to make the Templars the most powerful group if they say that Templars were in the group that was less powerful? No. Republicans in power at that time, Templars were in power at that time = Republican Templars. And you can bet your bacon that there were Templar spies on either side anyways. It's just that they're only backing ONE side.


Well, then we can hope that now that the Democrats are in power, we might see the balance shift a little. As someone who is a member of neither party, I think it would at least keep things interesting.



Originall posted by machinista:
Yeah, if you ignore the billions of people killed by colonialism, contemporary neocolonialism, worldwide famine as a consequence of the introduction of capitalist relations in non-capitalist countries and a gaping inequality in resource distribution, oil-oriented wars and military coup d'etats all motivated by - wait for it - capitalism.


I'm trying not to stray too far off-topic, but I think you are forgetting that capitalism is just an economic system wherein people as opposed to governments control the means of production and there is a separation of government from economics.

Colonialism, wars for resources, etc are the actions of governments, if the motives are for commercial profit it means companies and government are mixing, so it can't really be called capitalism.

I'll defend the writers on this point. So far they have usually been clear that the Templars are just using the capitalists and making lip service to free markets and such, when really they have an oligarchy of sorts behind the scenes with all the power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think why this man is upset or "jarred" is because he is naive to how the world actually works. Capitalism may just be an economic system, but here in the U.S., capitalism heavily influences the government. So when someone says that something bad was created by capitalism, they are saying the money and power influenced the government strongly. Money n Power = Templers. Heck Ill even mention that China's communist government is also heavily influenced by their own big industries n I expect to see that somewhere in the upcoming games as well (if it hasnít already).

So the moral of the story is, donít be too upset. Our capitalist system is certainly flawed n corruption affects it from the CEO's all the way to the President. Donít be upset with Ubisoft writers because they can see this and are more creative then you.

Jahandar
06-30-2011, 10:16 AM
First, I am not naive to the way the world works (but nice try), I'm just saying you have misidentified the culprit. This is getting too far off-topic for this thread so if you wish to continue this side-discussion, please do so in a private message.

Second, to clarify (again), this thread was never about anyone being upset. It takes a lot more than a video game to upset me and most other people.

Rather, its more about whether you found the new political references that were tacked on to various parts of the game by their new writer to be jarring or not.

For some of us it does, for some it does not.

As the writer Jeffrey Yohalem said of this, "weíll see how it turns out, or if they end up clamping down in the future."

So we are discussing how it turned out.

Personally I preferred the more epic world-wide scope of the conspiracy elements presented in AC2, but you're more than welcome to disagree; it's just a discussion.

RzaRecta357
06-30-2011, 12:26 PM
I only read the part where you mentioned Obama under my post. Yeah, so what? I don't know anything about him really and don't care to being a Canadian.

Sure he can be a templar, why not? In the comic, the assassin's took a pretty big downfall JUST before bush was elected. That's what I was talking about.

They wanted to stop him, but couldn't. This is why I mentioned bush and was going to mention it if I didn't already...I didn't read my post again as it was a few days ago.

So, i'd assume the templars would just stick another templar president in there. Boom.

Again, why complain about modern times stuff?

In fact, since this game takes place next year....i'd almost be upset to NOT see the next game bash on the new and current president. Only makes sense.