🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Assassin's Creed forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.
  1. #61
    cawatrooper9's Avatar AC Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A Bathtub with Caterina Sforza
    Posts
    6,078
    I remember when this thread used to be about Future Assassins Creed game locations...
    Share this post

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by cawatrooper9 Go to original post
    I remember when this thread used to be about Future Assassins Creed game locations...
    Well it was a different separate third that dealt with the appropriateness of Iran as a setting and why Ubisoft is too chicken to tackle it, from there it went into the limitations of Ubisoft's approach to genre and setting. So it still fits I think.

    There are reasons why Ubisoft is not able to fully go the distance and its important to understand that
    Share this post

  3. #63
    why not AC in Croatia.






    I think AC game would be great to see in the croatia.That would be amazing.
    Share this post

  4. #64
    ze_topazio's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Poortugal
    Posts
    7,183
    Why not?! what period of Croatian history would you suggest?
    Share this post

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by sushiglutton Go to original post
    This is a bit backwards.
    A bit, it's a good deal backwards. The point of the matter is not to foist some ridiculous Us versus Them kind of mentality. If you want objectivity, first thing you need to get rid of is that. This has nothing to do with being religious or secular, it's about trying to see things in a certain context and understand why things occur a certain way.

    The argument I made against Iranian Revolution setting is because Ubisoft will inevitably take the side of the CIA backed Shah, just as Unity took the side of the Royalists, because anything other than that will be commercial suicide. It would lead to Fox News Coverage, it would lead to jokes about Ubisoft being French Canadian and so Un-American Foreign Commies Who Surrender, and unlike
    other controversial topics it won't sell well, because it's not the right kind of controversy.

    The point is moot to this discussion because Ubisoft will never tackle a setting like that. It's learnt it's lessons and accepted its limitations and I think they have decided they will work within those limitations from here onwards.
    Share this post

  6. #66
    Assassin_M's Avatar AC Expert
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,065
    Originally Posted by sushiglutton Go to original post
    This is a bit backwards. Atheists typically do not believe in objective morality. On the contrary one common argument from theists against atheism is some version of "only God can constitute a foundation for objective morality". Now some atheists think that you can say some objective things based on the well being of sentient creatures (which seems reasonable to me). However those truths are very hard to translate into specific laws. And of course morality is constantly evolving in our societies. Just as one example the way homosexuals are treated have changed dramatically in the last fifty years. The way to progress ethics is through rational discussion and reason. The should be done in the spirit of increasing the quality of life for people/animals NOT in an attempt to best interpret ancient scripture. The reason Iran has the punishment of amputation is NOT because of rational discussion or public discourse. It's because it says so in 7th century book and that book is believed to be the perfect word of God. If that isn't a belief in objective morality I don't know what is.
    The theist argument is not "Only God can constitute objective morality", it's rather "Because a law is unchanging, it's objective". This law happens to be one theists believe to have come from God. See, now that puts the theists at odds with secularists because Ze and you come and tell me "That's not what the charter of the human rights says", well...okay. Maybe you don't say it out loud, but that implies some sort of objectivity to me. As if we've reached some sort of unchangeable precedent in morality that there should be nothing else, no other moral standard or compass. That's what this says to me and that's why it cannot be objective. It's constantly changing. Slapping the words "Rationality", "reason" and "logic" will not change that fact. I know those are very appealing spices to add to anything that attract people who want to sound smart, lol.

    Now with that out of the way, the fact that you think that the laws of Iran and other similar places were not based on rational discussion is confusing to me, though not at all surprising. Secularists and atheists don't have a monopoly over rationality, you know. It's again throwing around cultural axioms. Rationality is not based on what one group thinks. Guess what? To Iran and SA, your laws are irrational as well. It's all contextual. If you were in another time, you'd have most likely been a homophobe. I wont go into a discussion of the law, but you're wrong. Yes, laws are implemented because it says so in a 7th century book, but to say that people did not attempt to rationalize these laws and innovate them for modern life is wrong.


    (I'd rather lose all my material possessions over my hand).
    Thank you for proving me right. As I said to Ze, this is not how the law is applied. It doesn't seem as barbaric nor irrational to me because I have more knowledge of the law. You, like most Europeans, think that Iran and SA want nothing but to stone people and chop off their hands. You should read more about the law. I don't expect you to get an epiphany or change how you view it, but you'll at least have knowledge about how the law would be applied. Some useful links:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/wiki/...islamic_law.3F
    https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/wiki/..._of_shari.27ah

    I will stop now because the two threads are now merged, it's getting too off-topic
    Share this post

  7. #67



    AC would be great in croatia: The consequences of the change to the Hungarian king included the introduction of feudalism and the rise of the native noble families such as Frankopan and Šubić. The later kings sought to restore some of their previously lost influence by giving certain privileges to the towns. For the next four centuries, the Kingdom of Croatia was ruled by the Sabor (parliament) and a Ban (viceroy) appointed by the king.[22]

    The princes of Bribir from the Šubić family became particularly influential, asserting control over large parts of Dalmatia, Slavonia and Bosnia. Later, however, the Angevins intervened and restored royal power. The period saw rise of native nobility such as the Frankopans and the Šubićs to prominence and ultimately numerous Bans from the two families.[23]

    Separate coronation as King of Croatia was gradually allowed to fall into abeyance and last crowned king is Charles Robert in 1301 after which Croatia contented herself with a separate diploma inaugurale. The reign of Louis the Great (1342–1382) is considered the golden age of Croatian medieval history.[24] Ladislaus of Naples also sold the whole of Dalmatia to Venice in 1409. The period saw increasing threat of Ottoman conquest and struggle against the Republic of Venice for control of coastal areas. The Venetians gained control over most of Dalmatia by 1428. With exception of the city-state of Dubrovnik which became independent,[25] the rule of Venice on most of Dalmatia will last nearly four centuries (c. 1420 – 1797).

    In 1490 the estates of Croatia declined to recognize Vladislaus II until he had taken oath to respect their liberties, and insisted upon his erasing from the diploma certain phrases which seemed to reduce Croatia to the rank of a mere province. The dispute was solved in 1492[26]

    AND I THINK ANY PERIOD IN CROATIA WOULD BE AWESOME.
    Share this post

  8. #68
    Originally Posted by Assassin_M Go to original post
    The theist argument is not "Only God can constitute objective morality", it's rather "Because a law is unchanging, it's objective". This law happens to be one theists believe to have come from God. See, now that puts the theists at odds with secularists because Ze and you come and tell me "That's not what the charter of the human rights says", well...okay. Maybe you don't say it out loud, but that implies some sort of objectivity to me. As if we've reached some sort of unchangeable precedent in morality that there should be nothing else, no other moral standard or compass. That's what this says to me and that's why it cannot be objective. It's constantly changing. Slapping the words "Rationality", "reason" and "logic" will not change that fact. I know those are very appealing spices to add to anything that attract people who want to sound smart, lol.

    Now with that out of the way, the fact that you think that the laws of Iran and other similar places were not based on rational discussion is confusing to me, though not at all surprising. Secularists and atheists don't have a monopoly over rationality, you know. It's again throwing around cultural axioms. Rationality is not based on what one group thinks. Guess what? To Iran and SA, your laws are irrational as well. It's all contextual. If you were in another time, you'd have most likely been a homophobe. I wont go into a discussion of the law, but you're wrong. Yes, laws are implemented because it says so in a 7th century book, but to say that people did not attempt to rationalize these laws and innovate them for modern life is wrong.



    Thank you for proving me right. As I said to Ze, this is not how the law is applied. It doesn't seem as barbaric nor irrational to me because I have more knowledge of the law. You, like most Europeans, think that Iran and SA want nothing but to stone people and chop off their hands. You should read more about the law. I don't expect you to get an epiphany or change how you view it, but you'll at least have knowledge about how the law would be applied. Some useful links:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/wiki/...islamic_law.3F
    https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/wiki/..._of_shari.27ah

    I will stop now because the two threads are now merged, it's getting too off-topic

    You can read more about the particular theist argument I was refering to here for example: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god .

    I agree with you that theists are rational given their completely irrational premises. That is to say that given a belief that a 7th century book is the perfect word of God and that everything a guy who lived back then did is worth copying, they do try to reason in a rational fashion (just using Islam as an example here, Christianity is no better in this regard of course). However these premises are, for fairly obvious reasons, not sound. A secular approach to morality with a utalitarian premise at its core is in my view.

    I want to stress that I have nothing against you as a person M (but I do have problems with a book that, on more or less every page, gleefully threatens me with eternal torture in the afterlife) and I respect your opinion on a wide range of matters! Clearly you are also way more knowledgeable about the muslim world than I am.

    But ok let's carry on with the speculation about future settings!

    Spoiler:  Show
    It's gonna be Egypt
    Share this post

  9. #69
    Assassin_M's Avatar AC Expert
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,065
    Originally Posted by sushiglutton Go to original post
    You can read more about the particular theist argument I was refering to here for example: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god
    I will give it a read, thanks.

    I agree with you that theists are rational given their completely irrational premises. That is to say that given a belief that a 7th century book is the perfect word of God and that everything a guy who lived back then did is worth copying, they do try to reason in a rational fashion (just using Islam as an example here, Christianity is no better in this regard of course). However these premises are, for fairly obvious reasons, not sound. A secular approach to morality with a utalitarian premise at its core is in my view.
    Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

    I want to stress that I have nothing against you as a person M (but I do have problems with a book that, on more or less every page, gleefully threatens me with eternal torture in the afterlife) and I respect your opinion on a wide range of matters! Clearly you are also way more knowledgeable about the muslim world than I am.
    Of course, man. My opinion of you doesn't change whatsoever when we have these types of discussions. I would say you're one of the few people that I love to have these discussions with, so thank you for engaging with me.
    Share this post

  10. #70
    ze_topazio's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Poortugal
    Posts
    7,183
    I should say that, I respect all cultures, but, respect doesn't mean that I shy myself from criticizing something in said culture if I strongly disagree with it, but just because I criticize something doesn't mean I'm demanding such thing needs to be changed, I mean, it's not my problem, if the people subjected to such thing are okay with it, good for them, to each his own, and if they're not okay with it, then, is up to them to change it, not me.

    And I criticize my own culture a lot too.

    Originally Posted by Assassin_M Go to original post
    Sure.


    Ah, see? I disagree with that because:

    1) I have more knowledge about the actual law and how it's supposed to be enacted.
    2) I think locking someone up is more barbaric and is even more of a stigma that hinders finding a job.

    Yes, all humans can mostly agree on a limit. Do people in Iran or Saudi Arabia want to see hundreds of people walking around with chopped hands? Of course not, because that's not how the law is applied. If that was the case, it'd go completely against the spirit of the law, which is to act as a deterrent. You can't just throw around a contextual axiom at another perspective or ideology and act like there's an objective contest involved. You're basically saying "Why are your views not like mine?" simply because you and I happen to live in the 21st century.



    Well, most people don't. Ask anyone, all they know about places like Iran and SA are that you get stoned (no, not that stoned) and get your hands cut off. It's in every depiction of the region, every children's cartoons from the late 90s.


    It's like that catchy commercial song that has no business playing inside your head.


    They've already imported it to you....you are them, the great devil.
    Of course I know that things are not that extreme, it's common sense, and I understand the logic behind the concept of deterrence, I though there was no need to mention that, I just can't agree with the idea of physical mutilation as punishment, since that lasts for the rest of your life.

    Originally Posted by VestigialLlama4 Go to original post
    Actually it does say a lot. The fact is the Iranian government and its people are considered "other" separate and not part of general references. A lot of people think of Rome and the American South in the best possible light. Rome is considered this great civilization and all the atrocities committed by them are usually explained as "it was part of the time" and "general context", the American South is described in the same way, hence movies like Gone With The Wind. These eras are shown positively in a lot of movies and books, you have many people lamenting the Fall of the Roman Empire.

    But when it comes time to history outside that reference they resort to utter trash like 300, a movie which glorifies a bunch of psychopathic slaveowners against an Empire that was actually abolitionist, refined and multi-cultural. In this movie the Persians are a bunch of monsters and oriental stereotypes, because the Ancient Greeks (not modern ones, the West certainly doesn't care about modern Greeks) are supposed to have invented democracy (in a form that is totally not democratic by any modern definition), they are the "good guys", even if it's the Spartans, aka the civilization that hunted slaves for sport. There was an American writer who was more nuanced, Gore Vidal whose book CREATION dealt with this era with complexity and sympathy for the Persians, but nobody is giving millions of dollars to make that into a movie now are they? You have ARGO which whitewashes and indulges in the same "Us and Them" divide.



    Well the Indians and the Irish were quite gratified and pleased by the literature of their British colonial masters in the 19th Century, as were the Vietnamese and the Algerians with the French. The USSR made a lot of terrific films too, the Ancient Greeks which thrived on slavery wrote a lot of great plays and built monuments with slave labor (which the Egyptians, contrary to general belief, did not do). Hollywood made a lot of great films despite indulging in horrible stereotypes against minorities and women for nearly 100 years.

    So let's not clutch those pearls.
    Human civilization has evolved by introducing new ideas, evolving older ideas, abandoning the outdated ideas, culminating in to us in 2016, I'm sure the Romans and their contemporary Civilizations believed their ideals, laws, moral ethics, etc..., made perfect sense, to us 2000 years later their lifestyles look super barbaric, just like I'm sure 2000 years from now the people from that time will look at us and think we were a bunch of uncivilized barbarians, therefore comparing a modern country to extinct countries so old the only thing we have of them is crumbling ruins is kinda unfair.

    Having lived in the west all my life I don't think things are as bad as you make it sound, all my live I always heard great things of the likes of Ancient Persia, the Islamic Empire, etc..., 300 to begin with is supposed to be the story of a Spartan soldier telling to other Spartans soldiers an inspiring story he only heard about, before a battle with the Persians, therefore the exaggeration, I don't think the movie made that explicit but in the original comic that's how it is.
    Share this post