Ever AC since black flag was terrible in my opinion, with the exception of Valhalla, which was a shit AC, but a damn fun brawler. So I don’t put a lot of faith into this one.
Valhalla was shit too. Raiding a place? Couldn’t even kill innocents. Didn’t they do any research into vikings? They struck gold with black flag, the rest was all shit and massive bug simulators.
Valhalla combat was very fun. Raiding a place with your viking troop did feel really good.
Such a basic ass response and let’s be honest, black flag? It’s not that great, it was just a cool pirate fantasy, shite AC game. AC origins, mirage and unity were infinitely better than black flag as ac games
Ah yes, Unity, the one which was literally unplayable due to all the bugs. I received a free Far Cry game because they were so sorry it was so shit. Origins was ok, except for the bugs, but missed the ships aspect which black flag had and riding through the desert took waaaay to long. Travel times increased with the bigger maps but not the content value. They just add more collectibles, making the games terribly tedious.
Yeah bud, you just wanted a pirate game, you don’t know what assassin’s creed even is, granted the Devs don’t either half the time, but I doubt you do. Played every single one since the beginning of the franchise and ac4 was a fun pirate game, not a good AC game, unity and origins are decent to great AC games because they embody what it is. Sure there WERE bugs at launch which has nothing to do with the argument whatsoever of what makes a good AC game. You ac4 and Valhalla dorks are what’s enshitifying the franchise
Oh yeah, should’ve said that. AC wasn’t a good AC, but a great game, unlike everything that followed it except valhalla.
I thought this was a crippling failure because it was woke or something?
I’d expect it to be a failure because it’s a 70$ ubishit paint-by-numbers, but I’ll find out in two years when it’s 15$
Yeah, I was utterly shocked at the price. £70 to download or £56 on disk.
The last Assassins Creed I played was Odyssey and that was well after release so I paid a far more reasonable £30 or so.
They’ve also kind of devalued them by giving the old ones for free. I got Black Flag and Unity for nothing that I haven’t gotten around to playing yet; Unity’s graphics still looks better than the recent ones, scope and world size notwithstanding.
Yeah they put a black samurai in it. Of course the screeching ggamers were screeching about “historical accuracy “…… and then of course there was a story about a black samurai …. So they had to shut up
To be fair, yasuke never was a samurai. He was a bodyguard of a jesuit monk (I think?) and was sold to obu nobunaga because he thought he looked “funny”. He was a trusted retainer under nobunaga, but never owned land or was a samurai.
To be fair to be fair, those people never complained about the historical accuracy with Pope sword fights, or Leonardo Divinci having technology that wouldn’t be produced until the 1800s, and I’m sure many more historical inaccuracies involving white folks.
Is kinda suss though that Ubisoft couldn’t do more black characters when in the Americas though, but can totally do it when it’s in Asia. 🙆🏾♂️
Other people in his exact position were called samurai back then, at least that’s what I’ve read around
I don’t know about other people in his exact position. I do know, however, that in historical records, he was referred to as “suke” which means retainer, not “bushi”.
Except there’s no clear cut definition of a samurai like that in that period. The class definition wasn’t that strict for most of Japan’s history, including the sengoku period - even ashigaru were considered samurai in some places.
Yasuke was a professional warrior (almost certainly more than just a regular ashigaru) who fought as a retainer of the Oda clan, that’s a samurai. And we’re pretty sure he did actual fighting, we just don’t know if he was in full armor and everything.
The daimyo is the one who owns the land and gives it to his retainers as he wants, samurais don’t automatically own land by definition.
Yasuke was a professional warrior (almost certainly more than just a regular ashigaru) who fought as a retainer of the Oda clan, that’s a samurai
Not necessarily - not everyone who fought was a samurai, just as not everyone who fought in medieval europe was a knight. However, I do agree that the definition is not entirely strict. He might’ve been a bodyguard, which is the most likely what happened here, which would also explain his loyalty to nobunaga.
And we’re pretty sure he did actual fighting
He was doing actual fighting, there are records of this happening, at least one confirmed battle happened in 1582 when nobunaga was betrayed by mitsuhide. There’s no doubt about that.
Not necessarily - not everyone who fought was a samurai, just as not everyone who fought in medieval europe was a knight. However, I do agree that the definition is not entirely strict.
Yes, not necessarily, but that’s the thing - the people who claim he couldn’t be a samurai because he didn’t have such or such are making up requirements that didn’t exist at that time. We don’t know if he was called one or not because we don’t have records about him from the people who might have had something to say.
We do have accounts that Nobunaga was impressed with his strength, made him test fight multiple people in shows of strength, gifted him a sword (which is kind of a big deal), and that he was captured by Akechi (and then freed) when he was trying to defend Nobunaga at Honnouji. He might have been just a bodyguard, yes, but even if he was, we don’t know if Nobunaga was calling him a samurai or not, because being a samurai wasn’t a rank or a title. Maybe a bodyguard could be called a samurai depending on how important and trusted he was, and Yasuke was trusted by Nobunaga. My point is that the people dismissing the samurai title are doing so based on a wrong premise - and we have no account that could be relevant in proving it right or wrong.
He was doing actual fighting, there are records of this happening, at least one confirmed battle happened in 1582 when nobunaga was betrayed by mitsuhide. There’s no doubt about that.
Yeah, that’s the one we know about, the Honnouji attack. I mean we don’t know if he took active part in large scale battles like the Tenshou Iga war doing more than standing around Nobunaga, which is depicted in the game with him leading charge - but that can be easily counted as creative liberty. Honnouji was a surprise attack on a temple, not a battlefield, so naturally, anyone caught in it would be fighting, especially a bodyguard.
Mori Ranmaru, Oda’s other famous
fuckboybodyguard who was also at Honnouji, was a samurai because of his family and was also mostly a close bodyguard, I don’t think he’s recorded as having actively participated in any battle either. And apparently he didn’t even have any land to his name beside his family, either, but he’s still clearly called a samurai.Yes, I agree that most people are just throwing made up nonsense at ubisoft, no doubt there.
However, the sengoku period is one of the most interesting periods of japanese history, and ubisoft could’ve EASIELY chosen an actual japanese samurai from that time, like hattori hanzo or sanado yukimura, both extremely well known throughout japanese history. Ubisoft choosing the only (recorded) black person in japan during that time just leaves a bad aftertaste in my opinion. The main character of the AC series always represented the area where he’s from - ezio for italy, connor for america, etc, you get the point.
Maybe a bodyguard could be called a samurai depending on how important and trusted he was, and Yasuke was trusted by Nobunaga
Maybe, however, personally, I don’t think so. I obviously have no solid proof, but an “outsider” earning the highest title a normal person can earn in feudal japan seems very outlandish. Public pressure would’ve probably prevented nobunaga from gifting him that title. No doubt he trusted him and received a lot of stuff, but putting him near the top of the social order … nah. I don’t think that happened. But then again, no proof.
but an “outsider” earning the highest title a normal person can earn in feudal japan seems very outlandish.
William Adams was specifically known to have been granted the title of samurai by Tokugawa Ieyasu, and that’s precisely in the period immediately at the end of the Sengoku where the title of samurai begins to change as a status (in the sense of being more restricted and codified). And there’s zero way that “public pressure” would have pushed Oda Nobunaga to change shit about something he decided to like, he’s the last guy of that era on which public pressure did anything. No one from Oda’s circle would have called him out on that.
Again, a samurai wasn’t necessarily “at the top of social order”, there are places where ashigaru, the lowest rung on the ladder, were called samurai. It’s a misconception.
As for chosing an actual Japanese person from the time - there is a second playable character who is the fictional daughter of one of those famous real people from that time and an actual ninja from Iga. You play as her for the first 10 hours or so before Yasuke even becomes playable (except for the introduction mission). This argument is ridiculous and just plain bad faith.
On the contrary. The word on the conservative circles is how awful the game is and how it doesn’t compare.
I’m serious. They’re not shutting up about it (and if you think that’s happening you’re in a bubble). The actual discussion point is that this game is a failure.
That goes a long way to explain the YouTube commentariat !
Well, considering Japan itself is saying that the game is disrespectful… Looks more like Ubisoft wanted to help themselves to a nice slice of tokenism. Corporations are going to corporate.
They did not say the game is disrespectful. They were worried that if players can deface of destroy a temple or harm people with a katana ingame, they might be inspired to do it in real life too. Ubisoft released a patch that now made shrines indestructible.
The response from the prime minister is really just about being worried people copy the ingame behavior of destroying a shrine, to real life.
So saying “Japan” says the “game is disrespectful” is just not true.
Guy: “They did not say the game is disrespectful.”
Also guy: “Players could destroy and deface temples.”
It’s a failure because it’s trash. The game is honestly laughably bad.
So I wonder where all the players come from.
Did you play it?
I don’t spend money so loosely like that. Ubisoft is no longer trustworthy, so no.
Instead, I watched gameplay from it, which tells me everything I need to know. Helps with avoiding wasting money on mediocre AAAA releases.
Right so you didnt play it though, therefore your opinion is largely worthless tbf
So… Imagine I want to buy a car, but I find out it’s an incredibly unsafe car through listening to the user experiences of people who’ve had issues with it… But my opinion is invalid because I haven’t bought the car?
I have another one for you; your opinion is invalid because you’re a fanboy. Game is trash and you’re too stupid to see it.
Cars have ncaap ratings from qualified professionals who actually crash test them and publish the results, maybe listen to them instead when buying a car.
Yes. My point. Thank you for proving it.
Hard for me to argue, as I never liked any Assassin Creed video game, lol.
Just reporting on what seems to be said in my circle.
As much as I would be happy for Ubisoft to have a success, they really need one, I just don’t trust unverifiable number. I always want to know metrics and data.
Ubisoft can tell us everything. And what does 2 million players really mean? How many of them refunded the game in the 2h at Steam for example? How many are players who, for an hour or two, looked into the game as part of their Ubisoft gamepass equivalent? 2 million players can mean all kind of things. It doesn’t say much really about the success.
I got excited after hearing how much people love this one, I usually play every ~5 or so they release and just pick out the best, but sadly the performance was so bad I had to refund it. I have a bit better than the minimum specs on steam (and the minimum specs are a ryzen 5 and gtx 1070, shouldn’t this be the standard target?) and ran everything at low, 1080p, and couldn’t get past 15fps.
There are better looking games from ~5-10 years ago I can run at 1440p or even 4k 60fps on high settings, I wish game studios would stop trying to go for the most intensive possible graphics effects with how diminished the returns are for it.
What are you running, I was playing this on my steam deck and it looked really good with a solid 30 fps. I have a B580 in my main pc and have been bumping settings up from medium to a mix of medium high with ambient and specular RT on and I’m still getting 75fps without framegen or upscaling at 1080p. Xess and FG hits 120+. Not bad for a £250 card.
I also play on SteamDeck but it isn’t constant 30 fps at all. Still completely playable without question but I get a lot of drops down to 20 fps as stuff loads in.
Are you playing from an SD card? I get a couple of little drops but no extended issues.
Yes from a class 10 micro sd card (64 GB model, which is painfully limiting due to shader caches having to be on the ssd)
Kinda surprised it’s not terrible tbh. Was expecting them to screw it up somehow.
Yeah, I’m surprised Ubisoft can make a half decent game.
That’s fun, conservative friend of mine told me just this morning about how it was a huge failure with a ridiculous amount of simultaneous players.
Spent all day playing it . It’s great.
Ignore the YouTubers trying to feed off anti Ubisoft vibes. It’s a very beautiful and epic journey, involving slick stealth and very decent combat in Feudal Japan.
Like a juiced Odyssey really, so if that’s your jam, don’t hesitate.
I have played nearly all AC games until Odyssey then dropping it after about 20h of extremely boring grind just to be able to progress the story. I then decided not to touch these games anymore if they don’t change and apparently Valhalla was even worse…? I’m very curious about Shadows but afraid it’s the same “pay to progress faster” bullshit. Can you tell me what’s it like?
Yeah so Odyssey was my first AC game . I thought it was great, and was happy to roam around Ancient Greece doing bits and pieces.
Only afterwards did I learn of the disappointment from long terms fans of the franchises
Shadows is like Odyssey. It’s a big world, with a longish story and lots of side quests - but it’s very west organised and you only do as much as you want.
It has a broad scope - there are skill trees and levelling up to fit it, but it’s very well done.
There are bundles of things you can buy to level up faster - I haven’t really checked them out, but not seem essential, plus I have no interest in paying to shorten a game I just spent 70 quid on.
It’s sounds like it might be too long for your taste. I heard mirage was more focussed but I didn’t play it .
Thank you for the reply - it’s much appreciated!
My issue is not with the length (for comparison, I have 150h in Elden ring + dlc without finishing it even once, also in e.g. Cyberpunk pretty much all the side missions are also great and well designed). My issue with Odyssey was that I couldn’t go on with the story without grinding generic sidemissions to level up since the main story was so tightly glued to levels. At the same time you get constant ads to purchase “double xp for two days” or something. Too many side missions were clearly built just to make you consider buying xp boost not to have to deal with them.
Too bad that the main stories are usually great but you need to pay extra on top to be able to enjoy them as I think they are actually meant to be played. Also, I usually come back to the unfinished side quests after passing the game once.
Odyssey was my last AC game and I feel the same. Watching reviews and all, this seems more like typical Ubisoft slop, nothing new. It’s sad, I don’t think we’ll ever get the magic back from the AC2 days.
Is it RPGy like odyssey or is it like the old games where your knife would kill anyone?
They have an option where you can turn on instant kills for assassinations, which for me is a huge game changer. I didn’t mind combat against stronger/weaker enemies based on their levels relative to me, but I always got annoyed at my stealth being meaningless.
Yeah, I liked all the rpgy games. But the first time I tracked an assassination target, and stabbed him and it only took off like one tenth of his health I was just confused and didn’t feel like it was an assassin game anymore.
It’s very like odyssey.
Same. I’m really really enjoying it. The parkour as Naoe feels really cool and the atmosphere is just stunning. I am really liking the story so far too.
My favorite assassins creed was Origins and this one is a big improvement on even that one.
The amount of hate the game is getting is childish and not even by people who played it really. Like you said, its just a bunch of people feeding off each other.
If you like assassins creed, personally this is the best one yet. Of you don’t like assassins creed, don’t play it.
I think the developers did an amazing job and they should be proud of what they made.
Are there legit criticism to be has about micro transactions? Absolutely. But aside from that, the game is really good.
Oh and the music too! Loving the different styles of music they made for different fights.
players, not sales. big difference
If it were doing well, one might think they’d share sales figures instead.
To clarify, sales figures don’t exist anymore because you have to count the people who take a $20 sub to ubisoft to play this instead of buying it.
I realize that, but I find it a worthless stat because the numbers are more easily massaged, which is of course partly the point. A different measurement, which paints a less flattering picture, is concurrent players on Steam. I realize that the game will pull players from other places, but comparing it to other games in the same situation doesn’t render favorable results; something which Ubisoft would prefer you didn’t know, as is evident by their asking Valve to obfuscate these statistics in the past.
That is not the standard launch metric in the industry, that comes in quarterly earnings calls. Are you one of the go woke go broke brigade?
I’m part of the “I don’t think this game is doing nearly as well as Ubisoft needs it to” “brigade,” but thank you very much for slinging baseless accusations.
Good point.
Mac users are excited too, it came out day one.
Ubisoft themselves admit it didn’t get the optimization work it needs tho, and that they plan to do further updates.
