Historical accuracy in Assassin's Creed Odyssey
Not long ago I purchased a copy of Assassin's Creed Odyssey giving the franchise some hope after being greatly disappointed in the games from Assassin's Creed 3 to Assassin's Creed Origins. I thought that I could have wasted my money completely and that I would have to either return or sell the game, however, I was proven wrong. From the moment I turned on the game it took a hold of me and did not seem to want to let go.
It was revealed that you could play as either a male or a female protagonist, and as it usually happens in these kinds of situations, ridiculous amounts of criticism towards being able to play as a female not being realistic ensued. Ubisoft was blamed for trying to further an 'SJW' agenda, some fans giving ridiculous arguments as to why this was true, and, of course, the fact that Kassandra, the female protagonist was the canon one, did not help.
So, it is obvious that Ubisoft saw the inclusion of a female protagonist as risky and they anticipated these kinds of comments as most of the promotional material stars the male protagonist: Alexios. This can be seen, for example, in the trailer where despite him being a character included 'for no reason' (as Kassandra is the canon one) he has pretty much become the face of the game.
I want to address the complaints about historical accuracy which could be perfectly understandable were it not for the fact that it just seems like an excuse for thinly-veiled sexism. There is no complaint about fast travel in the game, the portrayal of characters such as Aspasia who was a prostitute yet they completely omit this fact or even how mythological creatures are shown as being real and actually part of the game. The list could go on forever and somehow the only prominent complaint I have seen is about Kassandra being a mercenary woman in Ancient Greece.
Female warrior during that time were extremely rare, it is true, but they did exist and Kassandra could be explained as one of those exceptions. Others don't like the fact that she is not undermined by the other characters in game for being a woman, but the game also does not explore how prominent slavery was in Sparta or the surprisingly common pedophilia in Athens. I do think that adding nuance to in-game societies with things such as sexism can be enriching but I do not think that Assassin's creed, is the game for that since most play for escapism from real life.
So, Is realism necessary in Odyssey? I wouldn't say so. Assassin's Creed has never really been accurate after all, even dating back to the first and second games that were more grounded, but only now that a woman has arrived as a main character has there been complaints. Furthermore, realism would prove to be truly cumbersome taking into account that you would probably die from one wound, that you would have to walk the complete distance from one place to another, that armour would be changed and not look so 'cool' since historical models do not match with some of the ones in the game and dual wielding would definitely not be a thing. The character would grow tired fast and the game mechanic with Ikarus would have to be completely removed.
Despite all this backlash I would say that Assassin's Creed Odyssey is a very good game, with more complex combat mechanics, interesting characters and narratives, meaningful side quests and stunning visuals that are perfectly complemented by the mediterranean vibe of the soundtrack.
However, I would not class it as an Assassin's Creed game or at least not a good one as it is missing iconic elements like the brotherhood itself or the hidden blade and it was already some time ago that Ubisoft pretty much messed up the lore in the games.
Still, if you have money to spare, play the game please, I need people to discuss it with.
It was revealed that you could play as either a male or a female protagonist, and as it usually happens in these kinds of situations, ridiculous amounts of criticism towards being able to play as a female not being realistic ensued. Ubisoft was blamed for trying to further an 'SJW' agenda, some fans giving ridiculous arguments as to why this was true, and, of course, the fact that Kassandra, the female protagonist was the canon one, did not help.
So, it is obvious that Ubisoft saw the inclusion of a female protagonist as risky and they anticipated these kinds of comments as most of the promotional material stars the male protagonist: Alexios. This can be seen, for example, in the trailer where despite him being a character included 'for no reason' (as Kassandra is the canon one) he has pretty much become the face of the game.
I want to address the complaints about historical accuracy which could be perfectly understandable were it not for the fact that it just seems like an excuse for thinly-veiled sexism. There is no complaint about fast travel in the game, the portrayal of characters such as Aspasia who was a prostitute yet they completely omit this fact or even how mythological creatures are shown as being real and actually part of the game. The list could go on forever and somehow the only prominent complaint I have seen is about Kassandra being a mercenary woman in Ancient Greece.
Female warrior during that time were extremely rare, it is true, but they did exist and Kassandra could be explained as one of those exceptions. Others don't like the fact that she is not undermined by the other characters in game for being a woman, but the game also does not explore how prominent slavery was in Sparta or the surprisingly common pedophilia in Athens. I do think that adding nuance to in-game societies with things such as sexism can be enriching but I do not think that Assassin's creed, is the game for that since most play for escapism from real life.
So, Is realism necessary in Odyssey? I wouldn't say so. Assassin's Creed has never really been accurate after all, even dating back to the first and second games that were more grounded, but only now that a woman has arrived as a main character has there been complaints. Furthermore, realism would prove to be truly cumbersome taking into account that you would probably die from one wound, that you would have to walk the complete distance from one place to another, that armour would be changed and not look so 'cool' since historical models do not match with some of the ones in the game and dual wielding would definitely not be a thing. The character would grow tired fast and the game mechanic with Ikarus would have to be completely removed.
the protagonist fighting Medusa.
Despite all this backlash I would say that Assassin's Creed Odyssey is a very good game, with more complex combat mechanics, interesting characters and narratives, meaningful side quests and stunning visuals that are perfectly complemented by the mediterranean vibe of the soundtrack.
However, I would not class it as an Assassin's Creed game or at least not a good one as it is missing iconic elements like the brotherhood itself or the hidden blade and it was already some time ago that Ubisoft pretty much messed up the lore in the games.
Still, if you have money to spare, play the game please, I need people to discuss it with.
I grow so tired of this entire topic of the gender of the main character :D What earthly difference does it make if your character has jiggle physics on their chest or between their legs? I would just be happy to have the option of choice and leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteBut all in all, I'm happy that you found joy in this game, and that the AC franchise can still make a good game. Though I have agreed for a long time that the games don't really work as AC titles anymore, and Ubi should work towards creating new IPs to build these otherwise capable games around.