As an Asian guy

[Def]

This game has got to be the most vitriolic insult I've ever seen to any culture of any country. I just saw the final bosses on youtube. They made the legendary Hattori Hanzo a whipped cuck loser and played random African tribal chants while Yasuke was fighting the Portuguese guy. Is Ubisoft serious?

[Zarok]

Publicado originalmente por allknowingeel:

Publicado originalmente por Zarok:

I mean that doesn't mean it was any less of an inaccurate portrayal that just means that some country cares more about the inaccuracies.

You're not wrong that other Assassin's Creed games have taken creative liberties — but this isn’t just a matter of a few historical inaccuracies. What Shadows does is a full-blown rewrite of real historical people into something completely opposite of who they actually were.

Lady Oichi, remembered as a symbol of loyalty, is turned into an unfaithful side character.

Hattori Hanzo, one of Japan’s most legendary tacticians, is reduced to a joke.

Yasuke, a real retainer of Oda Nobunaga, is now shown killing unarmed priests and shooting arrows into sacred shrines — things that go against both spiritual and samurai codes, and would never be portrayed lightly in a Japanese context.

That’s not the same as making Kleon act like Trump or giving Cleopatra a racy personality. Those portrayals may have been exaggerated, but they didn’t rewrite the entire moral identity of revered figures.

And here’s the other difference:
The people Ubisoft rewrote in Shadows — like Oichi and Hanzo — aren’t forgotten relics. They’re still respected in Japan today, taught in schools, portrayed in media, and even have living descendants. This isn’t just fictionalizing the distant past — it’s altering the legacy of people whose cultural importance still matters.

So yes, Japan cares more — and rightfully so. When a foreign studio takes national icons and sacred traditions and turns them into action set pieces or romance fodder, it’s not just a storytelling choice. It becomes a cultural insult — and that’s why you’re seeing backlash not just from fans, but from politicians, commentators, and citizens.

If a game turned Abraham Lincoln into a sleazy traitor or had Joan of Arc burning down churches for fun, you’d better believe there’d be outrage. Ubisoft just did that — to someone else’s culture. And when that culture says “This has gone too far,” the decent response isn’t to mock them. It’s to listen.

I mean there's an Assassin's Creed 3 DLC that turns George Washington into a madman calling himself King.

[Def]

Publicado originalmente por Zarok:

Publicado originalmente por allknowingeel:

You're not wrong that other Assassin's Creed games have taken creative liberties — but this isn’t just a matter of a few historical inaccuracies. What Shadows does is a full-blown rewrite of real historical people into something completely opposite of who they actually were.

Lady Oichi, remembered as a symbol of loyalty, is turned into an unfaithful side character.

Hattori Hanzo, one of Japan’s most legendary tacticians, is reduced to a joke.

Yasuke, a real retainer of Oda Nobunaga, is now shown killing unarmed priests and shooting arrows into sacred shrines — things that go against both spiritual and samurai codes, and would never be portrayed lightly in a Japanese context.

That’s not the same as making Kleon act like Trump or giving Cleopatra a racy personality. Those portrayals may have been exaggerated, but they didn’t rewrite the entire moral identity of revered figures.

And here’s the other difference:
The people Ubisoft rewrote in Shadows — like Oichi and Hanzo — aren’t forgotten relics. They’re still respected in Japan today, taught in schools, portrayed in media, and even have living descendants. This isn’t just fictionalizing the distant past — it’s altering the legacy of people whose cultural importance still matters.

So yes, Japan cares more — and rightfully so. When a foreign studio takes national icons and sacred traditions and turns them into action set pieces or romance fodder, it’s not just a storytelling choice. It becomes a cultural insult — and that’s why you’re seeing backlash not just from fans, but from politicians, commentators, and citizens.

If a game turned Abraham Lincoln into a sleazy traitor or had Joan of Arc burning down churches for fun, you’d better believe there’d be outrage. Ubisoft just did that — to someone else’s culture. And when that culture says “This has gone too far,” the decent response isn’t to mock them. It’s to listen.

I mean there's an Assassin's Creed 3 DLC that turns George Washington into a madman calling himself King.

Yeah but that's cool and it's resolved in a dream sequence where the protagonist becomes an eagle. Cooler than a gay black non-binary hitting historically inaccurate samurai.

[MythicRocfordson]

Publicado originalmente por allknowingeel:

Publicado originalmente por MythicRocfordson:

Maybe if Assassin's Creed was a bible I'd understand.

idk man...

Nah, not a Bible. Just maybe some basic human decency would do.

Staaaaaaahhp with that man the world has been crying human decency at you for years, and you're only just now hearing it because of a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ videogame

I'm not following

[KS[Expert Hunter]]

Publicado originalmente por MythicRocfordson:

Publicado originalmente por KSExpert Hunter:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Why don't we play cards game and see who have the most cards?

LET'S ♥♥♥♥♥♥ DO IT MAN YOU DON'T KNOW ME!!!!!!!!

I sure as Hell don't! ;D

I only know people that know what they're talking about. ;)

[Mr Darkness]

Publicado originalmente por allknowingeel:

Publicado originalmente por Raider Deci:

It is fiction. Alternate history fiction. Not a documentary. It is not they same timeline as ours, the people while resemble their historic counterparts are not the same.

Every single historic character in every game are different from their historic counterpart. Some more, some less and they all pledged their alliegience to made up factions which.
Early in the franchise it went way harder into conspiracy-territory than today with numerous rulers only achieving their power through powerful artifacts from a long dead race (some very modern).

Apparently Japan is a special case

Let’s flip the situation.

Imagine I make a fictional game set in France. In it, Jeanne d’Arc is captured and violated by soldiers, turns her back on God, becomes a mass murderer, and starts desecrating churches. Then I portray other respected French figures in awful, cartoonish ways — and justify it all by saying, “It’s just fiction, it’s not a documentary.”

Would people be okay with that? Would the French public and politicians just nod and go, “Ah yes, creative liberty”?

Of course not. There’d be global outrage.

What Assassin’s Creed Shadows does to Lady Oichi, Hattori Hanzo, and Japan’s spiritual symbols is the exact same thing — rewriting deeply respected people into the opposite of what they were, and stomping on cultural values people still hold sacred.

You don’t get to do that and then hide behind “but it’s fiction.”
Fiction still has impact — and when it uses real names, real traditions, and real history, it carries real responsibility.

i guarantee you, i doubt they would, not hating on france or anything, but no one cares what they say, Once again You had a fist fight with the pope, one of the most holy titles to given to a person, you literally rock his ♥♥♥♥, the knights Templar, are portrayed as rich super evil organisation, what did they do irl, they were good bankers and helped pilgrims across the holy land. where is the outrage? where is the anger? oh thats right, its not japan so you dont have people screaming their heads off. When it comes to japan its a double standard, personally i dont care about it, i think its funny

[allknowingeel]

Publicado originalmente por Zarok:

Publicado originalmente por allknowingeel:

You're not wrong that other Assassin's Creed games have taken creative liberties — but this isn’t just a matter of a few historical inaccuracies. What Shadows does is a full-blown rewrite of real historical people into something completely opposite of who they actually were.

Lady Oichi, remembered as a symbol of loyalty, is turned into an unfaithful side character.

Hattori Hanzo, one of Japan’s most legendary tacticians, is reduced to a joke.

Yasuke, a real retainer of Oda Nobunaga, is now shown killing unarmed priests and shooting arrows into sacred shrines — things that go against both spiritual and samurai codes, and would never be portrayed lightly in a Japanese context.

That’s not the same as making Kleon act like Trump or giving Cleopatra a racy personality. Those portrayals may have been exaggerated, but they didn’t rewrite the entire moral identity of revered figures.

And here’s the other difference:
The people Ubisoft rewrote in Shadows — like Oichi and Hanzo — aren’t forgotten relics. They’re still respected in Japan today, taught in schools, portrayed in media, and even have living descendants. This isn’t just fictionalizing the distant past — it’s altering the legacy of people whose cultural importance still matters.

So yes, Japan cares more — and rightfully so. When a foreign studio takes national icons and sacred traditions and turns them into action set pieces or romance fodder, it’s not just a storytelling choice. It becomes a cultural insult — and that’s why you’re seeing backlash not just from fans, but from politicians, commentators, and citizens.

If a game turned Abraham Lincoln into a sleazy traitor or had Joan of Arc burning down churches for fun, you’d better believe there’d be outrage. Ubisoft just did that — to someone else’s culture. And when that culture says “This has gone too far,” the decent response isn’t to mock them. It’s to listen.

I mean there's an Assassin's Creed 3 DLC that turns George Washington into a madman calling himself King.

Yes there’s a DLC where George Washington goes mad and declares himself King. But let’s be honest:

It was marketed and presented as a “what if” fantasy timeline, caused by magical artifacts, not a grounded portrayal of American history.

It was clearly absurd on purpose. Nobody took it as rewriting George Washington’s character, because it was framed as “look what happens when history goes wrong.”

Nobody came away from that thinking Ubisoft was rewriting American history or disrespecting Washington’s legacy. It was absurd on purpose.

Assassin’s Creed Shadows is different. It’s not a magical alternate timeline. It presents itself as serious historical fiction, and then rewrites real Japanese figures in ways that directly conflict with their real-life legacies — without any fantasy excuse.

Turning George Washington into a mad king in a “bad timeline” isn’t the same as rewriting Lady Oichi into a cheating lover, or having Yasuke desecrate a shrine, in what’s supposed to be a semi-grounded retelling of real Japanese history.

So no — the comparison doesn’t hold. One’s cartoon absurdity. The other’s tone-deaf disrespect dressed as serious storytelling.

[Mr Darkness]

Publicado originalmente por Def:

Publicado originalmente por Zarok:

I mean there's an Assassin's Creed 3 DLC that turns George Washington into a madman calling himself King.

Yeah but that's cool and it's resolved in a dream sequence where the protagonist becomes an eagle. Cooler than a gay black non-binary hitting historically inaccurate samurai.

do we actually know a 100% that yasuke is portrayed as non binary or gay. cause you cant be both, if your gonna mock ♥♥♥♥, as least be correct. Mongolian btw

[MythicRocfordson]

Publicado originalmente por KSExpert Hunter:

Publicado originalmente por MythicRocfordson:

LET'S ♥♥♥♥♥♥ DO IT MAN YOU DON'T KNOW ME!!!!!!!!

I sure as Hell don't! ;D

I only know people that know what they're talking about. ;)

I've never seen a sentence trying to insult me look so ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ logically inconsistent

Keep it coming you're on fire.

[Zarok]

Publicado originalmente por Def:

Publicado originalmente por Zarok:

I mean there's an Assassin's Creed 3 DLC that turns George Washington into a madman calling himself King.

Yeah but that's cool and it's resolved in a dream sequence where the protagonist becomes an eagle. Cooler than a gay black non-binary hitting historically inaccurate samurai.

So your real issue is that there's a gay black person? I mean that says a lot about you.

[MythicRocfordson]

Publicado originalmente por Mr Darkness:

Publicado originalmente por Def:

Yeah but that's cool and it's resolved in a dream sequence where the protagonist becomes an eagle. Cooler than a gay black non-binary hitting historically inaccurate samurai.

do we actually know a 100% that yasuke is portrayed as non binary or gay. cause you cant be both, if your gonna mock ♥♥♥♥, as least be correct. Mongolian btw

LMFAO HE'S NOT

IT'S A ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ OPTION IN A QUEST

PATHETIC!!!

[Zarok]

Publicado originalmente por allknowingeel:

Publicado originalmente por Zarok:

I mean there's an Assassin's Creed 3 DLC that turns George Washington into a madman calling himself King.

Yes there’s a DLC where George Washington goes mad and declares himself King. But let’s be honest:

It was marketed and presented as a “what if” fantasy timeline, caused by magical artifacts, not a grounded portrayal of American history.

It was clearly absurd on purpose. Nobody took it as rewriting George Washington’s character, because it was framed as “look what happens when history goes wrong.”

Nobody came away from that thinking Ubisoft was rewriting American history or disrespecting Washington’s legacy. It was absurd on purpose.

Assassin’s Creed Shadows is different. It’s not a magical alternate timeline. It presents itself as serious historical fiction, and then rewrites real Japanese figures in ways that directly conflict with their real-life legacies — without any fantasy excuse.

Turning George Washington into a mad king in a “bad timeline” isn’t the same as rewriting Lady Oichi into a cheating lover, or having Yasuke desecrate a shrine, in what’s supposed to be a semi-grounded retelling of real Japanese history.

So no — the comparison doesn’t hold. One’s cartoon absurdity. The other’s tone-deaf disrespect dressed as serious storytelling.

I mean it's not really that different. It's part of a game that misrepresents a historical character. How many works of fiction actually accurately portray historical characters?

[allknowingeel]

Publicado originalmente por Mr Darkness:

Publicado originalmente por allknowingeel:

Let’s flip the situation.

Imagine I make a fictional game set in France. In it, Jeanne d’Arc is captured and violated by soldiers, turns her back on God, becomes a mass murderer, and starts desecrating churches. Then I portray other respected French figures in awful, cartoonish ways — and justify it all by saying, “It’s just fiction, it’s not a documentary.”

Would people be okay with that? Would the French public and politicians just nod and go, “Ah yes, creative liberty”?

Of course not. There’d be global outrage.

What Assassin’s Creed Shadows does to Lady Oichi, Hattori Hanzo, and Japan’s spiritual symbols is the exact same thing — rewriting deeply respected people into the opposite of what they were, and stomping on cultural values people still hold sacred.

You don’t get to do that and then hide behind “but it’s fiction.”
Fiction still has impact — and when it uses real names, real traditions, and real history, it carries real responsibility.

i guarantee you, i doubt they would, not hating on france or anything, but no one cares what they say, Once again You had a fist fight with the pope, one of the most holy titles to given to a person, you literally rock his ♥♥♥♥, the knights Templar, are portrayed as rich super evil organisation, what did they do irl, they were good bankers and helped pilgrims across the holy land. where is the outrage? where is the anger? oh thats right, its not japan so you dont have people screaming their heads off. When it comes to japan its a double standard, personally i dont care about it, i think its funny

Sure, Assassin’s Creed made the Pope (Rodrigo Borgia) a villain — but he’s historically infamous for being corrupt and power-hungry. Even Catholics today don’t revere him as a saint or moral icon. So portraying him as a Templar fits what people already know about him.

But Lady Oichi and Hattori Hanzo? They’re still nationally respected figures in Japan. Their descendants are alive. Shrines are still sacred. And samurai ethics are still part of cultural identity.

This isn’t just about inaccuracies — it’s about taking symbols of loyalty, honor, and spiritual value, and turning them into something disrespectful for dramatic effect. That’s not edgy. That’s just insulting.

And yeah, the Templars weren’t exactly shining moral heroes either. They committed atrocities during the Crusades and were part of a larger system of religious warfare. So portraying them as a corrupt or violent organization in Assassin’s Creed isn’t a huge leap — it’s rooted in how they were already seen.

That’s the key difference: Ubisoft exaggerated things that were already dark or controversial.

Rodrigo Borgia? Known corrupt pope.

Templars? Tied to war, violence, and persecution.

But in Shadows, they took symbols of loyalty, faith, and national pride in Japan and reversed their meaning entirely. That’s not just stylized history — that’s deeply disrespectful to a living culture.

People aren’t mad because history was changed. They’re mad because the parts that still matter today were flipped upside down for cheap drama.

[Raider Deci]

Publicado originalmente por allknowingeel:

Let’s flip the situation.

Imagine I make a fictional game set in France. In it, Jeanne d’Arc is captured and violated by soldiers, turns her back on God, becomes a mass murderer, and starts desecrating churches. Then I portray other respected French figures in awful, cartoonish ways — and justify it all by saying, “It’s just fiction, it’s not a documentary.”

Would people be okay with that? Would the French public and politicians just nod and go, “Ah yes, creative liberty”?

Of course not. There’d be global outrage.

Im not so sure. And desecration of churches was last game. It's all the presentation which this game could do a little better though

The theme that "history is more than whats been written" is at the core of the franchise and has been since day1, along with who wrote the books. Desmond even prompts a similar question in AC1 when he tells Vidic that the history books doesnt match up with what he is seeing in the Animus

[Def]

Publicado originalmente por Zarok:

Publicado originalmente por Def:

Yeah but that's cool and it's resolved in a dream sequence where the protagonist becomes an eagle. Cooler than a gay black non-binary hitting historically inaccurate samurai.

So your real issue is that there's a gay black person? I mean that says a lot about you.

Your response says a lot about you too. You're the perfect target audience for this game. There's no talking with you, really. You have no culture, much less respect for history. All you're good for is lining the pockets of failing billion dollar companies like Ubisoft. A modern consumer unit.

[Mr Darkness]

im suprised this guy isnt mad that in ghost of tsushima you unrealistically mass murder Mongolians. btw got isnt historically accurate, they took the mongol invasion and ran with the rest.