The Assassins and Templars are Idiots
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Skirting the issue doesn't change that there was nothing factual about your sentence. Believe me, I could argue about subjectivity vs objectivity all day since it's a *major* pet peeve of mine, but I'm not sure if you're even being serious, not to mention it would be way off topic, so...evilthecat said:
![[REDACTED]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/129/129871.jpg?1621054700){kind=avatar}
I'm pretty sure there's a difference in objectivity between "The Earth orbits around the sun" and "American history is boring".evilthecat said:
If it's a pet peeve, I'd suggest checking out the actual definitions of those terms before calling other people out on technically incorrect but colloquially acceptable use of language which you were clearly more than capable of understanding the meaning of.PhunkyPhazon said:
Peace out.
The war of independence is "safer" than the civil war.
There are plenty of southerners who feel they had a raw deal from the history books... and they have guns. Not like laid back Brits who dont really care about the events of the game. Our country has enough history to give it sme perspective, by comparison the USA has only been around for the last 2 weeks and has very little history.
There are plenty of southerners who feel they had a raw deal from the history books... and they have guns. Not like laid back Brits who dont really care about the events of the game. Our country has enough history to give it sme perspective, by comparison the USA has only been around for the last 2 weeks and has very little history.
Don't just "peace out" this, if I'm wrong, then why am I wrong? Explain to me how the phrase "The French Revolution is more interesting than the American Revolution" is more then just an opinion. And no, don't tell me why YOU think it's better, you're opinion is well validated as it is, but tell me how this is objective fact, because if you can then you will open me up to a whole new realm of philosophy I never knew existed.evilthecat said:
Hence it being a pet peeve.
It's not really the Magic Schoolbus comparison that comes to mind here, most likely because I never watched the damn show, but I'm more thinking along the lines of peabody & sherman, from the rocky & bullwinkle show. Connor goes to a point in history just in time to discover that something supposed to happen is about to happen, an only he can save history itself.
That was actually pretty different, but in either scenario, he didn't know what he was doing. He is fictional though. I can blame the writers for being such self-serving asses, and for bringing up that crackpot 2012 theory again.
That was actually pretty different, but in either scenario, he didn't know what he was doing. He is fictional though. I can blame the writers for being such self-serving asses, and for bringing up that crackpot 2012 theory again.
It's not more than just an opinion. Therefore, yes, as I already stated my use of the word "fact" was technically incorrect by the most common definition. However, in case you haven't noticed, it is a common rhetorical tactic to use the word "fact" to refer to an argumentative position which may not actually be a fact in order to strengthen the assertion of that position. Therefore, I don't see why it was particularly incomprehensible or objectionable.PhunkyPhazon said:
You didn't tell me that it was an opinion though. Now you have done I take your point, but you pointed out that it was a "subjective fact". I therefore took the opportunity to be difficult because I'm childish.
If I said "it's a fact that the French revolution happened at all", that would also technically be subjective. It comes from a subject position, in this case mine. After all I would hope that my words alone have not granted you divinely inspired understanding of events in the 18th century. I am a human subject. I just made a statement based on my position, based on evidence I have seen and heard through my subjective experience. The fact that most people would agree with my statement, that the evidence is good and that it should probably be assumed that my statement is a fact does not make it objective. It still requires my subjective mind to put the evidence together and make the statement.
I know very well that this is not the definition of subjective you meant, instead you meant the colloquial definition meaning "opinionated" or "unreliable", but I guess we all have our pet peeves. Anyway, I accept I was wrong and I'm ready to move on now.
Looks like the last few posts were a misunderstanding then XO Sorry man, I could have been more clear.evilthecat said:
You know, I once read a /really/ bad fan fiction that put Assassin's Creed in the Civil War. So now I'm wary of that idea.
I see one problem with an Assassins Creed game set in during the American Civil War. You see, the South wasn't fighting for slavery, it was fighting for secession (or freedom) from the Union. Slavery was just an ideal that caused the split. There's actually some moral grey areas involved.
Heck, the Emancipation Proclamation that supposedly freed the slaves, was more of a political move, to keep Great Britain out of the war (they had already freed their slaves, so it would have been hypocritical of them to fight for the South), than it was a social action.
Heck, the Emancipation Proclamation that supposedly freed the slaves, was more of a political move, to keep Great Britain out of the war (they had already freed their slaves, so it would have been hypocritical of them to fight for the South), than it was a social action.
I know hyperbole is Yahtzee's thing, but I never expected him to come off as so...dense.
The Templars aren't pursuing tyranny, they're pursuing peace and order. They accept and tolerate free will so long as it doesn't stand in the way of their being the invisible hand that's shepherding humanity to a greater order of peace and prosperity.
And the Assassins aren't pursuing anarchy, they're defending humanity's free will. They accept, and even utilize, established orders so long as those orders are not puppets of the invisible hand, or the hand itself, that would attempt to undermine free will.
The writers go to great lengths to establish this in the death speeches and other dialogue/text in the games: the Templars and Assassins aren't incredibly different from each other, they just have opposing core beliefs. They certainly aren't anything like this tyranny vs. anarchy dichotomy that he's pitching.
How he played all five games and missed that baffles me quite a bit.
I am partially on board with his other thought: the American Revolution isn't as interesting, especially for an AC game, as the French Revolution would have been.
Though I do have to take a detracting stance with his other sentiment: that the American Revolution wasn't that significant to world history. That's simply not true. I've heard many Europeans downplay the founding of the States, but consider this: the U.S. was the first major world nation that disregarded the concept of royal/noble blood in government and was built from the ground-up from Enlightenment principles. That is HUGE. Yes, it's true what many are saying: the American Revolution had little to no direct effect on the world as a whole. In that regard, the French Revolution was MUCH more significant. But without the American Revolution to show that such a nation was possible/desirable, the French Revolution likely wouldn't have happened when and how it did. In that sense, the American Revolution was quite significant to the world as a whole, just not directly.
The Templars aren't pursuing tyranny, they're pursuing peace and order. They accept and tolerate free will so long as it doesn't stand in the way of their being the invisible hand that's shepherding humanity to a greater order of peace and prosperity.
And the Assassins aren't pursuing anarchy, they're defending humanity's free will. They accept, and even utilize, established orders so long as those orders are not puppets of the invisible hand, or the hand itself, that would attempt to undermine free will.
The writers go to great lengths to establish this in the death speeches and other dialogue/text in the games: the Templars and Assassins aren't incredibly different from each other, they just have opposing core beliefs. They certainly aren't anything like this tyranny vs. anarchy dichotomy that he's pitching.
How he played all five games and missed that baffles me quite a bit.
I am partially on board with his other thought: the American Revolution isn't as interesting, especially for an AC game, as the French Revolution would have been.
Though I do have to take a detracting stance with his other sentiment: that the American Revolution wasn't that significant to world history. That's simply not true. I've heard many Europeans downplay the founding of the States, but consider this: the U.S. was the first major world nation that disregarded the concept of royal/noble blood in government and was built from the ground-up from Enlightenment principles. That is HUGE. Yes, it's true what many are saying: the American Revolution had little to no direct effect on the world as a whole. In that regard, the French Revolution was MUCH more significant. But without the American Revolution to show that such a nation was possible/desirable, the French Revolution likely wouldn't have happened when and how it did. In that sense, the American Revolution was quite significant to the world as a whole, just not directly.
The team sensible thing reminds me of the keepers in the thief games. They stood in the middle between the anarchist/hippy/wild magic loving pagans and the authortarian/pseudo-catholic/tech-loving hammerities. Both of whom turned out to be massive jerks who would kill everyone given the chance. It was the keepers who kept both in line, until the third game where it turns out they too weren't as impartial ad they could be and had their own corruption issues.
If I didn't know any better, I'd swear he was ranting about factions in a video game.
They're hardly known for being very nuanced or far sighted besides the typical freedom fighters vs authoritarians.
Yahtzee's spoiled because he grew up in Britain, yet another nation with a rich and intriguing history, and doesn't know what it's like to have a bland national legacy.
They're hardly known for being very nuanced or far sighted besides the typical freedom fighters vs authoritarians.
The whole reason why I as a Canadian love US history is that it's actually interesting. Ours beyond our part in the Second Hundred Years' War, the War of Independence, War of 1812 and our military involved in the Empire during and after the Second Boer War (All being only footnotes in Canadian curriculum) is a yawn fest about the fur trade, Indians, French-Canadians and Metis.Oirish_Martin said:
Yahtzee's spoiled because he grew up in Britain, yet another nation with a rich and intriguing history, and doesn't know what it's like to have a bland national legacy.
...Ive never understood how someone can say "our country has more perspective because its been around longer." when YOU SPECIFICLY have not been around that long. Sure, the US has only been around for a couple of hundred of years, but countries are not hive minds that learn based on how long they exist. its a collection of individuals with ever so slightly differing viewpoints. /end rant (sorry if it was a bit long lol)bjj hero said:
OP: I like Yahtzee, I really do, but this is just a case of "Wah this is boring to me" with eloquently put reasons why.
Seeing as (wether any of us like it or not) the US has grown to be an international juggernaut (for better or worse, take your pick) im sure its a subject like anything else; some like it, some dont. And, really, how is it not really that eventful? shittily trained militiamen holding back one of the worlds best trained armies sounds pretty important to me. But hey, thats just my 2 cents.
But, yes, the Assassins Vs. Templars thing has grown quite a bit silly lol, and French Revolution AC would be FUCKING AMAZING
While I wouldn't say that War of Independence America isn't an interesting setting, I will say that it's not a good setting for an Assassin's Creed game.Xdeser2 said:
They'll probably have to continue from another family's perspective if not reboot entirely in order to keep the francise gameplay intact any more than a century after this point. Once things like handguns enter the picture the idea of a guy running around with a couple of hidden blades and swords successfully killing dozens of people will be kind of ridiculous.Kopikatsu said:
As for the setting, as long as they can keep the gameplay intact it doesn't really matter where or when the games are set. American Revolution, French Revolution, Civil War, wherever or whenever it is, as long as the gameplay is fun and the storyline interesting it's pretty irrelevant how interesting the event itself is, or if there even IS an important world changing event going on at the time.
immortalfrieza said:
-cough-
Anyway, why do you say that? Is it completely inconceivable to think that one of Desmond's ancestors became disillusioned with the Assassin way and joined up with the Templars? Wasn't Conner's father a Templar anyway?
Well, I guess Desmond's story is over anyway. Which makes it the perfect time to go further back into time with a Templar! Woo!
That's a good point, but why would Desmond be going into that?Kopikatsu said:
Besides, that was besides the point I was making. I'm saying that the sword fighting, assassination, climbing, etc. is pretty important to the AC series, it's pretty much what the series is known for and what people play it for, and it'll be impossible to maintain that after the point when handguns and effective rifles are invented.
BTW, I haven't even gotten to AC3 yet, so I don't know if things have changed much. I'm working on getting caught up these next few weeks.