Jump to content

Talk:Assassin's Creed Shadows

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should we focus more on racism

[edit]

As a Japanese man, it strikes me how many western publications want to denigrate Yasuke for not being born on this island. There are a lot of sources that discuss the racism, but its only mentioned once on the page. Should we add more about the sadness this has made in the Americas? 弥助は本物の忍者だった (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources that specifically discuss and/or criticize the representation of Yasuke in the game itself. We know there are academic sources that discuss Yasuke as an historical figure outside the context of the game, certainly which Ubisoft used, but the "controversy" over how he appears in game was mostly driven by a small subset of gamers, to the point that most of the reliable gaming press mostly ignored it. Hence why it is only briefly touched on. Masem (t) 04:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could use
https://time.com/6978997/assassins-creed-shadow-yasuke-controversy/
https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-shadows-yasuke-racism-george-floyd/
https://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-shadows-yasuke-backlash-racist-elon-1851539007
https://www.themarysue.com/assassins-creed-shadows-is-taking-heat-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/
There are lots of others, but the entire George Floyd face video says it all about angry American gamers 弥助は本物の忍者だった (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and try to add it. If there is an issue with it it can always be discussed later Trade (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please keep it NPOV this time Trade (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool totally unbiased and very truthful sources there.
I guess while we're at it we'll also keep ignoring the massive Japanese backlash against nearly every aspect of the game, not even just Ubisoft's lie about their depiction of Yasuke being based on historical fact. 2001:1970:5A1C:F700:CDF7:F8BF:8B23:4F77 (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a vocal minority of right-wingers and no one lied. 186.152.149.7 (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Gamergate (2014):
  • Centered around ethics in games journalism, but quickly became dominated by misogyny, harassment, and factional politics.
  • Became a media shorthand for any gamer-driven backlash, even when the causes and context were completely different.
  • Was about gatekeeping gaming culture, especially against perceived "outsiders."
2. Hogwarts Legacy (2023):
  • Critics accused it of supporting J.K. Rowling’s views, even though she wasn’t directly involved in development.
  • Players were harassed and publicly shamed for streaming or purchasing the game.
  • This backlash had clear attempts at moral policing, and cancel culture mechanics were used more openly than even during Gamergate.
  • It became a litmus test for one's political values—even though the game itself had little to do with real-world activism.
More Walls (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't leave random lists generated by chatgpt in talk page sections. This can be considered disruptive. 107.115.5.59 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Gamergate, the press articles claiming it is are biased.

[edit]

Hogwarts Legacy hate is infinitely worse than AC shadows you prudes. Unless one of you can find an article denouncing the Hogwarts Legacy mob as Gamergate 2.0, this section doesn't belong.

  • Critics accused it of supporting J.K. Rowling’s views, even though she wasn’t directly involved in development.
  • Players were harassed and publicly shamed for streaming or purchasing the game.
  • This backlash had clear attempts at moral policing, and cancel culture mechanics were used more openly than even during Gamergate.
  • It became a litmus test for one's political values—even though the game itself had little to do with real-world activism.

Also this article is heavily biased and doesn't deserve this platform.

https://pcgamer.com/games/assassins-creed/ubisoft-scores-a-legendary-ratio-against-elon-musk-on-his-own-platform-which-hopefully-marks-a-final-end-to-all-the-assassins-creed-shadows-culture-war-nonsense More Walls (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BIASED. Sources are not required to be neutral; that said, I would characterize the perspective as mainstream (and I've added a few more to demonstrate that.) As this source notes, some of the figures involved (eg. Mike Kern) are even the same people. --Aquillion (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the ref from More Walls is one of many that assert that despite the attempts to label the game "woke" and drive ppl away from it, the reported player counts/sales proved that tactic didn't work, making this section more relevant. Masem (t) 19:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...so what about the biased coverage that states that the game is/was considered a hate crime? More Walls (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be that coverage? This is the only thing I could find and it seems to use hate crime in a metaphorical sense[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV, that can lead to situations where articles on similar topics will look very different. Personally I've had the frustration of everyone in my IRL and online social circles trashing a game but being unable to reflect that because there were only two actual reviews and they were both ambivalent to positive... Most outlets had not run any article at all about the game and that resulted in what we got... It happens. If you have issues with Hogwarts Legacy I suggest Talk:Hogwarts Legacy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what you're saying. Koriodan (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-This is a false equivalency to Gamergate.
-I am one of the people who consider Assassin's Creed Shadows to be hatecrime
-The war on Hogwarts Legacy is a direct equivalent to Gamergate.
-Wikipedia's highlighting of this Twitter debacle pisses me off. More Walls (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't a reliable source, and if this topic upsets you, you need to edit in other topic areas. 107.115.5.59 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, maybe I'm not a reliable source, but that wouldn't detract from the point that Gamergate is a false equivalency. Providing coverage of Musk / Ubisoft bickering is seriously beneath this platform.
(Personal attack removed) More Walls (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much of a relation between Hogwarts Legacy and Gamergate. Koriodan (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll: Verifying that the Yasuke controversy is DUE

[edit]

Last week we've had IP editors from different addresses remove the Yasuke controversy stuff, despite it being well sourced (particularly as its been covered in non-gaming high quality RSes) and from prior discussions here. That said, which how it is included right now (eg [2]), excluding possible copyedits, it might be good just to have talk page archive that this section is considered DUE by consensus. Masem (t) 11:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's basically the only reason this game is still talked about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:fbc:eedb:3685::2 (talk • contribs)
It's due as it was, already mentioned in the previous sections. I don't think an "Online criticism about cultural elements" section is a good idea and gives too much weight to anonymous internet racists and amplifies fringe. Koriodan (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The weight given to those users is because high-quality RSes reported on the harassment that Ubisoft was getting. That we can't ignore. We are not giving any weight to those claims and instead providing additional sources to show why those claims are wrong.
Further, this information has been in the article for nearly a year now since the game was first announced. Per ONUS, please stop removing it until we have a consensus it shouldn't be in the article. Masem (t) 14:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add, here is an example of the content in the article as of June of last year [3]. It may not have been its own section throughout the article history but we have not ignored that aspect at all. One can raise a valid concern if a separate section is needed (but others have been asking that for a while on this talk page), but we're not going to minimize what is reliable sources to point out the problems with those online critics. Masem (t) 14:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad: given the size difference (like, 2700 bytes) this has been looking like a removal. I see now we're not losing any information or sources, just a massive amount of whitespace from someone that reformatted all the references.
Whether the info should be in its own section or embedded is far less of a concern. I'm not going to touch the return to being embedded in a larger section, though I don't see a major issue if it is actually in its own standalone section with a neutral heading. Masem (t) 01:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think coverage of the events (ie. why was there backlash & what was the impact of that backlash) is important given SIGCOV so it is DUE to include it. I do think it should be moved up to the development section since it was triggered by a trailer & Ubisoft held their ground (in terms of not removing or diminishing Yasuke's role in the game). WP:CRIT highlights integrating the material as the best approach followed by section headings which avoid the word "controversy"; maybe "Reaction after trailer" would be better than the current heading (regardless of what section it is in)? Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with its inclusion in the Development section as that is most apt. Relm (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be the most due thing about the topic, at least going off of the coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are due but it probably shouldn't be a section. I think Hogwarts Legacy#Development handles its controversy section fairly well and we can use a similar format here. The controversy seems to occur in the lead-up to launch, and I don't see any discussion about his role in the game's story after the game was released. OceanHok (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&oldid=1291865180"