But it’s not a game based 2500 years ago. It’s a game based right now, because now is when people are playing it. And right now, we have a word for forcing people to procreate.
That is, if the procreation is actually part of the game, not just the backstory behind the game. This is the first I’ve heard of it, so I don’t know.
Bigotry LightTM, all the sweet taste of punishing people for what they think without any bitter aftertaste!
Either the Mod that banned you was in a power trip or your comment was the fig leaf of a justification needed to ban you for other reasons.
Or, you know, play another game?
I mean, if I go to an art gallery and I see pieces I don’t like it wouldn’t even occur to me to tell the artist to change them to fit my tastes; I could understand if an offending piece of art is placed in a public space that some people would object to it, but nobody is forced to buy and play a game.
In any case, what I’ve seen in situations like this is less that the fan base complains about something and more that a particular interest group picks it up as the cause of the day and mobilizes numbers to generate pressure for change.
The internet is not “the world”.
Yep. And not all boards are moderated as fairly as this one. I was a member of another forum related to a hobby I have. I had been a member for about 5 years. I mostly just lurked because the board seemed cliquish , though occasionally threw out a thought or two.
Once I made a small completely neutral innocuous joke. All of my posts were deleted and I was told (via PM) that if didn’t stay on topic in the future I would be banned.
This from a board who’s members frequently posted recipes to posts they didn’t like. I was floored. I just stopped going there.
Well, no. I’m pretty much a self-identified moderate on most things, except that I score pretty high on the social liberal side. Neither side’s extremists have much to offer me.
I’m still wondering what’s wrong with asking someone to calm down. Yes, some righteous indignation over a wrong is appropriate, but there comes a point when one must put that aside and start working on a solution. And I hope someone will explain in depth why I’m wrong, rather than freaking out, which seems to be the cliche reaction to “calm down.” Y’see, I’m trying to learn.
I want to (try to) elaborate a bit on the nature of the game in question. Yes, the Assassin’s Creed games involve a lot of killing, and Odyssey in particular involves lots of killing for money. However, what the game is about is–in a sense–roleplaying. Not the player roleplaying, but the protagonist doing it.
While the gameplay is set in ancient Greece, the frame story is set in the near future/alternate present, where a protagonist in the bloodline of the ancient Greek character uses a sci-fi device to access information from the past, seeking clues to the macguffin by reliving their ancestor’s experiences. The character the player is playing is roleplaying as the character on screen.
There’s a relevant implication there–the premise (as I understand it) *requires *the protagonist to be a descendant of the character the player spends most of their time killing people (and other things) with. That, in turns, means that Kassandra/Alexios must have reproduced at some point, or the whole scenario could not have arisen. I don’t like Ubisoft much, and I don’t mind them getting kicked around a bit, but this seems like something that fans of the game should have been aware was intrinsic to the premise. AFAIK, you cannot play an Assassin’s Creed game without playing as someone who had at least one kid.
My problem was more with the complaining about role playing, as if the part you play describes and defines you. I’m about as straight white conservative as the next redneck but if the game wants me to be a heroin addict turning tricks for points every now and then, I’d have fun with it. But it better be a game I’d enjoy immensely otherwise.
Depends partly how you’re asking. If you’re saying something like “Hey, the intensity level is making me a bit nervous here, would other people be okay with dialing it back on the expressions of anger?”, that’s a reasonable and respectful request. Might not be granted, of course, but nothing wrong with making it.
If you’re saying something like “Calm down”, on the other hand, that raises a couple of questions:
Unless you’re a moderator, it sounds rather bossy to issue directives to other people about how to post.
Why should you be the one to set the tone of the discussion? If other people aren’t being calm enough for your liking, why are you directing them to change their behavior rather than just leaving them the hell alone?
Sure. But who selected you to be the one to officially decide when that point has been reached, with the corresponding authority to instruct other people that their time for righteous indignation is now over, Comrade Bossypants?
Props for that, then. Does the foregoing explanation help at all?
I see it being less about your character defining you, and more about your character being your creation.
I’m an author. I’ve created a number of characters in my time. And if I were to read fanfiction that had my character doing things I consider horribly out of character, then I’d get pissed. Not because it characterizes me as being horrible, but because I’ve developed an attachment to my creation.
When you play games like this, even when the character comes with a predefined name and appearance, you spend a lot of time in playing with the character and defining what they’re like based on what you make them do. That is, in effect, creating a character - and similar attachments may form. When you suddenly find your character doing things you really don’t want them to, you can get annoyed.
I understand that there are joyless, soulless people out there who don’t play video games and thus might have a hard time understanding these feelings. A similar situation might be if they came home to find that the inside of their bedroom had suddenly been painted up in pink and purple polka dots. Would they be bothered? Why? It doesn’t hurt them any.
Whenever I leave the house, all I see are people staggering around transfixed to the little toy in their hand. Driving down the highway, eyes straight down in their crotch. Shuffling through the supermarket, thumbs whipping around. Tables of 4 in Denny’s, all with their Twitters ablaze, not speaking or acknowledging each other or anybody else.
I ski a lot. I sit my ass on a chair with a stranger, and 4 out 5 times as soon as the chair clears the station, a glove comes off, the phone comes out and that’s it for the whole ride.
Where are these sane people again?
To the OP.
If we worked together would you on occasion make a crack at me for being a redneck or a breeder or white or whatever if I made a crack about gays? Or would you get pretty mad and storm down to the boss?
I work with some black guys and we sometimes give each other shit. I could care less about a crack about my heritage or skintone. I do get pissed about talking about how well I do my job.
Really? I havent skied in 15 years but I miss the times I would talk to fellow skiers. We would talk trails, resorts, things to see in town and such.
Most simply put, if someone keeps shouting, it’s because they feel that they can’t be heard. The fastest way to get someone to stop shouting is to reflect back what you think they are trying to get across, in re-framed calmer language. In that situation, telling someone to calm down sounds to that person a lot more like “shut up”, than anything else. That makes them even more angry, understandably.
Did you call the police on them for lewdness?
Those days are over, my friend.
No. No phone. 
Doesn’t the game also include murder?
Not to say that they’re equivalent, but similar to what someone upthread said, imagine that there was a matchmaking and genealogy game where you had to find the best mate for various people in your family amongst various other families. Then, halfway through, you had to instead kill the members of the other families to attain rank at court. I’d think people would be pretty miffed at this if this was not the type of game they wanted to play!
Yes, that would be a reason to be miffed, assuming it was not made clear in promotional materials and packaging that the game involved both sorts of gameplay. It does not, however, actually represent the instant case.
In any roleplaying scenario, there are constraints on the flexibility of the character one plays. The story imposes some constraints. Other player characters (if any) impose constraints. Game mechanics impose constraints. Perhaps most of all, the setting imposes constraints.
Now, if one of those constraints is not well-known at the outset, and it really bothers you when you run into it during the course of play, it’s understandable to find it offputting and question whether you want to continue playing or supporting the game. On the other hand, when that constraint has been intrinsic to the setting of multiple previous games in the series, over a span of more than a decade, maybe you should have realized it was possible that it would affect your gameplay and factored that into your decision to buy the game (or the optional DLC, in this case).
The game in question is Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey and its upcoming DLC, Legacy of the First Blade. The series is about a race of sci-fi, time-travelling, assassins. This one is set in Ancient Greece. It’s got nothing to do really with Homer’s Odyssey, btw. It’s about the Peloponnesian War.
Players can take the role of the male character (Alexios) or the female character (Kassandra). This is kind of a big deal for the series. For the longest time, Ubisoft refused to include any female options, even as simple as a female model for the player character. They had all sorts of excuses but it just boiled down to stupidity.
With Odyssey, Ubisoft moved the series from being an action game to being an rpg. They leaned into letting the players choose their characters and how they wanted to build their strengths and skills. They talked this up in all their marketing, emphasizing how the players would have the choice to decide their own sexual orientation and romance options.
They sold a lot of games on the premise that players could decide if they were straight or not. And gamer reaction was exceptionally positive. It was widely agreed that Kassandra was a lot of fun to play. She represented a real advance on the part of Ubisoft’s story telling and Ubi marketed the game on that point.
So now the DLC comes out and it turns out that whatever story the player chose for Kassandra in the main game, it’s irrelevant. Now the story is that Kassandra doesn’t have a choice. She has to hook up with a guy and have a baby. To add salt to the wound, the quest line for this is “Growing Up”, as if any other options are immature.
So fans who loved the Kassandra they created for themselves are now angry that their choices have been insulted and all the options are out the window. Their character isn’t theirs any more, after they were specifically told that she would be.
It’s not unreasonable that people are disappointed, here. Ubisoft might learn something - or they might just keep pulling from the Stupid Shelf.