Oh - here’s an article about it, for anyone who’s interested.
As for the OP - there are other message boards?
…you concede that the constraint that has been intrinsic to the setting of multiple previous games in the series did not apply to Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey. So it would be entirely fair to presume those constraints would also not apply to the DLC. The fact that those constraints were introduced into the DLC and were unexpected is entirely the problem. And in order to find out that the DLC is structured fundamentally differently from Odyssey you’ve got to spoil yourself for the ending. So I don’t think its fair to blame the consumers for this: this is entirely the fault of the creative team.
Well, there was one poster on the linked forum who was banned, but not for telling people to calm down. Instead, they called people insane and psychotic for being upset. So way over the top. Maybe not a bannable offense, but not exactly calm and reasonable, either.
No idea, if that poster was the OP or not.
I don’t play video games, but I do love watching others play them on YouTube, cos the stories are fun. If I did play I would have been upset, too, probably. But hopefully not psychotic or insane.
I’m not sure why you think I’m conceding that. I said nothing to that effect.
As I said, I don’t like Ubisoft, so I don’t actually play the games; my familiarity with the setting comes principally from watching other people play them. It’s possible that something in Odyssey directly contradicts the fundamental mechanism of the previous games, but I have not seen or heard anything indicating that to be the case. Having not seen anything about such a change, my default expectation would be that the mechanism would remain consistent.
To be clear, I don’t doubt that bad writing and corporate nincompoopery were involved, because Ubisoft is Ubisoft. They do ham-handed and stupid things. However, if we’re going to argue about a game, I’d rather we do so with information about that game, rather than about hypothetical games that posters set up as strawmen. You can certainly make the argument that it was bad writing and/or bad game design to rub players’ noses in that aspect of the settings’ constraints–I’d probably agree with you. (Although I could imagine stories I might want to tell in the setting that would make the subject unavoidable, I would probably try to handle them a bit less directly than the DLC seems to have done.) I just want the discussion to be on as sound a footing as possible, and leaving out relevant details does not help that.
…if you insist. I had assumed that you had a cursory understanding of what this discussion was all about: but it appears you don’t know what we are talking about at all.
Then you haven’t been following along. Merneith’s post gives a solid overview. The Polygon link makes things even clearer. Odyssey did directly contradicts the fundamental mechanism of the previous games. It was more of an RPG and less of a action game than previous incarnations. It sold the concept of player choice, including the choice of romantic partners. The DLC took that away. So your “default expectation” is simply incorrect. The players who actually bought the game got a game that matched their expectations. The DLC did not match what they expected. It really is as simple as that.
If you are going to argue about a game then the very least you can do is do some research into what the controversy is all about. Because you’ve completely missed the point. There is no “strawmanning” going on.
The entire premise of your post leaves out relevant details. If you want to have a discussion on as sound a footing as possible then do some basic research.
On the contrary, I have been following, and none of that contradicts the simple point I made. I’m not talking about the genre of the game or choices in the game. It was established in the original game that the device used to access the life of a quasi-historical character required the user to be a descendant of that character. Therefore–in the absence of surrogate pregnancy, cloning, or similar advances in the historical time periods accessed–the character in question must have reproduced. In the absence of in-game lore indicating that that limitation has somehow been bypassed, it’s implicit that the quasi-historical characters that players use as avatars in the game had offspring. (This is not the case with the frame-story characters that are more direct avatars of the player, but who get much less screen time.)
That’s it. The distinction I’m drawing is between, “The developers went with a storyline that’s implicit in the setting, but which many fans understandably did not like” and “The devs turned a game about fighting and killing enemy soldiers and mercenaries into one about slaughtering helpless civilians who only beg for mercy”. Or “The devs turned a game about matchmaking and genealogy into a game about murdering families for social and political gain”. The first is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate representation. The other two are strawmen: exaggerated, imaginary examples that misrepresent the subject.
I’m all for kicking Ubisoft in the shins. I just want to do it for the right reasons.
…from the comments:
You haven’t been keeping up. You are simply wrong.
They aren’t strawmen. A strawman isn’t about “misrepresenting a subject.” Its about "
giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." What you cherry-picked out of context was this statement:
The bolded is important. Ludovic makes it clear that his example and what actually happened in the game are not the same. Ludovic uses an example to illustrate their point. You’ve taken that statement, stripped it of context, mischaracterized what Ludovic said, then argued against it. What fallacy is that called again?
Very well–I concede the point. The linked information reflects a major change in how the process operates, and means that it is no longer a logical necessity for the character to have offspring; this is precisely the kind of in-game lore I mentioned as a way to bypass the requirement, so it answers my argument perfectly. Ubisoft remain clumsy idiots who deserve to be kicked, but I’ll take my lumps as well: I was wrong.
Or “an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument”. Yes, Ludovic acknowledged that the two were not equivalent, but if the point was not to draw a parallel between the exaggerated version (a complete genre change, as opposed to bad storytelling within a genre), and argue that it was clearly bad, what was the purpose of presenting it? That acknowledgement means, in fact, that it was a knowing misrepresentation. (I don’t mean to call you out about it too much, Ludovic; I don’t for a moment think you or begbert were being malicious, any more than I was in my error. I just think that you went for a bad example.)
We could likely continue sniping about definitions all day, but it would be beside the point, so I will yield the field. Call me if your foot gets tired, and you want someone to take over kicking-Ubisoft duties for a bit.
I’m not sure I need to bother defending my good name, but… that was definitely not me, I obvs can’t go back in and copy-paste exactly what I wrote but it was along the lines of “this is being blown out of proportion.” so, yes it was mildly dismissive but ban-worthy? I can only assume in the context of other commenters who may have said much worse things, it just got lumped in with that stuff.
Re: this game specifically, I understand that Ubisoft used the concept of “unprecedented choice!” to sell this game. But this particular narrative decision simply seemed to underscore the fact that people in ancient Greece may have been expected, if not outright forced, to do things they didn’t necessarily want to do as a result of societal/cultural/familial pressures. That’s all I was trying to say.
I’m not sure how this is relevant but for me personally, I am not easily offended by words. I talk plenty of shit and am happy when people play along but generally speaking I know my audience and tailor accordingly (not so much in this case I guess…)
So, maybe, had I been given a warning for posting dismissive comments or a link to community guidelines or something-- anything!-- constructive as opposed to just an outright ban… it just seemed a little outsized. that’s the only reason I bothered to post about it.
There are, but *GOD! *They suck!
Not talking about online. Here I pop some popcorn.
Cop visits add complexity to life. I don’t like complexity.
Somebody has to be the grownup. Who better than me? 
Not really since I expanded my comment beyond the confines of the thread, but thanks.
Which is a choice they would have made, as internal consistency is important but unless you are trying to recreate an accurate historical document about time travelling assassins you get to pick which parts of the culture you highlight.
Exactly, this is the choice the developers made, so the outcry that they UNQUESTIONABLY made the WRONG choice seemed disingenuous to me.
The point is that this choice the developers made completely undercut all the personal choices some of their fans made. The fans are not wrong to feel irate about it.
Anyway, Ubi has seen the error of their ways. They are revising the quests and gameplay to reflect that their fans might have created a different story. They are also reviewing other DLC to make sure that they aren’t going to piss off their playerbase.
The thing to remember about games is that they only happen when the players are interacting with the rules and each other. Even in an on-the -rails adventure, the players still need to participate in bringing about the scenarios. Even in, simple, abstract games like checkers, it’s what the players bring to game that makes it memorable.
My Dad once described chess to me as a struggle between two players to see whose vision of reality will prevail. That’s the problem with Ubisoft’s original take on the scene. In the main game, the players were encouraged to create their own visions (and, not incidentally, the game was marketed to people with that encouragement front and center.) Then in the original version of the cut scene, the devolpers barged in and stomped all over the players’ creations. Hopefully the next attempt will be a little more thoughtful.