Assassin's Creed Odyssey

Yeah I remember the explosion of crap for there not being people of a certain colour in kingdom come deliverance even though they didn't exist or if they did where extremely rare there in that time period.

I just recall watching a gameplay demo for this where the female Spartan player character is kicking a 300lb man around I can suspend my disbelief a certain amount but lately it's getting worse.

Ghost of toshima was really gripping me until bang, female samurai at least make her a ninja or something.

Don't get me wrong I often play a female character depending on the game, female shepherd in mass effect was awesome and believable for me, like wise even soldiers in ww2 wouldn't be too bad as guns and technology existed to equalise things. Just can't get my head around Samurai/Spartan as they where exclusively male for a reason.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I often play a female character depending on the game, female shepherd in mass effect was awesome and believable for me, like wise even soldiers in ww2 wouldn't be too bad as guns and technology existed to equalise things. Just can't get my head around Samurai/Spartan as they where exclusively male for a reason.

That's what I'm wondering and one of the reasons I play as the female character; is her story about her being a woman and not being allowed to be a Spartan but that something happens to necessitate it or allow it (like the spear weapon she holds gives her extra strength to be comparable to that of a Spartan or greater)? Which would mean she and the guy character may have different stories altogether.

CatInABox wrote: »

Let me get this straight. In a game that features a remote control Eagle, the ability to fall several hundred feet in a bale of hay without a scratch, and several other feats of superheroism, a playable woman character is where you draw the line?

If you want historical accuracy, read a history book, to be honest.

It's not the playable female character as I've explained above, it's shoehorning a woman into a role that only males where allowed to historically fill in order to avoid their damn game being called sexist.

I'm not looking for historical accuracy either, I'm looking for believability, put female ww2 soldiers in all you want, anyone can use a gun male or female. But pitting a female Spartan or the like against their male counterpart would be like watching a child fighting an adult imo.

Also who am I to say a remote control eagle can't exist or superhumans can't exist, hell who knows but what I can say is that female samurai and spartan warriors did not exist.

Shiminay wrote: »

Meanwhile, on Twitter...



Also: Historical Accuracy and Blideo Blames are, barring a few very rare exceptions, mutually exclusive and you have to ask yourself if you *really* want to be on the same team as the sorts of screaming manbabies that are proud to have harassed a woman off Twitter cause she had the audacity to be a woman in a Star Wars film?

I enjoyed Origins a lot more than I expected to. I do consider myself a fan of the series generally despite its very real flaws. Right now I can see both an Edward Conway and Ratonhnhaké:ton/Conor statues on top of my shelf (both of which I got for €30 in Gamestop by waiting a year), so there're my colours nailed to the mast (if you'll excuse the pun). Origins added some nice changes and I'm looking forward to seeing an expansion on this with the next one, but again, I'm not going to be buying it until 6ish months in at least (mostly cause I'm done buying games at launch when I have so many fine games to play and no real rush to play what's new).

But dialogue trees and decisions having branching results is a good move as long as they don't hand-wave all player agency away at the end of the game cause they have to shoe-horn it into some sort of ending.

i dont harass women online or in real life, i like living :pac: Why would someone have a problem with a female in the star wars universe?

CatInABox wrote: »

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article I linked:



If that doesn't scream video games character, then I don't know what does.

I wonder why including a female character offends people so much. I mean, the games we play, they're fiction. As Shiminay said, you end up fighting a souped up Pope at the end of one of these games. Why is it offensive to you that a woman character could feature in a game?

If you'd read through my posts you'd realize I don't have a problem with female characters, they just have to make sense to me, that's all.
I could name countless games/films with female lead characters that I love.
I just can't believe a society that commited infanticide to weed out the weak would have a female soldier. It's my problem and my opinion.

Darch Nemesis wrote: »

Even if a female protagonist seems "out of place" (which she doesn't, by the way), there's a fecking minotaur in this game. A minotaur. They're clearly going for a more mythological setting than historical, so please, untrigger yourselves.

didnt see that :pac: all bets are off so haha Natalie the nut cracking spartan

Only slightly triggered so no worries, first world gamer problems

You know, I can get over the whole female Spartan thing. After all, they were the backbone of the Spartan Army, and had more power than nearly the King himself. They were highly respected and were cunning and athletic. They did get involved in the defence of their homes while the army was off fighting Crete, and the story of Princess Arachidamia is known to have played a big part. They didn't directly take part like a male Spartan, but they were not defenceless. I'm taking this game as if one of them decided, feck it, i'm off to fight too.

I do agree that female characters shouldn't be shoehorned in where they don't belong, but I don't find it too far of a stretch to believe that a Spartan woman was able to fight just as well as Spartan men. There were female Gladiators, Samurai, there were no female Knights but the women of those times had other military roles (Knights and archers weren't even in the same social class). The ancient Greeks had female warriors. Remember, people have tried to rewrite history for their own benefits, and a lot of men from back then were very misogynistic, so it's only natural they wouldn't include the female warriors. Over time, i'd imagine, more and more information was lost, but i've no doubt that each era had female equivalents of the males, but much like a Knight being a male role, there was probably a female version called something else.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

No doubt there where female warriors throughout history, I'd imagine they where extremely rare though. Brianne of tarth from game of thrones is a good example even though it's fiction, she's as big/strong as the men.

Exactly. Strong women are not a modern occurrence. They were always there, but probably got even less respect for not being ladylike.

Either way, it's not really a problem as long as it doesn't affect the gameplay, or they're very different in styles, like AC Syndicate. I used Jacob for the melee, and Evie for the stealthy stuff.

I have faith in Ubisoft these days. They took the feedback about the AC series and created Origins, which was amazing imo. As the same team worked on some of Odyssey, and they've had just as much time, I reckon it will be another great AC! Let's hope the alternating year lull of the past doesn't happen!

I wish they would bring out GTA games as much as they do assassins creed!

fugyvuhgvhbjb wrote: »

Nah. Its way more expensive on PSN. It's 80 Euro in Smyths but 100 euro on psn.

I'd rather not get it 3 days early, than have to pay an extra €20 for it personally.
I would have faith in Smyths to release it on the 2nd myself

I think they've been relatively quiet about this, which has me slightly worried, but the game does look phenomenal. I will most likely pick this up on release. Pretty sure I made my money back on Origins once I finished it, but it looks like they will have a reason for me to hold onto this one. If it plays anything like Origins, it will be good, so it's all down to the story now!

The best thing that I can say about AC3, is that without it, there'd be no Black Flag

ERG89 wrote: »

The first few hours were ok. I gave up halfway through as a combination of glitches/bugs & a lot of instant fail missions with bad checkpoints got the better of me.
I was at the stage where I'd have to watch a playthrough on YouTube as I felt like you had to get through certain areas of it in a certain sequence never deviating from the one way to get through a camp or tail for information.

I was in the exact same way about a couple of months back, when I went to revisit the game.
I never completed it, just left it after a few hours

There were a lot of good ideas in AC3, and most of the actual gameplay mechanics were tight and enjoyable. But it was a slog to playthrough, progressed really slowly in terms of giving you abilities and weapons already familiar from previous games (done for narrative reasons, but they still could have sped it up a bit). Storywise it was okay, but Connor's story and character felt like a huge comedown after the Ezio trilogy, and while the present day story was supposed to come to its conclusion, they f*cked it up in order to keep it going for future games.

If they're remastering it as part of the season pass and given the supposed quality of the DLC for Origins, it's not a bad deal, and worth sinking a few hours into. Certainly wouldn't buy it separate from that like how they released the remastered Ezio trilogy though.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Have they done any work on AC3? Far Cry 3 they did nothing to and it looked like it looked on last gen.

Yes they have. AC3 will be remastered for current gen so it's been fully worked upon and upgraded a la the Ezio Collection on PS4 to include "higher resolution textures, a new graphics engine, other graphical enhancements and improved gameplay mechanics".

In fairness to Ubisoft, the PS4 version of FC3 was never advertised as a remaster just that they improved some textures and made it smoother.

Reviews starting to come out and most seem to be very positive about the game.