I thought this was a crippling failure because it was woke or something?
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
84 points (83.9% liked)
PC Gaming
10637 readers
435 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd expect it to be a failure because it's a 70$ ubishit paint-by-numbers, but I'll find out in two years when it's 15$
Yeah, I was utterly shocked at the price. £70 to download or £56 on disk.
The last Assassins Creed I played was Odyssey and that was well after release so I paid a far more reasonable £30 or so.
They've also kind of devalued them by giving the old ones for free. I got Black Flag and Unity for nothing that I haven't gotten around to playing yet; Unity's graphics still looks better than the recent ones, scope and world size notwithstanding.
Yeah they put a black samurai in it. Of course the screeching ggamers were screeching about “historical accuracy “….. and then of course there was a story about a black samurai …. So they had to shut up
On the contrary. The word on the conservative circles is how awful the game is and how it doesn't compare.
I'm serious. They're not shutting up about it (and if you think that's happening you're in a bubble). The actual discussion point is that this game is a failure.
That goes a long way to explain the YouTube commentariat !
To be fair, yasuke never was a samurai. He was a bodyguard of a jesuit monk (I think?) and was sold to obu nobunaga because he thought he looked "funny". He was a trusted retainer under nobunaga, but never owned land or was a samurai.
To be fair to be fair, those people never complained about the historical accuracy with Pope sword fights, or Leonardo Divinci having technology that wouldn't be produced until the 1800s, and I'm sure many more historical inaccuracies involving white folks.
Is kinda suss though that Ubisoft couldn't do more black characters when in the Americas though, but can totally do it when it's in Asia. 🙆🏾♂️
Other people in his exact position were called samurai back then, at least that's what I've read around
I don't know about other people in his exact position. I do know, however, that in historical records, he was referred to as "suke" which means retainer, not "bushi".
Except there's no clear cut definition of a samurai like that in that period. The class definition wasn't that strict for most of Japan's history, including the sengoku period - even ashigaru were considered samurai in some places.
Yasuke was a professional warrior (almost certainly more than just a regular ashigaru) who fought as a retainer of the Oda clan, that's a samurai. And we're pretty sure he did actual fighting, we just don't know if he was in full armor and everything.
The daimyo is the one who owns the land and gives it to his retainers as he wants, samurais don't automatically own land by definition.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
As much as I would be happy for Ubisoft to have a success, they really need one, I just don't trust unverifiable number. I always want to know metrics and data.
Ubisoft can tell us everything. And what does 2 million players really mean? How many of them refunded the game in the 2h at Steam for example? How many are players who, for an hour or two, looked into the game as part of their Ubisoft gamepass equivalent? 2 million players can mean all kind of things. It doesn't say much really about the success.
Kinda surprised it's not terrible tbh. Was expecting them to screw it up somehow.
Yeah, I’m surprised Ubisoft can make a half decent game.
That's fun, conservative friend of mine told me just this morning about how it was a huge failure with a ridiculous amount of simultaneous players.
Spent all day playing it . It’s great.
Ignore the YouTubers trying to feed off anti Ubisoft vibes. It’s a very beautiful and epic journey, involving slick stealth and very decent combat in Feudal Japan.
Like a juiced Odyssey really, so if that’s your jam, don’t hesitate.
I have played nearly all AC games until Odyssey then dropping it after about 20h of extremely boring grind just to be able to progress the story. I then decided not to touch these games anymore if they don't change and apparently Valhalla was even worse..? I'm very curious about Shadows but afraid it's the same "pay to progress faster" bullshit. Can you tell me what's it like?
Yeah so Odyssey was my first AC game . I thought it was great, and was happy to roam around Ancient Greece doing bits and pieces.
Only afterwards did I learn of the disappointment from long terms fans of the franchises
Shadows is like Odyssey. It’s a big world, with a longish story and lots of side quests - but it’s very west organised and you only do as much as you want.
It has a broad scope - there are skill trees and levelling up to fit it, but it’s very well done.
There are bundles of things you can buy to level up faster - I haven’t really checked them out, but not seem essential, plus I have no interest in paying to shorten a game I just spent 70 quid on.
It’s sounds like it might be too long for your taste. I heard mirage was more focussed but I didn’t play it .
Thank you for the reply - it's much appreciated!
My issue is not with the length (for comparison, I have 150h in Elden ring + dlc without finishing it even once, also in e.g. Cyberpunk pretty much all the side missions are also great and well designed). My issue with Odyssey was that I couldn't go on with the story without grinding generic sidemissions to level up since the main story was so tightly glued to levels. At the same time you get constant ads to purchase "double xp for two days" or something. Too many side missions were clearly built just to make you consider buying xp boost not to have to deal with them.
Too bad that the main stories are usually great but you need to pay extra on top to be able to enjoy them as I think they are actually meant to be played. Also, I usually come back to the unfinished side quests after passing the game once.
Odyssey was my last AC game and I feel the same. Watching reviews and all, this seems more like typical Ubisoft slop, nothing new. It's sad, I don't think we'll ever get the magic back from the AC2 days.
Is it RPGy like odyssey or is it like the old games where your knife would kill anyone?
They have an option where you can turn on instant kills for assassinations, which for me is a huge game changer. I didn’t mind combat against stronger/weaker enemies based on their levels relative to me, but I always got annoyed at my stealth being meaningless.
Yeah, I liked all the rpgy games. But the first time I tracked an assassination target, and stabbed him and it only took off like one tenth of his health I was just confused and didn’t feel like it was an assassin game anymore.
It’s very like odyssey.
Same. I'm really really enjoying it. The parkour as Naoe feels really cool and the atmosphere is just stunning. I am really liking the story so far too.
My favorite assassins creed was Origins and this one is a big improvement on even that one.
The amount of hate the game is getting is childish and not even by people who played it really. Like you said, its just a bunch of people feeding off each other.
If you like assassins creed, personally this is the best one yet. Of you don't like assassins creed, don't play it.
I think the developers did an amazing job and they should be proud of what they made.
Are there legit criticism to be has about micro transactions? Absolutely. But aside from that, the game is really good.
Oh and the music too! Loving the different styles of music they made for different fights.
I got excited after hearing how much people love this one, I usually play every ~5 or so they release and just pick out the best, but sadly the performance was so bad I had to refund it. I have a bit better than the minimum specs on steam (and the minimum specs are a ryzen 5 and gtx 1070, shouldn't this be the standard target?) and ran everything at low, 1080p, and couldn't get past 15fps.
There are better looking games from ~5-10 years ago I can run at 1440p or even 4k 60fps on high settings, I wish game studios would stop trying to go for the most intensive possible graphics effects with how diminished the returns are for it.
What are you running, I was playing this on my steam deck and it looked really good with a solid 30 fps. I have a B580 in my main pc and have been bumping settings up from medium to a mix of medium high with ambient and specular RT on and I'm still getting 75fps without framegen or upscaling at 1080p. Xess and FG hits 120+. Not bad for a £250 card.
I also play on SteamDeck but it isn’t constant 30 fps at all. Still completely playable without question but I get a lot of drops down to 20 fps as stuff loads in.
Are you playing from an SD card? I get a couple of little drops but no extended issues.
Yes from a class 10 micro sd card (64 GB model, which is painfully limiting due to shader caches having to be on the ssd)
If it were doing well, one might think they'd share sales figures instead.
To clarify, sales figures don't exist anymore because you have to count the people who take a $20 sub to ubisoft to play this instead of buying it.
I realize that, but I find it a worthless stat because the numbers are more easily massaged, which is of course partly the point. A different measurement, which paints a less flattering picture, is concurrent players on Steam. I realize that the game will pull players from other places, but comparing it to other games in the same situation doesn't render favorable results; something which Ubisoft would prefer you didn't know, as is evident by their asking Valve to obfuscate these statistics in the past.
That is not the standard launch metric in the industry, that comes in quarterly earnings calls. Are you one of the go woke go broke brigade?
I'm part of the "I don't think this game is doing nearly as well as Ubisoft needs it to" "brigade," but thank you very much for slinging baseless accusations.
Good point.
Ever AC since black flag was terrible in my opinion, with the exception of Valhalla, which was a shit AC, but a damn fun brawler. So I don't put a lot of faith into this one.
Valhalla was shit too. Raiding a place? Couldn't even kill innocents. Didn't they do any research into vikings? They struck gold with black flag, the rest was all shit and massive bug simulators.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
players, not sales. big difference
Mac users are excited too, it came out day one.
Ubisoft themselves admit it didn’t get the optimization work it needs tho, and that they plan to do further updates.
view more: next ›