Any thoughts on the whole Sweet Baby controversy?

[jenji120]

You keep missing the point while setting up straw men and making pronouncements on what men, women, and various nationalities like or don’t like. I can’t decide if this a poor attempt at trolling, you just don’t understand the arguments being made, or if you’re so one track about bewbz that you can’t read beyond that word. Either way I wil leave you to go on another tangent about boobies, Murrica, and freedom while you stereotype whatever group you choose to use in your examples while simultaneously not realizing no one cares or is bothered about your preferences.

 

[Brainsucker]

You keep missing the point while setting up straw men and making pronouncements on what men, women, and various nationalities like or don’t like. I can’t decide if this a poor attempt at trolling, you just don’t understand the arguments being made, or if you’re so one track about bewbz that you can’t read beyond that word. Either way I wil leave you to go on another tangent about boobies, Murrica, and freedom while you stereotype whatever group you choose to use in your examples while simultaneously not realizing no one cares or is bothered about your preferences.

So, just because I have different opinion than you then I'm trolling? I understand clearly what you mean. But I have my own opinion and you have yours. I don't force my value to you, but it seems that you claim that I'm beneath you by not understand the arguments, just because I have different opinion than you.

Now, you have your own value, moral compass, religion, ideology, or whatever. But it doesn't mean that your value is the most perfect, right, progressive, and justified in this world. Of course, you can believe what you want to believe, just like you believe in religion. you can even become a radical to your ideology, belief, and even moral value, but you have to tolerate to other people value and belief. We interact in the American forum anyway, where freedom is being protected. We have different opinion, but attack my opinion by saying that I'm trolling, and don't understand the arguments is disrespecting.

 

[evilchumlee]

Had to look up the entire issue and it is like expected - companies hire their service to polish their producs according to DEI and neckbeards get up all in arms over it.

I can't decide if i should be amused or concerned that being inclusive and respecting others is just such a bad thing. At my former company DEI is huge and people love being recognized for their beliefs, traditions and heritage in equal ways. It does wonders for morale and the few that don't like it either leave the company ( no big loss) or keep their mouth shut and do the work as expected ( you can't get them all).

That's what people are miffed about though. "Polish their products according to DEI"... maybe rather than focusing on DEI, they should focus on making good games? It's getting tiring.

Different perspectives and all though. My former company was huge into DEI too and... it was terrible. It's part of the reason I left. I was actively made to feel bad for being too white. Actually, "too white" in quotes. I was passed up for a promotion that I really should have received based on objective metrics. But I was told, an exact quote, "That position isn't for you". I was also told... "off the record" so to speak by a manger that they "didn't need more white people". Casual racism, awesome! I committed the sin of being white. I really wish I would be judged by not by the color of my skin, but by the content of my character.

Some of the DEI stuff is just nonsensical, like the new Assassin's Creed. "Cultural Appropriation is bad"... ok, I get that. Appreciated and understood. But... the game about Japanese Samurai needs to be more diverse, so we put an African guy in based on some dubious history? It was... it was already diverse? Or do Asian people not count as diverse? Also just mildly tone deaf... there's whole "Stop Asian Hate" campaign, which is addressing the unfortunately largely black-on-asian violence.. so great time to put a black guy in a game to slaughter like, thousands of Asian people? Read the room, Ubisoft. Jeez.

This all makes me extra angry because it might sound like it, but I support... well, the D and I. I think diversity and inclusion is a wonderful thing. Equity... i'm not so sure about. But there is right way and wrong way to do diversity and inclusion in media. DEI shouldn't mean "no yts". It should be about making an effort to represent different people, where it makes sense, while also not going out of the way to alienate others, and also pay mind to the demographics who actually consume the media. If it tends to be like, young white males who consume the product... and this is just Business 101... focus primarily on making it appeal to those who consume the product.

 

[FPAlpha]

That's what people are miffed about though. "Polish their products according to DEI"... maybe rather than focusing on DEI, they should focus on making good games? It's getting tiring.

Different perspectives and all though. My former company was huge into DEI too and... it was terrible. It's part of the reason I left. I was actively made to feel bad for being too white. Actually, "too white" in quotes. I was passed up for a promotion that I really should have received based on objective metrics. But I was told, an exact quote, "That position isn't for you". I was also told... "off the record" so to speak by a manger that they "didn't need more white people". Casual racism, awesome! I committed the sin of being white. I really wish I would be judged by not by the color of my skin, but by the content of my character.

Some of the DEI stuff is just nonsensical, like the new Assassin's Creed. "Cultural Appropriation is bad"... ok, I get that. Appreciated and understood. But... the game about Japanese Samurai needs to be more diverse, so we put an African guy in based on some dubious history? It was... it was already diverse? Or do Asian people not count as diverse? Also just mildly tone deaf... there's whole "Stop Asian Hate" campaign, which is addressing the unfortunately largely black-on-asian violence.. so great time to put a black guy in a game to slaughter like, thousands of Asian people? Read the room, Ubisoft. Jeez.

This all makes me extra angry because it might sound like it, but I support... well, the D and I. I think diversity and inclusion is a wonderful thing. Equity... i'm not so sure about. But there is right way and wrong way to do diversity and inclusion in media. DEI shouldn't mean "no yts". It should be about making an effort to represent different people, where it makes sense, while also not going out of the way to alienate others, and also pay mind to the demographics who actually consume the media. If it tends to be like, young white males who consume the product... and this is just Business 101... focus primarily on making it appeal to those who consume the product.

I am not trying to attack you or flame you in any way but you are making it hard to find words that won't come off as aggressive.

You had a bad experience at your former company but in all honesty we only know your side of the story and from my experience as a manager and general life experience there's always two sides of the story. Without needing details what you may consider objective metrics might not have been objective at all or there were more factors involved than just measurable metrics.

I am a manager and have led groups of up to 70 people and there's more to numbers when i consider promotions, people leadership skills are very high on that list and i have denied promotions of very good employees because they have not shown great skill and aptitude concerning leading people and it would have been a bad call to put them into a position of having to lead people ( and i have told them that to their face in 1:1 conversations, harsh truth but sometimes direct feedback can lead to change for the better).

You say you support the D and I but not the E ( Equity) but it doesn't make sense because all of the parts of DEI are linked closely together, you can't/shouldn't pick parts of it or you are not a true supporter what this actually means. Equity means giving everybody the same chance based on their needs. This doesn't mean that everybody starts at the same line because we are all different - people need different styles of support based on many factors so in the end everybody has the same chance and this is what it's about ( think of it as a bike race - if everyone gets the same bike those with short legs or unable to ride a bike will not have the same chance as the one whose bike fits them perfectly).

I actually applaud companies using services to make their products fit DEI criteria better. For some it may be just a a way to increase sales as they understood that gamers are not exclusively white male teenagers anymore but some may have realized they are in over their heads and need professional assistance, where's the harm in that?

Given AC having a black samura - well, that's not dubious history, it's a well researched historical fact. There was a black Samurai during this period, however i'll admit it surely is not a coincidence that they chose that one in a million outlier historical fact to conveniently make their game more DEI ( and be able to point to history books).

Given that the gaming industry is not monolithic young white males anymore the entertainment industry has followed this social trend and expanded their games to allow for more representation. Sometimes they strain and stretch believability ( there was one (!) black Samurai in history, lucky for them i guess) but overall i think it's a good thing as gaming doesn't have the basement dweller stigma anymore and if you take a look outside in big cities it is not exclusively white anymore and i love it.

 

[Brainsucker]

That's what people are miffed about though. "Polish their products according to DEI"... maybe rather than focusing on DEI, they should focus on making good games? It's getting tiring.

Different perspectives and all though. My former company was huge into DEI too and... it was terrible. It's part of the reason I left. I was actively made to feel bad for being too white. Actually, "too white" in quotes. I was passed up for a promotion that I really should have received based on objective metrics. But I was told, an exact quote, "That position isn't for you". I was also told... "off the record" so to speak by a manger that they "didn't need more white people". Casual racism, awesome! I committed the sin of being white. I really wish I would be judged by not by the color of my skin, but by the content of my character.

Some of the DEI stuff is just nonsensical, like the new Assassin's Creed. "Cultural Appropriation is bad"... ok, I get that. Appreciated and understood. But... the game about Japanese Samurai needs to be more diverse, so we put an African guy in based on some dubious history? It was... it was already diverse? Or do Asian people not count as diverse? Also just mildly tone deaf... there's whole "Stop Asian Hate" campaign, which is addressing the unfortunately largely black-on-asian violence.. so great time to put a black guy in a game to slaughter like, thousands of Asian people? Read the room, Ubisoft. Jeez.

This all makes me extra angry because it might sound like it, but I support... well, the D and I. I think diversity and inclusion is a wonderful thing. Equity... i'm not so sure about. But there is right way and wrong way to do diversity and inclusion in media. DEI shouldn't mean "no yts". It should be about making an effort to represent different people, where it makes sense, while also not going out of the way to alienate others, and also pay mind to the demographics who actually consume the media. If it tends to be like, young white males who consume the product... and this is just Business 101... focus primarily on making it appeal to those who consume the product.

Yes, I agree with you. So, I think if they want to put an African people to their game, why not make a game with Africa as the setting? To be honest, we have already have too many RPG game that use Europe, American Native, Japan, and maybe China as the setting of the game. So why not use Africa with all exotic things that we can find there to make an RPG that based on Africa myth and tales?

It doesn't need to be realistic. Like an RPG game that we have long time ago that made by Sierra, called "Quest for Glory III" that use Africa myth and tales as the basis of the world.

I'm sure if the game is very good, people will buy and play that game. And of course, if you put a white guy to be a king in the game, people will also protest. Because that game is all about Africa.

 

[Brainsucker]

I am not trying to attack you or flame you in any way but you are making it hard to find words that won't come off as aggressive.

You had a bad experience at your former company but in all honesty we only know your side of the story and from my experience as a manager and general life experience there's always two sides of the story. Without needing details what you may consider objective metrics might not have been objective at all or there were more factors involved than just measurable metrics.

I am a manager and have led groups of up to 70 people and there's more to numbers when i consider promotions, people leadership skills are very high on that list and i have denied promotions of very good employees because they have not shown great skill and aptitude concerning leading people and it would have been a bad call to put them into a position of having to lead people ( and i have told them that to their face in 1:1 conversations, harsh truth but sometimes direct feedback can lead to change for the better).

You say you support the D and I but not the E ( Equity) but it doesn't make sense because all of the parts of DEI are linked closely together, you can't/shouldn't pick parts of it or you are not a true supporter what this actually means. Equity means giving everybody the same chance based on their needs. This doesn't mean that everybody starts at the same line because we are all different - people need different styles of support based on many factors so in the end everybody has the same chance and this is what it's about ( think of it as a bike race - if everyone gets the same bike those with short legs or unable to ride a bike will not have the same chance as the one whose bike fits them perfectly).

I actually applaud companies using services to make their products fit DEI criteria better. For some it may be just a a way to increase sales as they understood that gamers are not exclusively white male teenagers anymore but some may have realized they are in over their heads and need professional assistance, where's the harm in that?

Given AC having a black samura - well, that's not dubious history, it's a well researched historical fact. There was a black Samurai during this period, however i'll admit it surely is not a coincidence that they chose that one in a million outlier historical fact to conveniently make their game more DEI ( and be able to point to history books).

Given that the gaming industry is not monolithic young white males anymore the entertainment industry has followed this social trend and expanded their games to allow for more representation. Sometimes they strain and stretch believability ( there was one (!) black Samurai in history, lucky for them i guess) but overall i think it's a good thing as gaming doesn't have the basement dweller stigma anymore and if you take a look outside in big cities it is not exclusively white anymore and i love it.

Ah Yasuke. Yes, He served under Oda Nobunaga for some period of time. But he was not a Samurai. Because there was no Samurai in Japan prior Tokugawa Shogunate era. In Sengoku Jidai era, nobody call some warrior caste people as Samurai. Because there were no Samurai at that era.

People call Yasuke as Retainer. But the word of Retainer is a bit confusing here. Because Yasuke was truly served Nobunaga until the Honno-ji Attack. But he was never a Vassal to Nobunaga. Surely you know what a Vassal is. If Yasuke was a vassal to Nobunaga, his name would be mentioned several time in many Sengoku Jidai stories. Yasuke would be given a land, take command of some soldiers, and involved in Japan civil war as an officer. But he didn't. He surely be given a house and a tanto (a short blade like a dagger), and recieved some stipend (wages). If you think a house mean a land / territory; then I don't know to say anymore. Because a house in Nobunaga era can be very small with only a small room with tatami only, to a very big multi story mansion where some Rich Retainers lived.

Yasuke followed Nobunaga to Honnoji temple, but it seems that he was survived. I don't know if he involved in the fight to protect his lord or not. Because if Yasuke involved in the fight to protect Nobunaga, he would surely be killed along-side with his Lord. But he was survived, and then returned (or sent back) to the Jesuit who give him to Nobunaga.

I don't know if Yasuke was a slave or not. But if he wasn't a slave, then he may a Christian Misionary or something. The chance that he was a profesional Warrior from Africa was a slim. Because if he was, he wouldn't be returned to the Jesuit. But he would get a very important job from a Lord; like Akechi, Toyotomi, or even Tokugawa. As the knowledge of European Warfare had become the highest interest to the Japanese Lords at that time.

 

[evilchumlee]

I am not trying to attack you or flame you in any way but you are making it hard to find words that won't come off as aggressive.

It's all good, i'm happy to discuss.

You had a bad experience at your former company but in all honesty we only know your side of the story and from my experience as a manager and general life experience there's always two sides of the story. Without needing details what you may consider objective metrics might not have been objective at all or there were more factors involved than just measurable metrics.

Yes... there were more factors involved... skin color. Racism.

I am a manager and have led groups of up to 70 people and there's more to numbers when i consider promotions, people leadership skills are very high on that list and i have denied promotions of very good employees because they have not shown great skill and aptitude concerning leading people and it would have been a bad call to put them into a position of having to lead people ( and i have told them that to their face in 1:1 conversations, harsh truth but sometimes direct feedback can lead to change for the better).

I'm also a manager and I understand that 100%. In this specific instance, I *WAS* given feedback. The feedback was that I didn't fit what they were looking for... which was not anything performance based. I didn't fit the DEI initiative.

You say you support the D and I but not the E ( Equity) but it doesn't make sense because all of the parts of DEI are linked closely together, you can't/shouldn't pick parts of it or you are not a true supporter what this actually means. Equity means giving everybody the same chance based on their needs. This doesn't mean that everybody starts at the same line because we are all different - people need different styles of support based on many factors so in the end everybody has the same chance and this is what it's about ( think of it as a bike race - if everyone gets the same bike those with short legs or unable to ride a bike will not have the same chance as the one whose bike fits them perfectly).

I understand why people may support equity, and I might agree to an extent... but the way it tends to be applied is more the issue I have. "Equity" as it stands tends to be based entirely on racial lines, which is absolute nonsense. To actually have equity, we need to look at the individuals and consider their circumstances, of which socio-economic status is likely the most important. My issue is equity can't come at the expense of others, it's wrong to pull others down to push others forward. I don't know what the best solution for it is, but I know it's definitely not how its working out currently.

I actually applaud companies using services to make their products fit DEI criteria better. For some it may be just a a way to increase sales as they understood that gamers are not exclusively white male teenagers anymore but some may have realized they are in over their heads and need professional assistance, where's the harm in that?

I think my biggest problem is summed up in the phrase "DEI criteria". The harm is that media is suffering because of it. Companies seem to be putting more effort into making sure they hit all their "DEI criteria" rather than... making a good product. We've come to demand DEI first, everything else secondary. That's stupid.

I also take issue with the apparent need to change existing things rather than make new things for better inclusion. Like, don't make Superman black. Make... an awesome new black superhero. That's great! Do that! Don't make an "all female" reboot of something. Make... a new thing with female characters. That's great!

Given AC having a black samura - well, that's not dubious history, it's a well researched historical fact. There was a black Samurai during this period, however i'll admit it surely is not a coincidence that they chose that one in a million outlier historical fact to conveniently make their game more DEI ( and be able to point to history books)

It is "well researched", but far from "historical fact". There was an African man under Nobunaga's service for roughly 18 months before he was sold (back?) into slavery. This man was almost certainly not "Samurai"... at best he was something of a "pet" or mascot who Nobunaga dressed up in warrior clothes because they thought the nanban with the black skin was funny looking. There's an anecdote about Nobunaga not believing he was real, and tried to scrub his black off.

Regardless, to try to claim a "historical fact" here is just flat out incorrect and in the context of Assassin's Creed, highlighting this is the first "historical" protagonist is just laughable. Yasuke wasn't because the story was so good that it needed a game based around it. Yasuke was used to check of a diversity checkbox and make Sweet Baby happy.

If they wanted an AC game with an African protagonist, why not delve into... idk... African history? Africa has a rich history rife with all kinds of settings for amazing stories. An AC game about the Zulu's would be absolutely bad ass! Make THAT game!

I would like to reiterate the tone deafness of this particular inclusion. There is an unfortunate epidemic of black on Asian violence. Seems like a great time to have an african character appropriate Asian culture, and then proceed to play in the slaughter of thousands of Asian people...

.Given that the gaming industry is not monolithic young white males anymore the entertainment industry has followed this social trend and expanded their games to allow for more representation. Sometimes they strain and stretch believability ( there was one (!) black Samurai in history, lucky for them i guess) but overall i think it's a good thing as gaming doesn't have the basement dweller stigma anymore and if you take a look outside in big cities it is not exclusively white anymore and i love it.

I think that's great too! I do appreciate diversity.

I just want true diversity, and not diversity at the expense of others, or rather "diversity". The Assassins Creed example is great... "Diversity", right? Asian people aren't "diverse"? It was already a game about a minority population.

We are told "cultural appropriation is bad", but then also are expected to applaud... cultural appropriation? It only matters with some cultures?

What puts me off in a more meta sense is that "diversity" all too often is "no yt people", and also to the point of villainizing white people for.. existing? Isn't that the EXACT thing we aren't supposed to be doing? I experience casual racism a shocking amount. I'm sorry I was born white and straight, it wasn't my choice. I've never oppressed anyone, i've never owned slaves and I can be reasonably sure my ancestors likely didn't either.

In the end, i'm all about diversity. I just want it done right, without putting others down, and when it comes to media, have it make sense. Don't just shoehorn in "diversity". If you're making a TV show about Vikings, don't make the king a black woman. That's stupid. There are plenty of amazing black stories to be told. TELL THEM!

Part of the reason it bothers me so much is because i'm caught between two worlds. I'm liberal myself. I'm for the cause. I also live around alot of people who very much are NOT. And you know what? The overbearance of all this is what got us Trump, and it's going to be what gets us Trump again. It seems like a good thing, lets push all of this, but its hurting the cause. It's driving people away. You can't win over people by alienating them and excluding them from your inclusion...

(my side rant about an an overlooked historical thing that could prove awesome in some form of media that is perfect for diversity... focus something on the War of 1812, specifically the Battle of New Orleans... it's already like something out of a movie... US Army forming an alliance with people of New Orleans, native Americans, and god damn pirates to fight off the British... at one point using a beached ship as an artillery platform?! Why aren't we funding this?")

 

[Owain Taggart]

. focus something on the War of 1812, specifically the Battle of New Orleans... it's already like something out of a movie... US Army forming an alliance with people of New Orleans, native Americans, and god damn pirates to fight off the British... at one point using a beached ship as an artillery platform?! Why aren't we funding this?")

Would rather see one focusing on the entire war rather than just that one battle

 

[Brainsucker]

Would rather see one focusing on the entire war rather than just that one battle

Yes, I also want to play a game that focus on the entire war rather than just that one battle. But maybe he / she means about a movie. Not a game. I don't know.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yes, I also want to play a game that focus on the entire war rather than just that one battle. But maybe he / she means about a movie. Not a game. I don't know.

Oh, I thought he might have meant an Assassin's Creed game, seeing as the latest game was just talked about in multiple postings.

 

[Brainsucker]

Oh, I thought he might have meant an Assassin's Creed game, seeing as the latest game was just talked about in multiple postings.

I'm sorry, maybe it was me who was out of context in replying you both.

Btw, regarding Yasuke, there is one fact that Yasuke was not a Samurai / a ranking warrior under Nobunaga Service. Well, there was no Samurai before Tokugawa Shogunate, but let us take that aside for now.

The fact is that Yasuke was alive after the event of Honnoji Temple Incident (or attack) while Nobunaga was dead in that battle prove that he was not a Samurai. Yes, Nobunaga was doing seppuku / hara kiri / killed himself in that battle. But it didn't mean that he was a seppuku crazed person who chase on honor like what Western thought about Japan.

Well, Nobunaga didn't care about honor. He just didn't want to be captured by Akechi Mitsuhide. If he had a chance to flee, he would do that instead. Like what he did when he was attacked by Asai from behind, several years before.

So basically Nobunaga did Seppuku because he didn't has any chance to survived in the battle of Honnoji Temple.

If Yasuke was a samurai, he would surely be killed in that battle. Because Yasuke accompany Nobunaga to Honnoji Temple when the attack was happen. It is not because Samurai is somekind of a suicide squad who value honor above anything else. But because their enemy loved to behead them more than anything else in the battlefield.

In Sengoku Jidai era, For a Warrior / Soldier who managed to behead their enemy (Specially high ranked officers) in battle, they can get a prize from their lord. Ranged from some gold to a full promotion that will change their life forever. So, if Yasuke was a samurai, he would be hunted down by Akechi's retainers and got beheaded in battle, for some money.

The reason why Akechi's men spared Yasuke's life means that his head has no value to them. They prefered to bring Yasuke back to the Jesuit than kill him. So, either he was a slave, or he was a Jesuit Missionary. I prefer to think that Yasuke was a Jesuit Missionary. So he was spared by Akechi and brought back to the Jesuit instead.

Well, that is one. We can also assume that Yasuke was really a military retainer to Oda, and was surrender to Akechi when the battle looks hopeless. But I don't know, what kind of Samurai who surrender to their enemy when their lord chose to kill himself? A coward? If that really happen, what kind of story that we can get, from a Samurai who surrender to his enemy, and then sold back to his Jesuit Master after the battle end?

 

[evilchumlee]

Yes, I also want to play a game that focus on the entire war rather than just that one battle. But maybe he / she means about a movie. Not a game. I don't know.

He, although pronouns are irrelevant to me. Call me what you like.

I was speaking in a more broad sense of "some sort of media". In the context of an Assassin's Creed game, i'd say sure the War of 1812 but like, focusing on the Battle of New Orleans. There's enough there in the build up, organizing forces, etc.

But yeah its mind boggling to me that such an absolutely WILD event has like, nothing.

Well, that is one. We can also assume that Yasuke was really a military retainer to Oda, and was surrender to Akechi when the battle looks hopeless. But I don't know, what kind of Samurai who surrender to their enemy when their lord chose to kill himself? A coward? If that really happen, what kind of story that we can get, from a Samurai who surrender to his enemy, and then sold back to his Jesuit Master after the battle end?

Yeah... choosing Yasuke is weird for a number of reasons.

What an awesome Samurai who... was basically involved in one battle, immediately surrendered and was sold into slavery...

Real inspirational story, there. Although then again, fucking bravo to Ubisoft if they actually show his ending...

 

[Owain Taggart]

I was speaking in a more broad sense of "some sort of media". In the context of an Assassin's Creed game, i'd say sure the War of 1812 but like, focusing on the Battle of New Orleans. There's enough there in the build up, organizing forces, etc.

Ahh, I eat my words then

 

[evilchumlee]

Ahh, I eat my words then

No need to eat anything. I wasn't particularly clear there.

 

[Owain Taggart]

No need to eat anything. I wasn't particularly clear there.

Haha Ok. Then maybe you'd think an AC game set during the War of 1812 would be neat?

Either way, this isn't a war Americans generally know about much or acknowledge, so I doubt it would happen. The closest we got was with the American Revolution in ACIII.

 

[Brainsucker]

He, although pronouns are irrelevant to me. Call me what you like.

I was speaking in a more broad sense of "some sort of media". In the context of an Assassin's Creed game, i'd say sure the War of 1812 but like, focusing on the Battle of New Orleans. There's enough there in the build up, organizing forces, etc.

But yeah its mind boggling to me that such an absolutely WILD event has like, nothing.



Yeah... choosing Yasuke is weird for a number of reasons.

What an awesome Samurai who... was basically involved in one battle, immediately surrendered and was sold into slavery...

Real inspirational story, there. Although then again, fucking bravo to Ubisoft if they actually show his ending...

That's why I think that Yasuke would looks more honorable if he was actually a Jesuit Missionary, and not a Samurai. It is okay if the next Assassin Creed use Yasuke as the main character. But if he was portrayed as a samurai, then it is the same as mocking on him, and the skin color that he represent. But if he was portrayed as a Jesuit Missionary, and he was trapped inside a very dangerous situation like in Honnoji Temple and Azuchi castle, then Yasuke will looks very honorable and realistic.

Just imagine that they make Yasuke as Jesuit missionary. He was sent to Oda's service to serve his God, to spread Christianity to Japan. But Nobunaga wants him to be seen like a Samurai. of course, as a man of peace, Yasuke dislike the idea. But for his mission, he accept Oda offer, and become the Lord aide.

When Nobunaga comes to Honnoji Temple, Yasuke follow Oda as his aide. But because he's a missionary, in that dangerous situation, he aims to survive. Not to kill the enemy. He use every acrobatic technique that he learnt in Africa to save his life. Until he was captured in Azuchi castle, when he wanted to save Nobutada, Nobunaga's son, and his friend.

Compared to Yasuke, an African slave who was given to Oda, and promoted to a samurai. Then he followed Oda to Honnoji Temple. And to survive the situation, he use his super almighty sword play to make Akechi's best Warriors looks like amateur. But at the end he couldn't save his lord, and chose to surrender. And then sold back to his Jesuit master.

 

[evilchumlee]

That's why I think that Yasuke would looks more honorable if he was actually a Jesuit Missionary, and not a Samurai. It is okay if the next Assassin Creed use Yasuke as the main character. But if he was portrayed as a samurai, then it is the same as mocking on him, and the skin color that he represent. But if he was portrayed as a Jesuit Missionary, and he was trapped inside a very dangerous situation like in Honnoji Temple and Azuchi castle, then Yasuke will looks very honorable and realistic.

Compared to Yasuke, an African slave who was given to Oda, and promoted to a samurai. Then he followed Oda to Honnoji Temple. And to survive the situation, he use his super almighty sword play to make Akechi's best Warriors looks like amateur. But at the end he couldn't save his lord, and chose to surrender. And then sold back to his Jesuit master.

Yeah.

So my initial reaction to the Assassin's Creed thing was a somewhat kneejerk "god damn it because of course". After my initial kneejerk, i'm still disappointed but I *CAN* see an interesting story in there... i'm also like, damn near 100% sure they will not go with that interesting story.

So if we go with Jesuit Missionary, or even just... I don't know... an African dude who for some reason just ended up on a ship with Jesuits who ended up in Japan, ok i'm with the start. Dude gets pulled into some sort of drama... it's easy enough to drape some Assassin's Creediness into that, have him already involved with the Assassin's or something. Whatever that works.

Nobunaga is like "haha, omg no way, this dude is black!", and kind of takes him into his retinue for the novelty but then it also turns out this dude is a warrior! AND he knows about things.

Yasuke gets dragged into the conflict, which is probably actually over a piece of Eden, and in the end of it all he kind of sacrifices himself, surrenders and is taken into slavery.


...

What will actually happen is Super Awesome Dude Kicks All The Ass And Is Totally a Black Samurai And Then We Ignore What Happens At The End Because Its Uncomfortable And We Don't Want To Talk About It.

 

[Brainsucker]

Yeah.

So my initial reaction to the Assassin's Creed thing was a somewhat kneejerk "god damn it because of course". After my initial kneejerk, i'm still disappointed but I *CAN* see an interesting story in there... i'm also like, damn near 100% sure they will not go with that interesting story.

So if we go with Jesuit Missionary, or even just... I don't know... an African dude who for some reason just ended up on a ship with Jesuits who ended up in Japan, ok i'm with the start. Dude gets pulled into some sort of drama... it's easy enough to drape some Assassin's Creediness into that, have him already involved with the Assassin's or something. Whatever that works.

Nobunaga is like "haha, omg no way, this dude is black!", and kind of takes him into his retinue for the novelty but then it also turns out this dude is a warrior! AND he knows about things.

Yasuke gets dragged into the conflict, which is probably actually over a piece of Eden, and in the end of it all he kind of sacrifices himself, surrenders and is taken into slavery.
...
What will actually happen is Super Awesome Dude Kicks All The Ass And Is Totally a Black Samurai And Then We Ignore What Happens At The End Because Its Uncomfortable And We Don't Want To Talk About It.

An ex-member of the secret order of Hassassin, who then convert into Christianity, become a monk and join the Jesuit Missionary to spread Christianity. Then he land into Japan, met Nobunaga, become a mascot, and when he follows Nobunaga in Honnoji-Temple, suddenly he realized that he's in a grave danger. Not only the temple, but the whole city of Kyoto become a battlefield. So he uses his skill of Hassassin (assassin) to survive. And because his vow as a Christian Monk, he refused to kill. So he'll do whatever he can to escape the city, by using Assassin Creed style of Acrobatic move.

At first, he tried to go to Azuchi castle, Oda main castle, to save someone important to him. But at the end, he was captured by Akechi, and sold off to the Jesuit Missionary like a slave. But for him, it just a ransom being paid by the church to free him from Akechi Mitsuhide.

Isn't that cooler than just a mere Black Samurai Story?