Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Overly Sarcastic Productions" channel.

  1. 115
  2. 75
  3. 24
  4. 14
  5. Laziness is no excuse. Just because it's cheaper to record the same dialog doesn't mean that it's justified. AC shouldn't be a fantasy game, the franchise originally took their historical setting seriously. The only difference between the setting in an AC game and the real world should be the covert activities of the Templars and Assassins behind the scenes of known history. "AC has never been a historical simulation, and when AC fans complain about historical inaccuracy it's usually only when the developers make playable female characters. They're alright with Ancient Aliens creating humanity as a slave race and Assassins being an ancient order of freedom fighters locked in an endless battle with the Knights Templar who are a prehistoric evil conspiracy controlling the world from the shadows, though. At least there are no cooties there." This paragraph betrays a prejudice that's unwarranted. This is not about having a female protagonist, I've been playing as female protagonists in most of the games I've played over the past few years. I bought a PS4 just to play Horizon on. But if you do have a female protagonist in a historical simulation game, the character needs to be portrayed accurately to that time period. A female character can be an exception to rules, she can behave any way she wants, but that society should react to her presence as that society would react. As I said, part of the draw of this series is that it portrays an alternate depiction of history. The entire point of it is that it should be a history that could have happened in our real world, and we were just unaware of certain aspects. This franchise is not and should not be about "fantasy" where the setting is only loosely related to the real world, that is what God of War is for. If Ubisoft wants to make a game like that, they can, but they should call it something other than Assassin's Creed.
    13
  6. 12
  7. 9
  8. 7
  9. 6
  10. 6
  11. 4
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 1
  20. Interesting point about mistakes, but I do think it just tends to boil down to "everything is because some writer said so." Writers don't set up situations where the die roll is a critical fail so they just scrap the whole idea. If a character makes a mistake, it's not happenstance, it's because the writer made him make a mistake, and writers just don't seem to do that very often. They don't set up situations only to then defuse that situation by an error, unless that error brings greater meaning to the plot. It's like Chekhov's gun, you don't show the gun unless you intend to use it, you don't have the character make a mistake unless there's some larger point to the mistake. Characters do make mistakes fairly often though, if there's a reason. Stragely, Naruto actually does a solid job of countering a few of your points in this one (not that it invalidates them in general, just that it defies them). Tsunade is the 4th Hokage, and while it could be argued that Naruto sometimes sidelines her as the hero does, she is in charge, and while she exhibits masculine traits like massive physical strength, when it comes down to it her most effective role on the battlefield is as a healer. Likewise, Naruto often makes mistakes, like when he had a big showstopper new attack that he was using for the first time in combat, but on the first attempt it sputtered out completely, forcing everyone to regroup and try again. If not for that, the fight would have been practically over at that point.
    1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1