- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
but an “outsider” earning the highest title a normal person can earn in feudal japan seems very outlandish.
William Adams was specifically known to have been granted the title of samurai by Tokugawa Ieyasu, and that’s precisely in the period immediately at the end of the Sengoku where the title of samurai begins to change as a status (in the sense of being more restricted and codified). And there’s zero way that “public pressure” would have pushed Oda Nobunaga to change shit about something he decided to like, he’s the last guy of that era on which public pressure did anything. No one from Oda’s circle would have called him out on that.
Again, a samurai wasn’t necessarily “at the top of social order”, there are places where ashigaru, the lowest rung on the ladder, were called samurai. It’s a misconception.
As for chosing an actual Japanese person from the time - there is a second playable character who is the fictional daughter of one of those famous real people from that time and an actual ninja from Iga. You play as her for the first 10 hours or so before Yasuke even becomes playable (except for the introduction mission). This argument is ridiculous and just plain bad faith.
Not necessarily - not everyone who fought was a samurai, just as not everyone who fought in medieval europe was a knight. However, I do agree that the definition is not entirely strict.
Yes, not necessarily, but that’s the thing - the people who claim he couldn’t be a samurai because he didn’t have such or such are making up requirements that didn’t exist at that time. We don’t know if he was called one or not because we don’t have records about him from the people who might have had something to say.
We do have accounts that Nobunaga was impressed with his strength, made him test fight multiple people in shows of strength, gifted him a sword (which is kind of a big deal), and that he was captured by Akechi (and then freed) when he was trying to defend Nobunaga at Honnouji. He might have been just a bodyguard, yes, but even if he was, we don’t know if Nobunaga was calling him a samurai or not, because being a samurai wasn’t a rank or a title. Maybe a bodyguard could be called a samurai depending on how important and trusted he was, and Yasuke was trusted by Nobunaga. My point is that the people dismissing the samurai title are doing so based on a wrong premise - and we have no account that could be relevant in proving it right or wrong.
He was doing actual fighting, there are records of this happening, at least one confirmed battle happened in 1582 when nobunaga was betrayed by mitsuhide. There’s no doubt about that.
Yeah, that’s the one we know about, the Honnouji attack. I mean we don’t know if he took active part in large scale battles like the Tenshou Iga war doing more than standing around Nobunaga, which is depicted in the game with him leading charge - but that can be easily counted as creative liberty. Honnouji was a surprise attack on a temple, not a battlefield, so naturally, anyone caught in it would be fighting, especially a bodyguard.
Mori Ranmaru, Oda’s other famous fuckboy bodyguard who was also at Honnouji, was a samurai because of his family and was also mostly a close bodyguard, I don’t think he’s recorded as having actively participated in any battle either. And apparently he didn’t even have any land to his name beside his family, either, but he’s still clearly called a samurai.
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.
To be fair, it was envisioned as multiplayer from the start, then dialed down and “settling” with HZD, then tried again before HFW and into the one with the 3D headset (mountain call or something?) and they kept saying they’d get to that original plan eventually. Does the Lego Horizon game have any of it? I want to believe the success of HZD and HFW as single-player helped them give that up in the end.
I don’t know about Xbox but I’m still seeing reports about PS5 games being optimized for the physical architecture and requiring some degree of overhaul for the PC port; even FF7Remake on PS4 talked about it for the PC port. Though I imagine that only applies to specific high end games, not for 99.99% of games. Just put it on Java or Unreal 4.
Rebirth is already out, but it’s still exclusive to the PS5. The PC port was announced for early 2025 I think. so OP is either making a jab at Rebirth not being available on PC because PC players hate exclusives, or they’re just saying they’re waiting for the 3rd part of the remake trilogy (probably to be expected some time in 2027), which is what a number of players are doing.
Exactly, they announced earlier this year that they were working on reviving a bunch of licences, including Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio, Shinobi, Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, and hinting at a longer list. We don’t know yet eactly how many titles that includes, and which of them will get remakes, remasters, or brand new games, but it was hinting brand new. Early dev footage was leaked at some point for Crazy Taxi and Shinobi.
I can’t believe we haven’t learned anything since “it’s about ethics in games journalism”. “It’s about monetization in AAA games” now, apparently.
I totally agree that there has been a hate campaign about DEI right-wing complains, but there’s two subjects that came to head at the same time here because it was on the same big title:
Star Wars Outlaw and AC Shadows had the same business model, Star Wars showed that it failed, and Ubisoft got spooked and said they’d have another look at the monetization model for AC. People did get pissed at both games when their business models with passes and editions everywhere were revealed.
It’s just that AC also had at the same time the matter of racist and misogynist hate because of the protagonists. I don’t think this happened on Star Wars, and the fact that it failed too shows that it isn’t the only complain people are having against Ubisoft.
Apparently the monetization guy is stepping on the minority hate campaign subject, he’s the one conflating the two problems here just because his job title. We shouldn’t forget that Ubisoft did pull an infuriating and deplorable stunt with that monetization model.
I’m on the side that a remaster of a PS4 gen game dumb, but HZD was always the butt of the joke in regard to those awful generic bobblehead animations during every single dialog. It was laughably bad. With the reveal trailer, it does make a pretty big difference. Everything else? Not so much.
If this had been a PC game all along, these animation overhaul would have been a patch of the original game, but since the trailer insists that they re-recorded all motion captures for the dialogs of the whole game, they get to sell it full price again.
Sales expectations here don’t mean “we think this game is so good it will move x million units,” that thinking doesn’t exist anymore. It starts from the money they put in it, and they deduce “we’ll need to sell x million copies to get the money back with the profit we want.” There have been a few interviews specifically about these two games saying that.
It’s the same old idea that AAA products (movies, games, same excuse) cost more to make than they bring money back - although we never know exactly how much of that is actually “investors expect an x% return by week y” where x is just too high and y too short and they never want to think longer term, and we never know how far an investment actually goes. Especially in the case of the Remake trilogy where keeping the same engine and world is supposed to drastically reduce the cost of the last game compared to if they had started a new game from scratch with the same content - except part 3 is unlikely to sell more than part 2 given that it’s a sequel.
At any rate, we all know it’s true that development time and costs keep going up exponentially, and no one likes it (and yet everyone wants 4k 60fps somehow).
There’s giving a different importance to something that is, in fact, present in the art piece because it touches you more importantly than it did the author, and then there’s making shit up whole cloth. But like I said, the words you chose, and also the things you chose to defend, say more about you than the art
You can also replace woke with another word and it is indeed true that this hypothetical game has a message of female empowerment by having a strong female lead yes. Fallout can have an anti-capitalist message whether you’re pro or anti capitalist yourself and use your own word of choice to denigrate or praise the message. The word you chose says more about you than the message.
What was your point already?
I’ve been playing the series since LttP. Twilight Princess is my top, for presentation and storytelling.
I feel like Skyward Sword tried to repeat that, but the dungeons and style / atmosphere of the world of TP still come out on top (even though I’m not very much into gothic style and furries). I think SS is way too cartoonish and happy-go-lucky for a world where the surface has been abandoned to the demons and yet everyone who lives there is cool (gorons, kiwis, moles, proto-Zora), that’s a massive tonal dissonance between the narration and the actual environment and it just takes me out.
The next ones on my top list are Minish Cap and Link Between Worlds.
I know what you mean, but Nintendo is a pretty bad example to illustrate that sentiment. I mean, they totally do corporate crap to benefit them and not the players obviously, but the Zelda series is literally built around the gimmicks of the console. They start thinking about a gimmick, either on the console and / or how to turn that into a gameplay gimmick, and then they make a Zelda game around that. OoT had the rumble pack and then tried to do Ura Zelda that was supposed to be the system seller for the DD64 - but that blew up and was salvaged between Master Mode and Majora’s Mask. The GameCube had Four Swords with the connection to the GBA and the multiplayer. The Wii had Skyward Sword with the motion thing, the Wii U had the separate tablet. The DS then the 3DS weren’t too relevant for Zelda but they tried, and other games did rely on it.
I’m not saying it’s a fact for the whole series, but Nintendo is particularly famous for developing a gimmick console and then building games around that, so yes, the physical console is actually relevant to the game you want to play it on, you’d be hard pressed to port that elsewhere and emulators are always weird and have a lot of work to adapt into something that makes sense on a single screen with a basic gamepad.
So close to understanding how your players play!