Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Assassin's Creed Slated for November Release

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the watch-you-from-behind-you dept.

Games 66

Gamespot reports that Ubisoft's action/stealth title Assassin's Creed now has a release window: November of this year. The game will be available on shelves for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, as well as the PC. "Set in 1191 AD at the height of the Third Crusade for the Holy Land, Assassin's Creed puts players in the silent shoes of Altair and gives them the opportunity "to shape events during this pivotal moment in history." Altair is tied to a group of ruthless assassins whose plan is to bring an end to the bitter struggle by striking out at both warring parties."

cancel ×

66 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nothing could go wrong... (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432333)

Nothing possibly could go wrong with a game where you're a Muslim assassin killing the leaders of the Holy Crusades!

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (4, Insightful)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432577)

When we turn to 'unconventional warfare' in the face of enemy invasion, they are referred to as 'partisans,' 'patriots,' or possibly 'freedom fighters.'

When our friends turn to 'unconventional warfare' in the face of enemy invasion, they are referred to as 'guerillas,' or 'freedom fighters.'

When our enemies turn to 'unconventional warfare' in the face of enemy invasion, they are referred to as 'terrorists,' 'butchers,' or 'cowards.'

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (3, Insightful)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432637)

odd.. most intelligent people only call them those names when they make absolutely no effort to avoid friendly and civilian casualties, in fact we typically reserve coward and butcher for the ones who intentionally try to cause civilian casualties that.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (0)

X-treme-LLama (178013) | more than 7 years ago | (#19434795)

Yeah, and dropping bombs from thousands of miles away has NEVER gone wrong for us. We (the great U.S. of A.) have made plenty of mistakes when it comes to killing civilians. 'Collateral damage' is a term well known to both our military, and the people who live in the places within which we have fought wars or 'smart' bombed. So one could argue that we don't try very hard either. Not entirely true, but it could certainly be argued by people with an extremist point of view.

I think the reality is this:

More U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq than civilians died in the attacks on 9/11, but people aren't nearly as upset. Why? Because there was a far greater psychological impact by killing civilians. It obviously made a tremendous impact. I don't think the attackers did it to act as a catalyst for the paranoia and removal of our freedoms. The talking heads that say that are morons. They did it to say: "Hey FUCK YOU!" with a side order of: "and stay the fuck out of our politics too." We've meddled in the middle east for years, and some (woefully extremist) people finally stuck back. It certainly wasn't the moral high ground, and the people who died certainly didn't deserve it, but the U.S. as a whole (more accurately the government, although 'we the people' didn't oppose the foreign policy) probably did deserve to be reminded that the shit we do can come back to bite us in the ass. We act as if we can impose our national will on people who don't want it. We ferociously support Israel, a country summarily created in an area that already had a country and citizens, thank you very much. And we've helped support Iraq, and Afghanistan (among others) when it suited our national interests, and then dropped them like flies when it didn't.

All the while we ignore legitimate crises, like the AIDS crisis in Africa, or genocide in Darfur, instead we meddle in the middle east because after all, they have oil. (I'd say: Lets hope Bush never figures out where diamonds come from, but they're utterly worthless rocks whose value is artificially inflated due to controlled supply.)

They 'hijackers' and their parent organizations were neither heroes nor villains; terrorists or freedom fighters. They had a cause they believed in, a plan to carry out, and they did it. Their methods we're sickening, and I don't support them, however I do understand the reasons. But instead of acting like we had no idea why it could happen to us what we should have done is track down and punish the guilty (America, FUCK YEAH!), then taken a good hard look at our own actions and thought long and hard about the consequences they had.

Wow, that got off topic quickly didn't it. I uhh, I'm also looking forward to the release of $gamefrompost.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19435921)

We (the great U.S. of A.) have made plenty of mistakes when it comes to killing civilians.

Errr... could you please note your own use of the word mistakes. There's a key difference, don't you think, between intentionally killing civilians as your goal and not being able to avoid killing any civilians as you pursue some other goal?

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (1)

X-treme-LLama (178013) | more than 7 years ago | (#19445213)

Errr, could you please note the sentence(s) which follow stating: "So one could argue that we don't try very hard either. Not entirely true, but it could certainly be argued by people with an extremist point of view." I suppose I could/should have said 'hard enough', however the point stands.

Also I could mention Vietnam, where in some cases killing civillians became a sport.

You could also note the next paragraph where I state the attacks we're conducted to make the greatest psychological impact possible. And targeting civilians was a means to that end.

I suppose actually reading the post is hoping a little much for /. ;)

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19452489)

Actually, what irks me the most is the overly-simplistic attitude we have towards civilians casualties at all. The idea that the US doesn't try hard enough strikes me as historically naive. That we try at all makes us practically unique in the history of armed combat.

Furthermore: who says avoiding civilian casualties is always the morally correct course? I think Sherman made a very compelling case for the idea of "total war", a case that was then expanded upon in world war 2 with the intentional bombing of axis population centers in a concious effort to break the will of our enemies.

I'm sorry if you're not the typical "Oh noes!!11 we killz de babiez!!" type. I'm just frustrated at the overall simplistic judgmentalism and double-standard I see applied to US foreign policy. Of course America has made some extremely bad policy decisions, but not every bad outcome is the result of bad decision making, and in a historical context I think America continues to set a high standard. It needs to be improved, I'm just suck of what I see as blind anti-Americanism.

Apologies if that shoe doesn't fit you.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (1)

X-treme-LLama (178013) | more than 7 years ago | (#19455139)

I agree we try hard, hell we've spent millions and millions of dollars on tech for just that purpose. So yes blind anti-americanism is total horseshit. However informed anti-americanism does have many compelling cases.

Frankly I think we could generate a lot of good will, stabilize (nearly) an entire continent, and save boat loads of cash in the long run if we stopped burning money in Iraq and on defense (i.e. writing blank checks to Haliburton) and invested not only our money but our time working towards a poverty and disease free Africa.

The middle east has waaaaaaaaay to many problems to fix, and unlike most Africans, they don't *want* us to fix them. I'm pretty sure if we started sending money and medication to Africa we wouldn't make that many enemies. But I bet we would make a lot of friends. In the middle east we should encourage Democracy when and where it happens, and help to stabilize the region how ever we can, but war (or occupation now) really isn't the answer.

Hell send the USACoE over to build some infrastructure (plumbing, power, telephones and maybe even internet) haliburton could even have the contracts. At least we'd be over-paying to do some good. We don't have to blindly throw money at it, that probably will just breed corruption, but if we help elevate EVERY country in Africa in to the 20th (yes I said 20th) century the world would be a much better place.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19459293)

and invested not only our money but our time working towards a poverty and disease free Africa.

I suggest you take a look at "White Man's Burden" by William Eastery, and possibly "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto, and most certainly this interview of a Kenyan economist by der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,363663,00.html [spiegel.de]

Here's the intro to the interview:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.


I'm pretty sure if we started sending money and medication to Africa we wouldn't make that many enemies.

Sadly this is not true. Take a look at Somalia. And why is this the case? Because to a great extent American aid (and Western aid in general) bolsters autocratic regimes either directly or indirectly.

The basic premise of Easterly's book is summed up on wikipedia:

In 2006, former World Bank economist William Easterly published The White Man's Burden, an analysis of "why the West's efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good". In this book he questioned the 'utopian social engineering' that the development community brings to local communities and plays the idea of the White Man's Burden through current benign intentions (Bill Gates, Bono, Sachs, etc.) ultimately derived from a long history of meddling in others' affairs - that usually goes wrong.

In it Easterly directly links the War in Iraq with African aid as two parallels facets of Western arrogance. We think we can impose political order on Iraq through military power, and we think we can impose economic and social order in Africa through gobs of money. Both cases are complete disasters. The arrogance of the right is met only with the arrogance of the left. Both seek good goals - freedom and stability - but both are doomed not only to failure, but to exacerbate tensions.

Hell send the USACoE over to build some infrastructure (plumbing, power, telephones and maybe even internet) haliburton could even have the contracts. At least we'd be over-paying to do some good. We don't have to blindly throw money at it, that probably will just breed corruption, but if we help elevate EVERY country in Africa in to the 20th (yes I said 20th) century the world would be a much better place.

This is exactly the type of nation-building utopianism that Shikwati claims is ruining his country (Kenya) and ultimately the entire continent. Yeah - send over Haliburton to build up the infrastucture. This is essentially the game plan of western aid for the last 40 years. A "big push" that would in one fell swoop elevate Africa beyond the quagmire of poverty and on the path to economic development. It doesn't work.

If you want to do something that does work, we need to reform Western aid agencies so that they are accountable to the people they are intended to serve (Africans) and not to well-intentioned but clueless Westerners (like Bono). As de Soto argues the poor of the world already have something like 9 trillion in assets that - given legal infrastucture - they could leverage as capital to lift themselves out of poverty. Another good idea is micro-lending. It's also important to keep Milton Friedman's theories in mind: political freedom is inextricably linked to economic freedom which is in turn inextricably linked to prosperity.

I applaud your ideals, but you need to examine the Wests dismal history of failure before you call for more of the same. Billions of dollars in forein aid have not managed to stamp out malaria in 4 decades (DDT would have done the trick if the West hadn't penalized developing nations from using it, but that's another story). In one day we can get Harry Potter book 7 into the hands of every kid in the west who wants one. In 3 or 4 decades we haven't gotten malaria vaccines to every kid in Africa who needs them. We have billions of dollars in donations, rock concerts, and an alphabet soup of aid agencies working on the malaria vaccine issue. Harry Potter books get no such infrastructure. One works, the other doesn not. Maybe it's time to realize our aid is part of the problem.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (1)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436483)

Really? back in the day, the British considered the IRA to be 'terrorists,' who specifically bombed 'public places.' Yes, they gave advanced warning. Not a mitigating factor.

They, of course, referred to themselves as the 'Irish Republican Army,' and did a fair chunk of their fundraising in the good old US of A.

So, one man's Soldier is another man's Terrorist, and a third man's charity of choice.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (2, Insightful)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432783)

What does that have to do with my post?

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (1)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436289)

What does that have to do with my post?

Well, you said:

Nothing possibly could go wrong with a game where you're a Muslim assassin killing the leaders of the Holy Crusades!

Implying a great deal, I thought, of sarcasm. Well, guess what. During the Crusades, Christians did, in fact, invade Moslem lands. The Moslems fought back. Why is this a problem? Maybe they even used unconventional warfare tactics, such as assassination. Why is this a problem? Why should an invaded people feel the need to constrain themselves? Well, there's all sorts of reasons why, actually, but there's nothing inherently *wrong* with defending yourselves; there are just ways to go about it that will have consequences that might outweigh their effectiveness.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19432649)

It'd be great to be as ignorant as a muslim wouldn't it? Fuck that, any religion would just ease the burden on the mind.

To not have to worry about geology, physics, astronomy, biology and just write it off as all manifestations of god's will.

To fool myself into thinking that death will get me virgins, or philanthropy will get me up high or praying to a rosary is somehow not a waste of my day.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19432697)

I'm happy to be going to hell. My death will get me Hitler's daytime talkshow, japanese gameshows, grilled prawns, steak and lobster, and all the dirty girls (eventually). Heh, enjoy your virgins.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (0)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#19434019)

How is practicing your religion a waste of time? Most people get to decide which, if any, religion to follow, and most people don't pray out of fear. They do it because they feel like it.

That's hardly any more of a waste of time than you doing the things you like to do, regardless of what they are.

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (1)

Kortalh (1102177) | more than 7 years ago | (#19434809)

Most people don't get to decide which religion to follow. Most people follow whichever religion they've been taught to follow by their parents. People may be theoretically able to decide their religion, but in reality it is not an option for most people as they've been raised to think, "we are right, they are wrong". Besides that, breaking from the established religion of one's immediate culture is taboo at best, and people tend not to do so. Were religion truly an option, you would likely see less global religious regions. For example, when I say "Hinduism", you most likely think of India.

Secondly, most people do pray out of fear. Perhaps not necessarily a fear of Hell, but almost certainly out of fear of being ostracized by their friends, family, and society. Hell is a powerful thing to fear, however. I would suspect that even many ex-Christian Atheists occasionally wonder, "What if I'm wrong?" I'm certainly not a wishy-washy person, but as an ex-Christian myself, it is a fear that tends to pop up during theological discussions.

Lastly, religion is a waste of time, assuming said religion is wrong. What would happen if the Pope, upon his death, finds himself standing before Anubis instead of Saint Peter? He would have wasted decades of his life in praying to Yahweh, only to find himself being gnawed on by Ammut for the rest of eternity for being wrong. More realistically, a Christian who spends, say, 8 hours each week in prayer, would be quite disappointed were he to realize that there is no afterlife, and he could've spent all of that time simply enjoying his life. For a 70-year-old, that means over 25,000 hours spent in prayer. Could you think of better ways to spend that time, assuming there is no God?

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (0, Offtopic)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432877)

Being that the word Assassin comes to us from the Arabic term for "Hashish Eater", the image of the "crazy" stealthy Muslim killer has for a long time had a lot of influence on white european's deepest fears.

So people make a game that some people are sure to find disturbing. So what? GTA anyone?

LK

Re:Nothing could go wrong... (1)

SnowNinja (1051628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19433155)

How it releasing a game about it different than releasing and book or documentary? This way the topic gets much more exposure, and what better way to sell copies than to pick a topic of debate? It worked for GTA.

War was beginning... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19432379)

Set in 1191 AD

Pfft... AD 2101, on the other hand... That's a year that I would be interested in as a setting for a game.

Re:War was beginning... (1)

Manatra (948767) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432967)

Considering some of the information leaks, I wouldn't be surprised if it is set in 2101.

Let me be the first to say... (0, Flamebait)

Kagura (843695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432387)

Allahu Akbar!

Hmm (0, Flamebait)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432425)

While the game looks good, I think I'm sufficiently uncomfortable with the idea of assassinating Christians in the Holy Land to not buy this game. I know people killed in Iraq, and I just don't think it would be fun for me to play the great-great-etc-grandfather of the people running around setting IEDs in Iraq right now.

Re:Hmm (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19432565)

Yeah, probably better to just stick to counterstrike.

Re:Hmm (1)

swimin (828756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432653)

I wish I had mod points.

Re:Hmm (1)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432599)


It's just a game. You'd be more comfortable killing people in games you have no emotional ties to?

Hmm-Kill all humans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19433951)

"It's just a game. You'd be more comfortable killing people in games you have no emotional ties to?"

Now aren't you glad we don't have holodecks?

Re:Hmm (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432671)

Your not just killing Christians.

Re:Hmm (0, Troll)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432729)

Your not just killing Christians.

Oh, that's right - it's Islamic based - which means you get to get away with killing anyone who doesn't believe what you do.

Re:Hmm (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432765)

Actually do you have clue about the group that altair is part of at all?

Re:Hmm (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432829)

Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin [wikipedia.org] I'm not a school currently so i don't have access to any other articles worth noting, the wiki article pulls from 2 of the ones I would link otherwise.

Re:Hmm (1)

toddhunter (659837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432781)

I understand. When I went to Egypt I visited the war memorials at El Alamein. Later on I was playing call of duty 2 when I got to the missions held in that part of the world. Suddenly it just wasn't fun any more.

Re:Hmm (1)

Cowardly Anonymity (1104529) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432805)

I'd rather not take a good looking game (albeit with a theme that seems rather pertinent to our times) and extrapolate that to Christian vs. Muslim or US vs. Iraq. Playing an assassin is a relatively popular concept among gamers, and this is only a translation in time...forwards or backwards remains to be seen.

And before we assume, let's research the Encyclopedia of Nearly Everything. Wikipedia says about the Hashshashin, the group that Altair in the game is affiliated with: "The Hashshashin (also Hashishin, Hashashiyyin or Assassins) was a religious sect of Ismaili Muslims from the Nizari sub-sect. They had a militant basis which was employed in various political or religious purposes. They were thought to be active from 1090 to 1272. This mystic secret society was known to specialize in terrorising the crusaders with fearlessly executed, politically motivated assassinations. Bernard Lewis however states that unlike the popular belief, their efforts were not primarily directed at crusades but against Muslim rulers whom they saw as impious usurpers."

Plus, I believe I read somewhere that Ubisoft is taking great pains not to make this a religiously explosive or controversial. Now, if your choice is to avoid playing the game due to discomfort of the setting, that is perfectly fine (if you happen to not like being a Muslim killing Crusade leaders - which is only one part of the game that we know about...there may be more). But it's not alright to jump to the "Hashshashin in the 1191 equals Al Quaeda or Shiite" train of thought. Just like it's not alright to think "Crusaders in 1191 equals Southern Baptist or Methodist."

Educate Thyself (5, Insightful)

aldheorte (162967) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432889)

Christians were not the target of the actual group historically referenced, and the game materials talk of targeting both sides:
Hashshashin [wikipedia.org] Aside from that, this is one of the most bizarre commentaries I have ever seen. How does the logic even connect? Would you be comfortable if the game featured a Christian sect running around assassinating Muslims during the Crusades? How about if you could play both sides? Would you play it then?

Re:Educate Thyself (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 7 years ago | (#19434407)

If you don't understand, it's kind of like a Japanese person playing Medal of Honor: Rising Sun. Or any of the various games which end with the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan.

Re:Educate Thyself (1)

Salamande (461392) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437083)

The 1942 [wikipedia.org] series, based on the Battle of Midway with the player trying to destroy the Japanese fleet, was made by a Japanese company, and was extremely popular in its native land. Go figure.

Re:Educate Thyself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19438331)

MOH:RS was popular in Japan - exceptionally so for a Western-developed FPS game. Hell, when Pearl Harbor came out in Japan it was the biggest grossing movie ever.

People (and I'm not limiting this to Japanese people) have no taste. Case in point: I saw Zombie Hunter in a shop today and am excited about picking it up soon. The game is based around a girl in a bikini cutting up zombies with a sword, and getting splatted with their guts. Fuck yeah!

Re:Hmm (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432929)

But if you kill all the Christians, there won't be an America to invade Iraq in the future. You'd be saving lives!

Re:Hmm (0, Flamebait)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 7 years ago | (#19435217)

In other words, killing muslims (in a video game) = fine, killing christians = bad. I always knew a lot of americans didn't really value the lives of muslims, maybe I'm only seeing what I wanna see but I think your comment perfectly illustrates this.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19435555)

Americans is a proper noun. Would it kill you to learn some basic grammar?

Re:Hmm (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437649)

Same goes for Muslim, but yet you focused on the word American. Interesting.. I wonder what nationality you could possibly be..

Re:Hmm (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437579)

Did I say killing Muslims was good? However, I am Christian, and so rewriting history to kill Christians in order to be more politically correct doesn't sit well with me. If I was a Muslim, I'd probably be uncomfortable with the game, too.

Re:Hmm (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437717)

In order to be more politically correct? What on Earth are you talking about? Anyways, muslims during the crusades killed a hell of a lot of christians, I don't see what we're rewriting there.

Re:Hmm (1)

penp (1072374) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436379)

Never mind the fact that the Crusades are one of the bloodiest time periods in history, a time when Christians slaughtered countless people (trying to convert muslims) in the name of their Lord and Savior.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19437525)

In response to Muslim terrorism... and the cycle of bloodshed continued.

Honestly, the portrayal of the crusaders as the bad guys in the conflict ignores the cause of the crusades, which was Muslim terrorism, not the fall of Jerusalem to Muslim (which had taken place centuries earlier) -- they were beginning to butcher Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. That's what sparked the whole mess. Europe was fine with Muslims owning Jerusalem as long as they allowed open pilgrimage.

OS? (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432497)

great news. does any one know what OS ubisoft plans to release it on? most importantly, will it be a vista-exclusive? cause they would totally kill it for me. anyone knows ubisofts previous actions on OSs?

Re:OS? (1)

SnowNinja (1051628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19433107)

Looks right now like it's Xbox 360 and PS3. As far as I can tell there are no plans for a PC version.

Re:OS? (1)

deftcoder (1090261) | more than 7 years ago | (#19433385)

Have you been living under a rock? It was announced that it would be for PC since E3 last year...

He wants to know WHICH versions of Windows are supported, e.g. does it use DirectX 10 only? (forcing it to run on Vista only)

Re:OS? (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19433399)

So, 'as far as you can tell' doesn't even include reading the summary?

Anyway, they said it would be coming out for PC about 10 months ago [gamespot.com] .

Re:OS? (1)

reanjr (588767) | more than 7 years ago | (#19433525)

Plans are to release on the "System Software" OS and particular stripped versions of "Windows 2000". Unfortunately, the game imposes some strict hardware requirements so don't hold your breath thinking that you'll be able to play it on your current system.

(In other words, this isn't planned as a PC game, it's PS3 and XBox 360)

Sounds like the Thief series. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19432575)


That is A Good Thing.

Positive View of Islam? (4, Insightful)

Zaphenath (980370) | more than 7 years ago | (#19432955)

First off, I will say I am excited about this game, and have been since I first heard about it.

I am hoping that this game will help some Westerners have a more positive view of Islam. Now, it is it somewhat funny to be saying that, since the protagonist is not only Islamic, but also an assassin. Not something you want to associate with any major religion.

I just hope this game can, in some way, show people that all world religions are not as monolithic as they are often portrayed. Not every Muslim is a terrorist. Plain and simple. Just like not every Christian bombs abortion clinics. MOST Muslims are sane, rational people. Just like Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists. SOME are frickin' nuts. It just so happens that the "frickin' nuts" ones get more airtime. Maybe with this game people can start to sympathize with Muslims, and perhaps see both sides of the story.

It just makes me sad that so many people have this twisted view of Islam, since the only representatives of the religion on TV are eccentric or terrorists.

And before anyone starts quoting the Koran with crazy violent and questionable texts, just remember that ALL the religions are a little nuts, and that most major religious texts (including the Bible) has some pretty scary stuff in it. (Think Old Testament, cutting off of hands, stoning women, beating children, having bears eat some kids who were harassing you, etcetera.)

Oh, and I think everyone is very probably looking to deep into this game, and if anything it makes a great backdrop for a potentially amazing and fun game.

Re:Positive View of Islam? (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19434365)

I am hoping that this game will help some Westerners have a more positive view of Islam.

And I think this is a much-needed thing. I live in Europe, and many of my friends are muslims, so I usually don't experience too much anti-muslim behaviour, or anti-muslim opinions. But whenever there's something on Slashdot that even remotely touches on the topic, I read dozens and dozens of misinformed, hate-filled anti-muslim posts. It's sad how much hatred some people seem to have against Islam - something they obviuosly have no clue about, other than "these are the guys who kill us on TV!"

(I'm an atheist, by the way)

Re:Positive View of Islam? (1)

fudspong (1113041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19435733)

There is no god, whether islam, christian or other. There is amongst religeous groups no respect for others of alternative beliefs, and for a very good reason - they rely on the subscription model to maintain their existence, and as the capitalist model shows us, they are not tolerant to competition within the market. That's all it is, a market. A cattle market. There's no souls to be won or lost, no point to be made, and only market share to be gained. Did you think your preachers/imams did it for fun?

Re:Positive View of Islam? (1)

furball (2853) | more than 7 years ago | (#19438155)

There is no god, whether islam, christian or other


The logician Godel has a proof that there is a god.

Re:Positive View of Islam? (1)

ShadowsHawk (916454) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437091)

I think most moderate people realize that the majority of Muslims are decent people. Having said that, I think the big problem that the Muslim community faces is perception. If a large portion of the community spoke out against the violence that we see on a daily basis, people would be far more accepting. Could it be that silence is seen as the community condoning violence?

Re:Positive View of Islam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19439689)

You're right, all religious groups, atheists included, have crazy people. However, even my Muslim friends will tell you that Muslims are more likely to react violently to something they don't like than people of any other religious group.

Look at the violence sparked by those cartoons in that Dutch newspaper? When, in recent history, have you seen other groups react in such a manner over something they found similarly offensive?

Now, the majority of Muslims are decent, rational, good people. Like I said, I have Muslim friends who are nothing like the extremists. The problem is that the decent people are generally afraid to speak up and in certain parts of the world it's easy to whip people up into a frenzy.

Clearly, people shouldn't generalize. But to make politically correct, blanket claims that all groups are the same is denying reality.

In the end these arguments will probably all be irrelevant. Assassin's Creed will probably be sanitized to the point of having no identifiable religious group and unfortunately, given the world we live in that may be the best option.

Historical accuracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19433361)

The Crusades are still a thorny issue for some. I mean, I'd like to know what the developers will avoid sensitive issues. Especially when they claim that the player will help shape events during some pivotal point in history.

In the end I think it's going to come down to who the developers are more afraid of offending. Christians might threaten to boycott and write a few letters, but that's about it. A few might try to force creationism and intelligent design down your throat but they're not violent.

Look at the absurd rioting and violence that ensued when that Dutch newspaper published those drawings of Mohammed. And those drawings came about because some author was frustrated that he couldn't find anyone to illustrate a children's book about Mohammed.

All sides in the Crusades were brutal. I hope they don't take the politically correct move by depicting the Europeans as the sole aggressors. I'd like to see some historical accuracy. Either that or make the game a complete fantasy.

Please elaborate (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19434385)

All sides in the Crusades were brutal. I hope they don't take the politically correct move by depicting the Europeans as the sole aggressors.

Please elaborate. I don't remember ever hearing that Saladin came to Europe and killed the Christians there.

Re:Please elaborate (1)

LeninZhiv (464864) | more than 7 years ago | (#19434747)

Saladin, no. But the Umayyads [wikipedia.org] sure did, up until Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi [wikipedia.org] anyway.

Re:Please elaborate (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19434933)

Umayyad conquest of Hispania: 711-718
First Crusade: 1096-1099

How is that connected to the Crusades?

Re:Please elaborate (1)

LeninZhiv (464864) | more than 7 years ago | (#19435415)

I was talking about an "instance of Muslims invading Europe and killing Christians" (although I would argue that religion had a lot less to do with either war than most people assume), and not the Crusades specifically, which were obviously the other way round.

The Turkish conquest of southeast Europe (itself made possible in large part by the Crusaders' sacking of Byzantium) could've served as another example of the Europeans not being the aggressors.

Re:Please elaborate (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19435519)

Ah, okay. I did not mean to imply that Muslims never attacked Europe. The original point was that the Europeans were not the sole aggressors in the Crusades. Anonymous Coward wrote: "All sides in the Crusades were brutal. I hope they don't take the politically correct move by depicting the Europeans as the sole aggressors."

I was disputing that a game like this should show the Muslims as aggressors in the context of the Crusades; not that the muslims never attacked Europe.

Re:Historical accuracy. (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19438371)

I hope they don't take the politically correct move by depicting the Europeans as the sole aggressors. I'd like to see some historical accuracy.


This is the Crusades we are talking about, right? Europeans organized and carried them out.

The only historical quibble I might have is if they depict non-Christians as the sole victims. Generally the Crusading armies had no compunction about attacking their co-religionists on the way there, and at least one of the Crusades never accomplished anything more than gutting the Byzantine Empire (Greek Orthodox Christian) to pay off the bankers.

I can't get at the link, but they could be quite historically accurate if they stick to a specific crusade, and perhaps depict the player as a member of the Iranian (not Arab) tribe of Assassins of Almut [thinkquest.org] . However, they were the original fundamentalist muslim terrorists, so I can see where a lot of gamers (myself included) might be a bit uncomfortable playing from their viewpoint.

Athiests will love it! (1)

p4rri11iz3r (1084543) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437365)

Because clearly anyone who disagrees with your beliefs (or non-beliefs) deserves to be killed.

Every comment thread off-topic? (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437843)

I see a lot of talk about whether or not it's ok to kill christians/muslims?

This ISN'T a game about killing christians OR killing muslims.

This is a game about being a badass assassin who climbs walls and wtfpwnz guys that never see it coming. Then flips out and kills all the guards with slick swordplay. The context is interchangable and unimportant, and hints have already been leaked that the context is exactly that. The game is rumored to be set in the future and this is all just VR training, with sequels set in other locales. The game is about being a "ninja" but in the middle-east(and not japanese:P).

I don't think anybody wants to play this for any other reason? I have yet to see a response to a preview of this game along the lines of, "Awesome! I've been looking for a game where I can kill christian/muslims for awhile now! Sweet!"

This all might be more relevant if you were walking up to your targets with bombvests, but that's not the case here. Assasination isn't even a new type of game.

bah (1)

spikeb (966663) | more than 7 years ago | (#19451629)

it's also coming to the DS you asshats
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?