Psychopath's Creed

by Wardog

Kyra was designed, developed and produced by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs.
~
Before Christmas I was feeling under the weather, so I decided to treat myself to the latest instalment of Psychopath’s Creed. I have a slightly tormented history with these games but, nevertheless, I do seem to keep buying them. I’ve never actually finished one because, the truth is, I’m into them for all the wrong reasons. I couldn’t give a fuck about basically anything that’s going on in them: all I want to do is ride a horse and run over the rooftops of history, occasionally pausing to stab somebody in the neck for no apparent reason. I can do this for upwards of twenty of hours but then there comes a point when the games start wanting me to actually participate. And then I get bored.

Apparently there’s some sort of plot going on with like the end of the world and the Templars and the Assassins and some douche called Desmond who happens to be Q’s son. Who knew!?

By far the most successful PsychoCreed variant for me was the second outing. It fixed most of the problems of the first and made playing the game basically optional. I spent ages getting an outfit I liked, riding a horsey around, climbing bits of Renaissance Italy and then jumping off them, fixing up my house, hiring prostitutes, being nice to my sister and bro-ing it up with Leonardo da Vinci. It was great. It was kind of like Theme Villa meets Barbie Horse Rider Pro meets Itinerate Half-Arsed Neck Stabber 3D.

PsychoCreed 3 builds nicely on this tradition by giving you even more to do that isn’t the game. Unfortunately , as I discovered slightly too late in the experience, when I’d already poured several hours into the pleasures of Running Around And Jumping Off Things, the game was shit. I should have known something was rotten when the horses were rubbish. There’s nowhere really to ride them because they’re not very good in forests or in cities, since they can neither climb trees nor free-run (buff horses, horses are under-powered) . But you get a motherfucking boat, which strikes me as reasonable compensation. I am, I think, the only person in the known universe who likes the motherfucking boat. And, to be honest, I think I could probably have derived the same basic enjoyment from hiring a bunch of people to run backwards and forwards in front of me while I shouted “Full sail”.

PsychoCreed has always been a bit like an over-protective parent, handing out its smarties one by one, but the third instalment is particularly grudging. Tutorial, after tutorial, after tutorial. Storywise, although I was cursing the length of the prologue before I was halfway through it, I quite enjoyed the bait ‘n’ switch. For some reason, I completely failed to see it coming although I totally should have because I was playing someone with an English accent and we all know what that means. It’s also slightly problematic in that you go from playing awesome-cool-English-guy-with-many-sharp-putdowns to whiny-teenage-protagonist-with-no-sharp-putdowns-whatsoever. And it’s all downhill from there. Perhaps if I was American I’d be shedding a patriotic tear to find myself with the opportunity to be Rosencrantz or Guildenstern on the fringes of what I presume are some pretty significant battles of the American Revolution. But I found it about as engaging as looking at somebody else’s holiday photos and it, once again, typifies PsychoCreed’s on-going problem with marrying its story and its gameplay. And its general ambivalence about the player having, y’know, fun.

PsychoCreed basically has a very tiny sweetspot. It takes about seven hours to get a point where the game lets you start ignoring it properly and then you can get a good few hours of aimless self-indulgence in before the game throws a tantrum and insists you get on with playing. Whereupon you’re going to be locked into a straight corridor until you have choice left but to pull your own teeth out. I’ve said several times that, for me, one of the hallmarks of workingness in games is how much they make you feel like what you’re supposed to be. And it doesn’t matter whether that’s a farmer or a ninja-wizard in a skull mask, as long as somebody somewhere in the development process remembered that games are supposed to be fun (although, arguably, GTA IV went a bit far in this direction, in making you feel genuinely like a miserable illegal immigrant with no recourse but to turn to crime – which kinda drains all the excitement out of shooting pedestrians and reversing over prostitutes). And the core problem of PyschoCreed 3 is that it feels less like a free-running, neck-stabbing, assassination simulator and more like Cooking With Mother. The game spends so much of its time telling you exactly how to behave there’s basically no fun or freedom left.

I know I whinged to buggery about the flags in PsychoCreed 1 but come back, come back, all is forgiven. At least the heart of PsychoCreed 1 involved being given a target and left to get on with the murdering. PsychoCreed 3 basically has you doing everything EXCEPT murdering people. Worse still, the missions are annoyingly checkpointed and come with annoying little mini-challenges that inevitably dictate you achieve a certain goal in the least entertaining way.

The other exciting thing to note about PsychoCreed 3 is that, of course, you are (controversially) a brown person. The protagonist, Ratonhnhaké:ton, is half-Native American. There’s even dialogue when he talks to other Native Americans, and it’s not in English. Omg. My tiny white mind, it is so blown. The thing is, the Ubisoft folks do genuinely seem to be trying to do it right – as right as a bunch of white dudes working in game design can do it and I don’t get to score Minority Warrior points by going on about what I perceive to be the failures of other white dudes. But ultimately there are no points for trying and the fact is, PsychoCreed 3 is problematic in about a million troublesome ways.
On the one hand, I think it’s by and large positive that the PsychoCreed games do have a history of non-white protagonists; that these non-white protagonists are mysterious mass-murdering free-runners is, y’know, not so great. The problem with the assassin-trope is that it is heavily bound up in concepts of social otherness, distance and defiance – which obviously gets messy when it gets unconsciously and inevitably entangled with ideas about race.

Again, I must emphasise that my perspective on these matters is very much that of a mildly uncomfortable, generally worried white person, but the thing that really really troubles me about the portrayal of these non-white protagonists is how much it’s driven by a need to make sure I’m okay with it. ‘I’, in this instance, meaning my identity as a probably white, probably male gamer. It honestly seems that the game is more interested in making sure that I can comfortably identify with the non-white protagonist than, err, portraying the non-white protagonist.

Altaïr ibn-La'Ahad from the first game, for example, addressed this issue by having no personality whatsoever – he really was just a skin for Desmond to wander around in, which is deeply unpleasant when you stop and think about it. Ratonhnhaké:ton is somewhat better articulated and, one of the strengths of the PsychoCreed games is the way they can span the best part of a lifetime, so it’s nice to watch him grow from a tousle-haired moppet, playing hide and seek with his tousle-haired moppet friends, to awesome assassinatitude. Personality is still pretty optional, however, especially compared to fabulous prologue man. And, of course, Ratonhnhaké:ton is half-white so there’s 50% of him that’s totally meant to be me! Identify away, dear white, Western player!

There’s also the extent to which the game sets out to separate him from his Native American family as quickly as possible: his mother is, of course, conveniently killed and he ends up leaving the tribe to pursue his future as an assassin, guided by the spirit of, um, Juno. Right. And the first thing Old Black Mentor Figure does is arbitrarily decide it would be better if he was called Connor since ‘Ratonhnhaké:ton’ gives too much of his heritage away. Because looking like a Native American and carrying an honest to God tomahawk doesn’t. Maybe I’m just being cynical, but it feels to me like they genuinely didn’t want anybody to have to strain themselves pronouncing ‘Ratonhnhaké:ton’ (which, to be fair, I can’t either but only because the game only says it like once and I’m sure if they kept using it my westernised ears would get with the plot). It’s even weirder when OBMF specifically says that Ratonhnhaké:ton’ could probably pass as a Spaniard – Connor, yes, that traditional Spanish name.

So ultimately it feels to me as though Ratonhnhaké:ton’s race is largely irrelevant to the proceedings and his skin colour is little more than a slider they arbitrarily decided to flip one way more than the other. I suppose there’s an extent to which that’s better than the alternative, which is fetishisation out the wazoo, but racial identity is not a toy for white people to play with. No matter how much fun you make it.

The other thing that makes me go “ew” is the stronghold plot. In PsychoCreed 2 you got a dilapidated Italian villa and you could make it awesome. In PsychoCreed 3 you get this idealised frontier settlement, in which rugged individuals of all nationalities come together to build the American Dream on some land that fucking well belonged to the people already living on it. What’s particularly galling about basically all of this plotline is that Ratonhnhaké:ton gets an insane number of po-faced speeches about his commitment to colonialism. He keeps saying things like “everyone has the right to live free” and “everyone has the right to a home” which are lovely sentiments, yes, but he appears to have entirely forgotten that he’s Native American, and these people are making their homes on top of his home. It’s like the game is attempting to create an alternative picture of the colonisation of America, in which there were some people who did not believe in freedom and the American Dream, and some other people who did, and that the Native Americans would have totally been on-side with this second group if they hadn’t been largely murdered by the first group. And frankly, explicitly enforcing American frontier values on the very people most harmed by them is repulsive in every conceivable way.

This brings me on to my second, slightly weird and entirely selfish issue with PyschoCreed 3, which is the portrayal of the English. According to PsychoCreed 3, The American Revolution was a largely-accent based conflict. I’ve seen it argued that the game goes out of its way to present the historical events in a nuanced and balanced way. Does it bollocks. Yes, yes, the meta text – the encyclopaedia which you can pause the game to read if you can be arsed (and who can be arsed?) – does point out that it was a complicated situation, that both sides thought they had a sensible point to make and that there were no goodies or baddies, just a lot of people dying in mud. But, the in-game events (at least, as far as I played before I bogged down in the sheer tedium of having my hand held and not being allowed to actually neck-stab anybody) basically depict an American Revolution that came about because some people who talked either like Michael Caine or Jeremy Irons came over to America and were mean. Political stances, however apparently nuanced, are reflected largely through dialogue: Native Americans speak with American accents, good colonials speak in European or American accents, and everybody else is an oppressing limey cocksucker. As the game unfolds, Ratonhnhaké:ton wanders around heroically liberating people from accent-persecution by the Michael Caine/Jeremy Irons redcoat army.

Now, I get that a bunch of people from Europe did, in fact, go over to America and commit a bunch of atrocities. But the game goes to a ludicrous amount of effort to distance the colonists from anything bad that happened during the colonisation, laying that solely at the feet of the English. And the more I play the game, the more it’s starting to get me down. Particularly depressing for me is the act of liberating a fort, an optional activity you can undertake that involves infiltrating a fort, killing a bunch of English people, stabbing the Captain in the neck and blowing up their supplies with dynamite. Control of the fort then passes to the colonists and you get some tax breaks but the highlight of the whole proceeding is when you’re obliged to triumphantly lower the British flag and hoist the American one, to cheering and fireworks and an unskippable cutscene of sad English people being musket-butted out of their fort.

Um. That’s my country’s flag. My actual country’s flag.

I’m not particularly patriotic. I’m not a flag-owner or a flag-waver or a BNP supporter. But it honestly feels pretty unpleasant to discover I’m expected to relish the literal and symbolic defeat of my country. Yeah, I know we didn’t have any right to be there, but neither did the colonists. And I know English People Are Bad Guys is a long-established trope that isn’t going anywhere. We have excellent accents, we sound like villains, we like tea, I get it. But it turns out I just don’t have in me to get even fictionally interested in spitting in my country’s eye. I’m not generally protective of England. The truth is, when I’m given the choice to be shitty to my country, I usually jump on it. Lots of my Crusader Kings games involve waging jihads on Oxford. In my present Xcom game, London is fucked and I cackle every time I see it. But what’s different in PsychoCreed 3 is the total lack of awareness that England is, y’know, a real place, with real people in it who might not entirely enjoy non-consensually celebrating their own defeat. It might also have something to do with the difference in presenting a particular individual as an antagonist and the reduction of an entire culture to the equivalent of invading aliens or, y’know, orcs. Mooks to be mowed down by the hero.

And at this point, I started to feel really really really bad for all those games in which I have cheerfully machine gunned a bunch of Arabs. The thing is, I am very aware, very very aware, that “omg, they’re presenting the English in a mean way” is absolutely the whining of the privileged. And I’m not remotely equating this experience of minor personal discomfort with anything like the impact of an entire culture of entertainment being designed around the interests and assumptions of a majority to which you do not belong. But it did make me stop and think. And I will certainly hesitate before buying another game in which the antagonists can be lumped wholesale into the category of ‘people who are not you.’

Between its dullness and its politics, I’ve been pretty glad to abandon PsychoCreed 3. The last moment of pleasure it gave me was the dysynchronisation that arose when I accidentally neck-stabbed George Washington. But I suspect that’s as good as it ever gets.
~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~
Comments (go to latest)
Arthur B at 02:52 on 2013-01-07
Apparently there’s some sort of plot going on with like the end of the world and the Templars and the Assassins and some douche called Desmond who happens to be Q’s son. Who knew!?

Wait, is this Q as in the space god that trolls Captain Picard or Q as in the guy who makes all of James Bond's toys?
http://jmkmagnum.blogspot.com/ at 04:57 on 2013-01-07
Gloriously, deliriously, the former.

I'm having a more positive reaction to PsychoCreed III. I actually quite like the core stabbing gameplay, including the ludicrous ease with which you can dispatch vast hordes of guards by countering and combo'ing your way through them. And I'm pretty tolerant of games leading me around by the nose. I prefer when they don't, and Creed is particularly annoying about it since it gives you so many neat freedom-signifying verbs to play with, but I spend enough time enjoying corridor shooters that I'm not too sensitive to the stifling nature of the mission structure.

It's not grabbing me the way II and Brotherhood did, maybe because Connor isn't as interesting to listen to as Ezio and Boston isn't as interesting to run around in as Venice and Rome. Kind of a shame, but at least we got two really good games out of the franchise.
Fishing in the Mud at 15:56 on 2013-01-07
The last moment of pleasure it gave me was the dysynchronisation that arose when I accidentally neck-stabbed George Washington.

..."Connor did not kill historical figures?"
Daniel F at 08:56 on 2013-01-10
...you know, I liked AC2 enough that I was considering getting this one, but the setting killed it for me: and I'm still not sure why.

One thought that occurs is that the American Revolution has modern political implications. Very few people feel any deep investment in whether the Borgias were bastards or not. Maybe some Catholics were offended, I don't know, but backstabbing Florentine politics and the corruption of the Renaissance papacy aren't really things that people get annoyed about any more. The proper interpretation of the American Revolution, on the other hand, is still a live issue. You know how Americans get about their Founding Fathers.

I have been informed that AC3 actually does its best to handle the Revolution even-handedly and even dares to imply that it might have been imperfect; but even so a game made for the American market has limits in what it can say about the Revolution. As I feel absolutely no desire to follow around Washington or Franklin or Revere and bask in the awesomeness of their dreams of freedom - indeed, I find the prospect slightly nauseating - the setting helped kill my interest in AC3. Especially if I'm a Native American and said dreams of freedom involve killing my people and taking my stuff. Maybe I'm just knee-jerk anti-American, but the whole thing just makes me uncomfortable.

Maybe if I was invested in the ongoing plot of AC, but the whole Templar/Assassin thing is so cartoonish and laughable. I am fine with murdering people in a gorgeously realised historical setting. Can I just do that, please?
Wardog at 09:53 on 2013-01-10
Gloriously, deliriously, the former.

Precisely. Identifying Q was the second happiest moment of playing PsychoCreed 3, after I'd neck-stabbed George Washington. I am so joyous every time I see John de Lancie's little face lighting up my screen... or in this case his weirdly familiar voice.

I'm having a more positive reaction to PsychoCreed III. I actually quite like the core stabbing gameplay, including the ludicrous ease with which you can dispatch vast hordes of guards by countering and combo'ing your way through them.


That's the thing, I also really like the core stabbing gameplay. That's, err, why I bought the game. I mean, I enjoy the riding around on horesback and climbing bits of historical monuments MORE but I also like to break up my time-wasting with intensive sessions of neck-stabbing. The thing that really frustrates me about the game is that it won't let me do any stabbing.

I don't mind gated-mission structure either. As long as I'm not shooting brown people for being brown I dig corridor shooters. I think the difference is that when you're playing a corridor shooter the game doesn't seem to give a toss how you kill people, as long as they wind up dead and if you core gameplay mechanic is "shooting the shit out of stuff" it seems to me that it's important to support that mechanic by allowing the player as much joy and freedom within that structure as possible.

PyschoCreed 3 is the equivalent of a corridor shooter which keeps telling you kill enemies with a small knife for carving fruit rather than the flame-thrower / assault rifle / rocket launcher / katana you'd rather use.

It's not grabbing me the way II and Brotherhood did, maybe because Connor isn't as interesting to listen to as Ezio and Boston isn't as interesting to run around in as Venice and Rome.

Agreed :(

..."Connor did not kill historical figures?"

"Connor did not do anything interesting or fun."

...you know, I liked AC2 enough that I was considering getting this one, but the setting killed it for me: and I'm still not sure why.

Yes, the setting is seriously ungripping. I thought it was partially just me being English and not giving a fuck (sorry Americans). But, I think you're right that it might be the 'wrong' sort of history - and just a bit too close to feel suitably ... exotic, I suppose?

And, actually, it's architecturally uninteresting (square red-brick houses, blah blah blah) which is a total killer for a free-running, neck-stabbing simulator. It really lacks the "wow, I am climbing history" buzz I personally from Renaissance Italy. Also although the landscapes outside the cities are beautiful, climbing trees is a bit dull and lots of the viewpoints are samey. I remember in AC2, at least, that except for the small, generic churches, the viewpoints were pretty individualised and took a bit of attention to climb.

I have been informed that AC3 actually does its best to handle the Revolution even-handedly and even dares to imply that it might have been imperfect

I have yet to discover this. As I said in the review, the Encyclopaedia, if you can be arsed to read it, is very "yo this shit was complicated" but I've found little evidence of it in the actual plot. But, mainly, as you fear, I've spent my time stopping other people assassinating Washington and watching him make speeches.

UNFUN!

I am fine with murdering people in a gorgeously realised historical setting. Can I just do that, please?

*checks* Ubisoft says no.
Melanie at 10:28 on 2013-01-10
What’s particularly galling about basically all of this plotline is that Ratonhnhaké:ton gets an insane number of po-faced speeches about his commitment to colonialism. He keeps saying things like “everyone has the right to live free” and “everyone has the right to a home” which are lovely sentiments, yes, but he appears to have entirely forgotten that he’s Native American, and these people are making their homes on top of his home.


Wow... what the fuck. ಠ_ಠ

But it honestly feels pretty unpleasant to discover I’m expected to relish the literal and symbolic defeat of my country. <snip> The truth is, when I’m given the choice to be shitty to my country, I usually jump on it.snip


And there's a difference between a game making it, sort of incidentally, possible to do something if you feel like it, and actually making a specific... minigame/sidequest/etc., that you're expected to want to do... out of it, too, right?

Either one of those things on its own would be pretty bad, but the combination seems especially... warped.
Daniel F at 13:32 on 2013-01-10
Yes, the setting is seriously ungripping. I thought it was partially just me being English and not giving a fuck (sorry Americans). But, I think you're right that it might be the 'wrong' sort of history - and just a bit too close to feel suitably ... exotic, I suppose?


I did like the suggestion that they should have chosen the French Revolution instead. Lots of gothic architecture and a famous city to jump around, and come on, that's a historical setting tailor-made for a lot of bloodthirsty maniacs sneaking around murdering people for spurious political reasons. (But maybe France isn't very exotic to people who live in Europe. Such as Ubisoft.) Or while throwing around different settings, it would have actually blown my mind a little if they chose, say, the Sepoy Mutiny as their setting. That's another great excuse for a non-white protagonist, you have classical architecture in an exotic setting, and it provides ample opportunity to talk about colonialism if Ubisoft were really so desperate to do that.

The American Revolution is just so played-out. At least give me Bolivar or l'Ouverture or someone. American rebellions, lots of bloodshed, idealism, oppression, non-white people, and who knows, maybe you could get some more people interested in that period of history.

*checks* Ubisoft says no.


There was a bit in AC2, near the end, where some zealot has taken control of Florence and is making people burn works of art and stuff. Savonarola, I think: the Bonfire of the Vanities. In the real world, there were all sorts of reasons for it, but AC2 does not care about silly little details and instead just had him use a magic golden football to mind-control people. (I think I might be able to enjoy the AC plot if it just upped the crack and wallowed in the insanity, but sadly it pretends it has a serious story with themes.)

I am told that many people did not like this DLC, but I quite liked it. I suspect the reason I liked it was the reason other people hated it. What I liked was that there was pretty much zero plot to this DLC, and the only context you got for the murders was 'there is a guy, he is all puritan and fanatical, you do not like him'. Apparently it kills the pacing of the final act of the game. *shrug* The reason it worked for me is that it gives you a list of people around the city who need to die, and then gets out of the way. That's it. It was strangely liberating for the game to at last just shut up about its stupid plot and say 'look, here are some guys, they need to die, make this happen in whatever way you like'. There were a couple of hoops, but for the most part, there was some actual freedom in how to go about those tasks. There were far too many places where AC2 wanted me to kill people but was incredibly picky about how I could do it.

AC as a series has always had quite good core gameplay mechanics and wonderful settings that are tragically shackled to stupid plots, pointless mini-games, and incredibly restrictive game design. In my limited experience, these are games that don't trust themselves enough to just let you play them.
http://jmkmagnum.blogspot.com/ at 17:14 on 2013-01-10
It is annoying how many of the synchronization points are identical. In the Frontier, there are a whole bunch of great huge trees that are absolutely the same. They require the exact same steps to reach the top. It also seems like the synchronization radius is way smaller, so you still have to do a ton of running around to fill in the map.

For some reason, so far I'm not liking the basebuilding aspect of AC3 anywhere near as much as I did in 2 or Brotherhood. Maybe part of it is that my connection to "some guy I just met's homestead" is a lot weaker than to "my family's awesome but decrepit village". Maybe it's because it feels like I get stuff for it at a much slower pace. Maybe it's that instead of getting a bunch of shops that are right there, that I can see and use and immediately upgrade, there's this wonky abstract "Trading" ledger menu system and stuff takes forever.

It does seem like Connor makes a bit of play about the fact that Templars are evilly taking over his family's land and "buying" it and colonizing it without his people's consent, but it plays to me as a very personal reaction that's also driven by the unique nature of his home region (
there's First Civilization doodads on it
) and it's like "But, wait, they're also stealing everyone else's land." It's like they were trying to give Connor some critical reservations about the American project and a social consciousness, but so far it's just pretty cursory. See also: His infrequent "But hey slavery is bad >:[" comments.

---

One of the annoying things about the treerunning sections is that, while they're kind of cool, imo one of the coolest parts of Assassins Creed is how it feels like these are real places that you happen to have the mad skillz to climb around in. There's a few obviously signposted cobblestones and windows and stuff that are placed exactly where you need them, but for the most part it's like "these are just some buildings, oh and you can totally scale them". Whereas the treerunning stuff feels utterly, utterly contrived.

---

One of the aspects that's getting more prominent is palling around with actual recognizable historical figures. I didn't recognize anyone in Assassin's Creed, that I recalled. 2 had you hang out with Leonardo da Vinci and Niccolo Machiavelli, but most of the principals of the game were people like the Borgias about whom I don't have much of a pop-historical conception. And then in 3, you hang out with the entire cast of the American Revolution. I mean, there's a reason for it, it's not like in 2 where it was just "Oh hey by the way you become da Vinci's BFF", but it's still throwing you in for long sessions with actual recognizable Historical Figures in ways that I'm not sure work very well.
Fishing in the Mud at 17:57 on 2013-01-10
You know how Americans get about their Founding Fathers.

I think we're increasingly rolling over and accepting that half of them were basically soulless atheists. There are people who actually think we should stop talking so much about Thomas Jefferson in grade school history books and give his page time to Thomas Aquinas.

one of the coolest parts of Assassins Creed is how it feels like these are real places that you happen to have the mad skillz to climb around in.

Pretty much. I'm having a hard time picturing how 1770s Boston could have much to offer there.
http://jmkmagnum.blogspot.com/ at 18:08 on 2013-01-10
It... doesn't, really. It feels decently enough like an actual place, but like Wardog said it's pretty architecturally boring. The streets are also just slightly too wide, which means that jumping between buildings is usually more trouble than it's worth. In 1 and 2 I routinely got from place to place by running on top of buildings, but in 3 I generally take the roads and only climb buildings when I need to. And then there's the frontier areas, which don't even have buildings to climb around on! I haven't got to New York yet, but I don't imagine it'll be that different.
Daniel F at 01:08 on 2013-01-11
I think we're increasingly rolling over and accepting that half of them were basically soulless atheists. There are people who actually think we should stop talking so much about Thomas Jefferson in grade school history books and give his page time to Thomas Aquinas.


Well, deists, but that's the next best thing anyway.

I take it you disapprove of learning about Aquinas? He's probably more historically influential than Jefferson, in the long run. If taught as part of a broader course on the development of world religions, I'm sure that could be very useful and interesting -

- that's not why they want to teach Aquinas, is it?
Fishing in the Mud at 03:17 on 2013-01-11
Well, deists, but that's the next best thing anyway.

Yeah, I don't think that's the kind of hair a typical American fundie wants to split.

- that's not why they want to teach Aquinas, is it?

Indeed no.
I haven't played any of these games, but I have watched them being played over the shoulder of a relative and I'm wondering if they get the non-English bits right in AC2 and 3, because the Arabic in the first one was... iffy, to say the least.

But it turns out I just don’t have in me to get even fictionally interested in spitting in my country’s eye.

And at this point, I started to feel really really really bad for all those games in which I have cheerfully machine gunned a bunch of Arabs.


Yes, now you know how I feel about those games, heheeee xD
In order to post comments, you need to log in to Ferretbrain or authenticate with OpenID. Don't have an account? See the About Us page for more details.

Show / Hide Comments -- More in January 2013