Why we’re not going to review Assassin’s Creed: Shadows

I’ve actually had a couple of people ask about this, so I thought it was important to clarify: For the first time in many years, I – and DDNet – will not be reviewing the new Assassin’s Creed game. There are several reasons for that. One is certainly because Ubisoft has decided to ignore us in recent years, and I won’t be able to buy the game for a while because I’m too busy investing in my own project. I don’t Ubisoft for that as we have next to no interest in their games beyond Assassin’s Creed, mind. DDNet just kinda dropped off their PR lists and I can’t be bothered reaching out over one game. But that is the lesser reason. I previously went and bought myself a copy of the last Assassin’s Creed (Mirage), and reviewed it (late) anyway just because it interested me. Though I dislike open world games, and Ubsioft’s approach in particular, the history side of this series is compelling to me, so I remain enough of a fan that I don’t mind covering it on my own dime anyway.

In fact, I’ll still buy Assassin’s Creed Shadows and I fully expect to enjoy it. I just won’t be reviewing it, and that’s because of the second reason: the community. As far as I can see, there’s simply no point in even trying to engage with this game because it’s so hopelessly wrapped up in some of the nastiest culture wars nonsense that I’ve ever seen (and that is a spectacularly low bar in the video game industry). The discourse around this specific release has been truly rancid and, in sidelining almost every other conversation about it, it has been a reminder that this industry has such a long way to go before it can be taken seriously as an artistic medium.

The long and short of the “controversy” is simple and so painfully predictable: in Assassin’s Creed Shadows you play as two characters, and Yasuke is the one that’s drawn most of the ire. He’s a real person and has appeared in many other Japanese films, anime, and even video games (such as Samurai Warriors 5). He’s actually a fascinating figure as a slave to a European Christian mission who was taken under Nobunaga Oda’s wing and ended up rising to a position of importance within his household. Oda, for those who aren’t aware, was the most important and consequential warlord of the Sengoku period. The story of Yasuke is totally fascinating.

The thing is, though, he’s black. Very black. He was a slave taken from Africa. Now, it was fine for Koei Tecmo to make a game about William Adams, the white guy who was shipwrecked in Japan and rose to become one of Ieyasu Tokygawa’s valued advisors. There’s a parallel between the two men, and the white one has been used in video games without any criticism or complaint whatsoever. It was also fine for Koei Tecmo (again) to have Yasuke as a secondary samurai in Samurai Warriors 5. Meanwhile, it has been totally okay – even celebrated – for a predominantly white American company to play very loose and easy with both Japanese, and, incredibly, Ainu history, and totally invent the main characters and scenarios in their games. None of this caused a culture war (except for the time that I, in my innocence, thought I could write a 4,000-word review about one of the games that challenged the narrative). But it’s not okay, apparently, for a French company to make a game where you play as a (again, actually real person) black guy who had a part to play in Sengoku history. That’s somehow drawing the line on authenticity and respect for Japanese history and culture.

I’m not here to argue this all over again. This is a statement of fact. This is what the controversy and salvo in the neverending culture wars is about. Ubisoft made a game about a historical black character in Japan and that decision became controversial. There’s a good article in the Japan Times if you want a more extended exploration of what has been going on.

Again, I’m not here to argue the facts. What I’m saying with this article is that it’s impossible to review Assassin’s Creed Shadows without being dragged into these utterly stupid, fundamentally hypocritical culture wars.

Think about it this way: Suppose I enjoy the game – and Ubisoft’s track record with historical fiction and Assassin’s Creed pretty strongly suggests that I will. The reasons I’d enjoy it would be for its treatment of history, and should I then write a review praising Ubisoft for it, DDNet will almost certainly get flooded with comments from people. For days I’ll be deleting comments that violate basic principles of decency, from people who know nothing about Japanese history beyond what they got out of Wikipedia article. I’d spend weeks dealing with virulently nasty emails and having my name pop up in the worst parts of YouTube. You can’t possibly understand how unpleasant it is to be the target of these kinds of things until it happens to you. It wouldn’t matter that of all the game critics out there in the Western world I’m probably the most qualified to write a review about a game set in Japanese history. That’s not me idly boasting: I’ve spent months travelling across Japan visiting castles (I’ve been to 25 of Japan’s top 50), museums and battlefields (I’ve been to Sekigahara, and indeed the location of the Honnō-ji Incident, where Oda met his end and Yasuke essentially disappeared from history). For well over a decade I’ve been studying Japanese history with the commitment of a university student to the subject. I’ve read dozens of books about Sengoku history – including books about Yasuke. I do genuinely know my stuff here, but absolutely none of that would matter because the gamers have already judged Assassin’s Creed to be “wrong,” and they did so long before anyone had actually played it.

So why put myself through that? The answer is simple: There’s no reason to.

Here’s the hard reality: Outside of some incredibly tiny niches there is absolutely no interest in the games industry in treating video games as an art form for discussion and the exchange of ideas. It’s sad because I care deeply about art and have always wanted to bring art criticism to video games. I’m also enormously grateful that, generally speaking, DDNet is one such space. You readers are just the best. But every so often I make the mistake of reviewing something mainstream, and because I make the mistake of taking it seriously, I catch some toxic attention and the site temporarily goes wider than its niche. Outside of that niche, this industry is a collection of cliques and mobs. You’re expected to be a mindless sycophant to the things that are popular (see: Ghost of Tsushima), and you’re expected to be an equally mindless sycophant in support of the causes that are furious at something for one reason or another (Assassin’s Creed: Shadows). There’s no leeway within that to challenge the narrative. If you break ranks people will take it personally and pull out the pitchforks rather than engage with you in good faith.

And of course, the industry itself encourages that because sycophants mindlessly consume what they’re told to. Sometimes it backfires and then the company needs to create harassment plans to protect their staff (no, really, it must suck to be a Ubisoft employee right now), but when it works the company can rake in the cash and never have to worry about being challenged. It’s why Sony’s PR, in particular, quietly delights in its fan base being so militant and as a company they’ve done nothing to discourage it.

In all of that, the ability to have a discussion is lost. I’ve worked in all kind of art circles, from writing about ballet to music, film to theatre, and games are almost unique in the way that the fan base will not let you diverge from the collectively “approved” talking points. I, you, and we can’t talk about Assassin’s Creed Shadows, its themes and the way it works with and uses history without some sea lions deciding to impose themselves and derail the conversation. Before you know it, the message of your review is lost and you’ve become another front for the culture wars.

So, no. I will not be reviewing Assassin’s Creed: Shadows. I don’t see the point. The big, “AAA” blockbuster part of this industry and its audience isn’t interested in art criticism, and I’m done with trying to push back the ocean.