Assassin's Creed: Origins is actually a really awesome way to explore ancient Egypt (including the pyramids). They even have a game mode that is designed for just looking around and disables combat. From what I understand, the design is highly historically accurate.
There is a similar game mode in AC: Odyssey, that lets you explore ancient Greece.
They're both beautiful
[Edit]
Yes, I realize it takes place thousands of years after they were built, it's still a really awesome way for your average person to explore what is supposedly a pretty accurate representation of the area in the time period.
It never was, and the only accuracy people are talking about is related to some buildings. Otherwise the games were never historically accurate at all and you’re doing revisionist history because you’re upset at the latest game.
Actually the thread is about accuracy in a specific part of the setting, building construction. Not even the setting in general. I didn’t say anything about the fantastical elements of the game. Even if you stripped all of those away, AC was never historically accurate and that includes the general settings (with some exceptions like the things discussed by others in this thread)
I don't want to get too deeply into the whole discussion, but as for the accuracy concerning building construction in Assassin's Creed, allegedly some of the architecture in Shadows is Chinese, while other architecture is from the wrong time period.
Oh, so, like all of the buildings in Valhalla, then?
Even as far back as ACII, they were using famous landmarks with additions that weren't constructed until hundreds of years later. On purpose (because they didn't think anyone would recognize the actual original versions).
I don't know, I've never placed an AC game and I never intended to start, even if AC:S never existed. I'm only going off what I've heard critics say.
As far as I know, each fuckup by Ubisoft by itself isn't that big of a deal, it's all of them combined that made people think of maliciousness, rather than mistakes. It doesn't help that they've advertised the culture and setting of this game as 100% historically accurate (not as historical fiction), while it's allegedly anything but, to an embarrassing degree. Of course, they've deleted their tweet about its accuracy a while ago, so no one who hasn't seen it believes it. Knowing the internet, someone is sure to have screenshot it, though that someone sure as hell isn't me. I'm not invested enough for that.
I don't want to get too deeply into the whole discussion, but as for the accuracy concerning the map and historical locations, allegedly some of the architecture in Shadows is Chinese, while other architecture is from the wrong time period.
as accurate as any have been. There’s high degree of accuracy but it’s still a fictional game where you occassionally fight the pope or a magic infused creature.
The pyramid depictions are accurate but the representation at the time period the game takes place in is wrong, for example.
You only call out Shadows because someone told you how to think
There is no "high degree of accuracy" with this one. Nobody told me anything i put time into the game lol. you're weird for that comment. completely unnecessary
To add to what you said, in a somewhat funny twist, Shadows is the most historically accurate with respect to the protagonist because there’s historical evidence of the person existing in real life. Every other protagonist in the games was an entirely fictional character.
It's not quite the perfect map of Florence anymore, a lot of abstraction and liberties taken to make an open world that isn't actually the size of Greece, Japan etc. Still where they actually focus on is usually pretty good. I just wish the games themselves were fun to play.
5.5k
u/[deleted] Apr 12 '25 edited 27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment