The Assassins Creed franchise burst onto the scene with 2007s Crusades-based jaunt simply titled and Assassins Creed, promising players plentiful versatility and verticality as you go about your business, as well as providing satisfyingly stealthy ways of dispatching key targets on a grand scale with a hidden blade, favouring sudden and cerebral movement over reckless button bashing amidst upfront encounters. Assassins Creed has since blossomed into a gargantuan franchise spanning many historical periods from The Crusades right the way through to the Industrial Revolution, as well as becoming larger and more complex along the way. The argument put forward here is that Assassins Creed has steadily sought to rid of what made the franchise great to begin with in the service or exploitation and RPG elements. But first a little history primer.
To start off, the first Assassins Creed had players playing as Altair, a trained Assassin who’s an underling to the notorious Al Mualim and charged with going out into the market towns of Jerusalem, Acre and Damascus to kill 9 Knights Templars in order to regain the status he had lost at the beginning of the game. Horse riding speed limits aside, Assassins Creed offered up a remarkable take on history that was far-removed from the familiarities contextualised in 2007 such as the prominence of WWII shooters and space marines. Although somewhat stymied by the “present-day” aspects, Assassins Creed gave you the freedom to explore ancient cities and learn about historical figures in an exciting and captivating new way. From these humble beginnings, Assassins Creed grew tremendously in popularity thanks in large part to the first game’s sequel Assassins Creed II and its exquisitely rendered Venetian Renaissance setting, the charismatic protagonist and its story that drew you straight in as Ezio Auditore De Farenze as he tries to avenge the death of family members by tracking down those responsible. Assassins Creed II was very strong with likeable characters and witty dialogue being the true stars of the show. Two related follow-ups in the form of the co-op-focused Brotherhood and the finale of Ezio’s story with Revelations. Those two games greatly enhanced the groundwork of Assassins Creed II, polishing up the visuals in pristine fashion and making the gameplay more workable and fluid with boundless fervour and bountiful beauty at the fore. Ubisoft would continue their ceaseless momentum with their history-trotting adventures in the somewhat divisive American Revolution-set Assassins Creed III alongside then-PS Vita exclusive Assassins Creed III: Liberation, the nautical popular pirate’s life outing in Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag, the tepidly received French Revolution in Assassins Creed: Unity-as well as jointly releasing alongside Assassins Creed: Rogue, and then to top off the original set of AC games with the bawdy and brawly Industrial Revolution of Assassins Creed: Syndicate. Ubi would then take a year out to peddle the dreadful Assassins Creed film with Michael Fassbender for 2016, all the while working their tail off to produce a grander and far more ambitious Assassins Creed-what would turn out to be 2017’s Origins-which donkey-kicked the series from the 19th century right back in time to Ancient Egypt-featuring RPG-like elements, tougher enemies and health bars to deplete. Yes, this is where the debate begins, because what on earth was Assassins Creed: Origins really but a betrayal of what it is to be an Assassin? The progress the series had been making up to this point may not have come on leaps and bounds, but Origins decided to throw out the rulebook and go way back in time to effectively start the series again, stripping out both the imperfections of the games that came before as well as countering them with a more luxuriously excessive experience. Nothing is condensed anymore in Origins, it’s far-removed from the GTA design that came before, but this is detrimental because while previous Assassins Creed games had lots of map markers and tedious missions-the structure made for a more accessible experience. But because the PS4/Xbox One fad is to make gargantuan open-worlds that span hundreds of hours of gameplay, Assassins Creed has slavishly followed suit, offering intimidating open-world design that further accentuates and embellishes all the tedium and busywork. Just because everyone else does it doesn’t mean you have to but in this day and age if money says it’s a great idea then it’ll be done with no questions-like when a mob boss wants somebody whacked-you do it or you’ll get whacked. With a bigger game comes more varied opportunities to pursue missions and quests however you see fit. But Assassins Creed has gotten too carried away with the aforementioned fads and now it thinks it can be way more than an Assassins Creed game, kinda similar to how Ghost Recon games have just gotten bigger and now the ghost is revealed to be a fluffy white pillow-because you don’t need to be stealthy anymore. In Origins you have to battle enemies in numerous way and one particular way is to run up to them and whack them over and over again until their health bar is drained completely. Ok, so Ubi is just catering to the “appeal to a wider audience” BS that vacuums away the franchise’s speciality so that ultimately more money can be made, but in doing so the name of “Assassins Creed” in the title may as well be called something different say “Mercenary’s Creed”, old Pandemic Studio personnel may not like it, but the name would certainly be of greater accuracy than Assassins Creed given how Ubisoft are abandoning the definition of what an assassin is. As related to other game franchises reinvigorating their formulas, DOOM is one of the clearest examples out there. Back in 1994 when DOOM came out, the tactics for clearing enemies was simply point a gun and shoot-whereas in DOOM 2016 your tactics are akin to leaping about like a harassed monkey in a cage, you have to survey and attack with knowledge of your whereabouts. The timeframe between DOOM II and DOOM 2016’s release is a lengthy 22 years, whereas the Assassins Creed franchise from its foundations to its latest is 11-years, so Assassins Creed has made incremental strides towards its evolution whereas Doom has been in gestation long enough for many of the entries to feel different from one another. Now 2018’s God of War does seem like it has betrayed some of what was established in the original God of War series. Kratos is supposed to a mad and vengeful warrior of Sparta, but in the latest he has a son and Kratos doesn’t resort to raw anger as much because God of War is too busy trying to impress with The Last of Us’ cologne. Yeah God of War smells good and will be taken for a dance by many PS4 enthusiasts, but Kratos has sacrificed himself just to be something he is not. Psychopaths cannot simply change into calm and patient family men because they knocked out a pubic louse. In all Assassins Creed feels like it has betrayed the simplicity that it once had for trend-heavy open-world frolics. Sure Origins and Odyssey are very impressive, but this in turn makes Assassins Creed a me-too, too afraid to be something familiar and great because of how money talks and gets what it wants. Mentioning and rebutting the DOOM and God of War series has aided in showing how evolutionary steps taken in a franchise can turn them into outright betrayals because growing up usually means going along with a crowd in order to get along. |
Videogames have, in the past twenty years, made great leaps and bounds in storytelling and worldbuilding. This progression has allowed the medium to produce material akin to the level of film, TV, and literature. Naturally with more complex storytelling comes more complex subject matter and increasingly we find political agendas or ideologies playing an increasingly integral role in such stories. But is this a bad thing? Should art (which let’s face it video games have been accepted as such now) have a political angle? Should developers make politically charged statements as part of their art? Should videogames be a political void?
The answer is not as simple as it may seem. Progression in an artistic medium, historically has only gained significant ground during periods of political turmoil. The Crusades, The French Revolution, The Italian Renaissance, The American Civil War, the two World Wars, The Great Depression, the September 11thattacks, and the 2008 financial recession just to name a few. During each of these periods we saw significant evolution in techniques and a progression into more complex subject matter in almost all forms of art. Whether that be paintings, sculptures, film, literature, dance, or even videogames. The two almost come in tandem with each other, particularly in terms of storytelling for the mediums that support such devices. Realistically, I’ve already answered the question of whether politics has a place in videogames, and the answer is we don’t have a choice in the matter. Pivotal political and world events inspire people to respond artistically, it always happens, that’s what humans do. So, we cannot stop this inclusion of political subject matter in video gaming if we wish to see the medium continue to evolve, at least in terms of storytelling and character development. The degree at which developers are politically charged varies from title to title too. Perhaps the most obvious in their political criticisms and agendas is Hideo Kojima. Creator of the Metal Gear franchise and most recently Death Stranding, Kojima’s stories have always had a political ideology or message at the forefront of the story. Metal Gear’s entire story revolved around the issue of nuclear weapons, privatisation of military forces, corrupt governments and governmental bodies; and of course, the people who tried to stop them. These stories were all directly inspired by events that were happening at the time of the games’ creation, or during the periods they were set. It’s near impossible to escape the political agendas of Kojima in those titles, and yet they are heralded as some of the greatest videogames of all time. Death Stranding too was immediately noted for its quite literal depiction of Kojima’s stance against the Trump administrations attempt to segregate and separate American nations and people. The game quite literally has you building bridges and networks to connect people together after they have been torn apart. When interviewed on his games, Kojima has never shied away from stating what his games represent and what they stand for. More subtle examples can be found in games like Telltale’s The Walking Dead Season 1. One of the major recurring themes throughout the series is how Lee, a black man, is very obviously not Clementine’s father. How people react to Lee, and his relationship to Clementine when they learn that he has no relation to her is almost always decided by the colour of his skin, and the fact that he isn’t a woman. Some try to separate the two characters out of fear he will hurt her, due to their prejudices against the colour of his skin, and the fact that he is a man. Some characters feel more comfortable around him when there are other characters present, despite the fact that Lee has never shown his fellow survivors any reason to fear him unless provoked. Lee also committed a crime prior to the game starting, and this regularly acts a huge issue in regards to how people perceive him. The fact that people trust him less because of this, yet many among the group of survivors also have dark pasts that very few people take issue with, because they are all white, is another example of black prejudice. Because no character in TWD Season 1 is openly racist, this makes the subtlety of the inclusion of this dynamic harder to spot than anything in Kojima’s work, but it’s still a major component of the story. The Bioshock games are another example of critically acclaimed titles that are extremely political in subject matter. The first game has an extremely pervasive theme regarding communism vs. capitalism. Andrew Ryan represents extreme right-wing capitalism where everything has a price, and nothing is handed out to anyone. Rapture is his brainchild and only people he deemed sufficiently capitalist were allowed to live there, a place where unionists and democrats could never find them. Frank Fontaine however, preaches extreme left wing communist rhetoric throughout the game in juxtaposition to this. He is a man of the people who wants to free Rapture from the oppressive reigns of Ryan. Obviously, we later find out that Fontaine has used the people of Rapture, and you, to get to the top for his own personal gain…much like some of the most infamous communist leaders in history. The 3rd Bioshock game swaps out the themes of capitalism vs. communism for a an angle that concerns race and religion, but even still the political ideologies of both are pitted against each other for all to see with very little left to the imagination. A game that is often cited as having a larger political agenda than it actually does, is 2013’s The Last of Us. Many will draw particular attention to the matter of homosexuality, and the game supposedly ramming equality for the LGBTQ+ community down our throats every chance it gets. Whilst I cannot speak for the sequel, which supposedly does the same thing, I don’t feel that having a lesbian in a leading role is “ramming it down our throats” as Ellie’s sexuality contributes almost nothing to the plot of the first game. Ellie’s sexuality isn’t even addressed directly until you play the DLC for the game wherein she shares a kiss with her best friend. There is another homosexual character, Bill, who again, his sexuality isn’t directly addressed at any point although you can find collectibles that he is more romantically involved with this ‘partner’ of his you’re looking for than he lets on through dialogue. Whilst the matter of LGBTQ+ equality is absolutely being addressed in The Last of Us, it’s handled appropriately due to the fact that it is not the driving force of the game. Just by having gay characters in a story, does not mean an agenda is at the forefront of the game, but rather people are being represented equally and without it being a big deal…you know, like it should be in real life. Even titles you don’t think have any political stance at all, like the DOOM series, have very heavily political messages regarding video-game violence. They exist to challenge the notion that violent videogames cause violence. Rockstar Games have based their entire business around political satire with games like Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Bully, and Manhunt. Games like Tomb Raider challenge the notion that women can’t be strong characters independent of men. The amount of games that would pass the Bechdel test are few and far between but ones that do put women in lead roles usually try to make them even more rounded characters than male ones to prove a point. There are certainly games that do not have political messages, games that do not have narratives such as racing titles, mascot platformers like Crash Bandicoot or Spyro. These types of games don’t have room for such agendas because the story is not the people of the game, if they even have one to begin with. Could it be argued that games have become too serious since they started getting political? Yes, it certainly could. But the same could be said about almost any medium of entertainment since artists started becoming politically motivated. There are still plenty of non-narrative driven games that can be played just for fun, even some narrative driven ones. You see it’s impossible to escape this cycle of games being political, because art in itself has almost always been a response to what’s happening in the real world. So if games stopped being political, it would cease to continue to develop in the ways other entertainment has, and as a result become stagnant and irrelevant to the world we live in. Whilst that may be a bold statement to make, the games I have listed above are examples of some of the most successful video-games and franchises in history, you don’t get to that point without being artistic, and you can’t be artistic without responding to something…that something is usually politics. |