#30

I’m playing it and quite enjoy it.

#31

[quote=“Wenceslaus, post:29, topic:31604”]
It isn’t really not about open perspective.Recognize things for what they are (are not) and being open to them are two things. [/quote]

No of course not, there are always the conservative or liberal interpretation of any object really. If you are conservative enough nothing in the world is “accurate” as there will always be some flaw the creators overlooked.

Be careful with blanket statements like these, you are arguing your POV as if yours represent everyone’s. When you say " no matter the observer" you are implying that EVERYONE on earth, when looking at the warriors in FH, would see them as historically inaccurate. That’s a very easy argument to de-bunk, so be careful with these blanket statements, I would use words like “most, alot” instead of an absolute here, as they are harder to de-bunk.

And ultimately, the underline problem with what you are arguing and FH is that, to the masses, the warriors look accurate enough for them to see a viking as a viking, a knight as a knight. Whereas a history nut can say all the missed detailed or whatnot, to the average Joe, the warriors look pretty damn realistic. And that is what FH is, their warriors look realistic enough for people to recognize them, but also fashionable enough so they are fun to play as.

Well I mean underneath all that armor/cloth, what else is there to look real? It’s extremely hard to differentiate between the physiology between the different human races. What I mean is: in FH the warriors look real and fun to play as.

#32

This is not even about liberal or conservative perspective.
I never said they made “flaws” as I don’t see historically inaccurate stylization as flaw nor I think they overlooked it.

I’m careful but sometimes those statement are right and this is the case.
I’m not saying that everyone sees that, just that it is inaccurate whenever the observer realize it or not. Banana is banana no matter if some observer would call it cucumber.

Lacking knowledge doesn’t mean that the person have his own right or that he is are more open-minded. He is merely wrong and don’t know about it.
And again, it’s not details.

Well you can have realistic materials (steel, wood, cloth…) lighting, movements.
But no human being has that small head compare to body for example. That is their artistic expression.

Ironically this discussion made me more curious about the game. Hope there will be another free weekend.

1 Like
#33

But depends on how wide a range you are willing to accept something as “accurate” or not, that affect your end conclusion about the game.

But in the case many people would say FH is historically accurate, you saying everyone would see FH as historically inaccurate is simply false no matter how you look at it, no offense.

Or he is more forgiving as to call something “historically accurate”, an 89% on an exam could either mean a B+ or an A- or even an A, depending on the view of the grader grading the exam.

The materials, unless you are actively looking for them are quite easily miss-able, but even with regards to the raider, the proportions looks fine to me, which again, goes back to the individual looking at the picture.

The same object, when looked at from 2 different perspectives, can produce different conclusions

#34

I normally do not go so low to use an ad hominem, but you sir are a daft cunt.

1 Like
#35

So when you can’t win by arguing you resort to insult

Nice character.

#36

You said something about being conservative or liberal in regards to what you’d call historically accurate. This isn’t a good argument, as no one is saying any game or book or movie is 100% perfectly historically accurate. It’s a gradient, some things are extremely historically accurate, but we’d never say “perfectly”, in the case of for honor, it is very inaccurate. If something isn’t overwhelmingly inaccurate or accurate, you need to clarify.

To call it “historically accurate”, but not prefix it with “barely” (or something similar), is dishonest, as when you say that, you’re implying that it is historically accurate to a large degree. Which in this case, it isn’t. At all. Regardless of how anyone sees it, it is not. You could call it historically reminiscent, or say it’s based on historical concepts, etc, but not that it’s accurate.

It don’t even see where the fascination with trying to pass this game off as historically accurate is coming from, I’m one of the few people on this forum defending this game, and I don’t see the need.

1 Like
#37

even if they were going for “appealing” or “stylistic” that literally looks like feces. i don’t know who designed those character models but they need to be harmed.

2 Likes
#38

To you guys sure, as people who [I assume] studies history as a hobby, a form of relaxation. But to the average Joe, the characters ARE indeed historically accurate, because, again, accurate or inaccurate depends on the person judging it. Since these characters conforms to what they view as a “viking/samurai/knight”, they are accurate to these people. It is ONLY until these people are shown actual viking/samurai/knight gear that were used historically, THEN you can say that the vikings are not accurately represented in the view of the average Joe, as now they have learned/seen actual gear used by these warriors. Once again, accurate/inaccurate, right/wrong, depends on the person judging the object.

Also, getting off the subject of the vikings, the samurai class is indeed very accurate, so if we shift focus from the vikings to the samurai, then the topic just got flopped 180.

#39

Acurate/Inacurate hace nothing to do with perception. If I think your called Reginald, im inacurate, even if I think Im right.

Plus the game is not only inacurate but also banal.

2 Likes
#40

But you are ONLY inaccurate when I tell you my name isn’t Reginald, but Bjerson. Anytime before that, to you, you thinking my name is Regi is correct, because what you perceive as “right” hasn’t been toppled with something else yet.

One sentence conclusions are always the best!

#41

EDIT: nvm, I’m not getting invloved in this.

1 Like
#42

If i apply your logic.
What is wrong with half naked ninja women with double D cups exposed fighting with their ass bouncing all over the place? Ninja did exist, women still exists, D cups exists, asses do bounce.
So i can say that, half naked ninja women with double D cups exposed fighting with their ass bouncing all over the place, are good balance between historical acuracy and appealing to mass audience.

And even if i apply my own logic. I have to say that, i find women with bouncing asses more appealing than that steroid filled Skyrim cosplayer who should be viking.

2 Likes
#43

No, it doesn’t. That changes what they think of it, not what it actually is.

What random people think of something doesn’t change what it objectively is. Their perception is just that, their perception, it has no bearing on reality itself.

Who cares? They’re incorrect, that’s the end of it. It doesn’t matter or change anything.

We’re saying it’s inaccurate PERIOD, you’re adding “in the view of the avergae joe” because you’re struggling to defend an insane position. Whether it is accurate to random people was never the contention, but whether it is simply accurate.

No, it doesn’t. Prove it. Prove that whether a representation is accurate changes somehow (effectively altering reality itself) based on the person looking at it. Prove it.

Not really, they look more realistic, but their accuracy is severely off as well. We’re talking about the whole game, stop trying to shift focus around.

You’re a lunatic. You’re conflating perception of reality with reality itself. People believe something to be true, that doesn’t make it true even a little bit, only in their own minds.

1 Like
#44

You do comprehend that by this logic, when I called you a Daft Cunt it is true until you prove us otherwise.

Well now, we are all keen to see how you do mental gymnastics out of this one.

3 Likes
#45

It became so edgy…

#46

These people care, ofc to you, someone who holds a different view from them, you won’t care, because why should you? to you, THEY are the ones in the wrong. However, to these people, they are RIGHT, they haven’t been proven wrong, yet.

To the people who knew exactly how a viking looked like, yes. I am not defending any position, I put in the “average Joe” because FH isn’t catering to you history nuts like KCD is, FH is catering to the masses, so ofc they should care how the average Joe thinks.

I mean come’n lol.

Accuracy of something depends on what you see as “accurate” or real. The best way to do that is to see an actual example, ie real viking armor. However, if all you see are romanticized representation of vikings, to you, that IS the truth. That truth only changes when someone comes along and show you a set of real viking armor. That truth changes again if a third person comes along and tell you that, the armor you just seen isn’t historically accurate, and he shows you an even more accurate viking armor.

Comprehendo?[quote=“Wicker, post:43, topic:31604”]
Not really, they look more realistic, but their accuracy is severely off as well. We’re talking about the whole game, stop trying to shift focus around.
[/quote]

No the topic were pretty solely centered around the vikings, lol.

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. – Plato

Yes, that’s exactly it. However by that same logic, I can call you a brainless whore and this argument would get nowhere. So I wouldn’t, as I am a man not fond of petty insults, unlike you, but of great discussions wherein we learn about our differences and ultimately gaining new insights of each other and thus improve our own knowledge base.

Your move.

#47

No, they aren’t.

Incorrect.

Irrelevant.

1+1=2

Not true.

There is no logic here, just an insane assertion based on nothing.

No, in that scenario you thought you were right. You were wrong the entire time.

It doesn’t, you’re arguing that reality itself is based on perception, which is ridiculous.

They have been proven wrong, they simply aren’t aware that it’s happened. They are objectively wrong, and so are you. Disagreeing or having a different view changes nothing.

No it doesn’t. Someone believes they can lift 3 trucks with one hand, in your mind this is accurate because they believe it. It isn’t, they objectively, factually incorrect, no amount of belief will change that.

They believe it is the truth, and are incorrect. It doesn’t matter what someone believes to be the truth, we’re talking about the actual truth here.

What they believe changes, the truth is utterly static. The entire time they believed it, they were totally wrong.

[quote=“NoHonor, post:46, topic:31604”]
No the topic were pretty solely centered around the vikings, lol.[/quote]

And yet you’re replying to a quote addressing something you said about Samurai. Good job there.

Your argument hinges on reality being subjective, and basically asserts that no one can possibly be wrong AT ANY TIME. You’re actually saying it’s impossible to be wrong about something… You’ve done nothing to prove this, only made assertions. “Your move” fucking LOL. You are a brainless cunt, as you’ve yet to prove otherwise. Because that’s how it works apparently.

3 Likes
#48

FH looks like comedy larping, with poorly made props.

None of the factions are at all ‘accurate’ - at least in the “hero” figures. Didn’t notice the peons much, so they might be better.

To come on to a forum where the developers are working really hard to produce accurate representations of the equipment and environments you would expect to see in a C15th rural Europe and to make such ridiculous claims about this UBIsoft microtranaction cash cow is not credible, nor accurate.

I am not at all reluctantly agreeing with the assessment made by McWonderBeast.

Having watched a little of “lets play” of FH ‘story’ and multiplayer modes… I don’t think I would play if I were paid to. Certainly not buy it, and then add gear for cash. Not for me, and I’d not recommend it to my worst enemy (unless I also wanted them to fail at mediaeval history 101).

3 Likes
#49

No this is simply false. Accurate is an objective term your perception has no influence on it, again I refer you to the definition of the word itself.


You see with your logic on accuracy being subjective, because I think I am right I will always be right.

When someone believes themselves correct and believes that correctness is based on how they feel about being correct, then they can never learn. Because they cannot be wrong or proven wrong because they believe themselves correct, reinforced with the belief that they are right because they feel that way.

4 Likes