• AuthorityFigure - September 13, 2011 12:35 a.m.

    I don't think it's fair to liken an assassin with a suicide bomber. Suicide bombers believe they are doing god's will, and that the act is righteous, and that non-combatants deserve to die. Also, suicide bombers are an exclusively religious group. Likening a mercernary to that is pretty slanderous.
  • GamesRadarMikelReparaz - September 13, 2011 1:13 a.m.

    The actual Assassins/Nizari Ismailis WERE an exclusively religious group, who DID believe they were doing God's will. They don't appear to have had a reputation for indiscriminate killing, which I think makes them more admirable than suicide bombers, but they were still religiously motivated suicide attackers. The willingness to die is a big part of where their infamy comes from. I drew the comparison with bombers not to condemn the Assassins, but to point out their similar, self-imposed martyrdom. Of course, if you're just talking about lowercase, mercenary assassins, i.e. modern hitmen, then that's something else altogether.
  • LIAMthescot - September 13, 2011 5:58 a.m.

  • festerblatz82 - September 13, 2011 3:09 p.m.

  • LordZarlon - September 13, 2011 3:41 p.m.

    Que the "A Current Afair" sound, WikiParaz!
  • mothbanquet - September 13, 2011 8:29 a.m.

    Considering the real life Assassins DID think they were doing God's will, and that a 'perfect death' would grant them a fast track to paradise and DID belong to an exclusive sect of islam, I found the article to be quite accurate. The only real difference is that the Assassins made a profit on those martyrs (it's said the shah of Khwarezm paid enough money to found a city to eliminate Genghis Khan), but then again I've never tried to bribe a suicide bomber so I couldn't really comment on the differences
  • FauxFurry - September 12, 2011 11:26 p.m.

    Giant crabs may not be so historically inaccurate. Giant Enemy Crabs, however, are highly dubious. That doubt itself could be unfounded, though. Easily irritable individuals are called 'crabby' for a reason.
  • FauxFurry - September 12, 2011 11:21 p.m.

    This list itself is inaccurate in that it leaves out two of the worst offenders of all history, Back to the Future Part 2&3 and Bill and Ted's Excellent Video Game Adventure. Then again, games based upon comedy movies which use time travel as a plot device and alterations of history as punch-lines to jokes which they set up what seems like ages ago can't really said to be inaccurate to their own version of the timeline, can they? Well, neither of those is anywhere near as egregious in their ignorance of historical events as Hyper Dimension Neptunia was. There was never so much estrogen or athleticism of any kind involved in any Console War!
  • egregious - September 12, 2011 11:10 p.m.

    "...just because no reasonable person actually thinks giant enemy crabs roamed historical Japanese battlefields" Lmao. Thank you, Mikel.
  • RODTheMaster - September 12, 2011 11:01 p.m.

    Mr. Reparaz, can you please assassinate my history professor, make a (historically inaccurate) daring escape, and assume the role of his replacement?
  • babyhenchy1 - September 12, 2011 10:56 p.m.

    Assassin's Creed still does an incredible job of making itself feel authentic, even though it's not. They also didn't have to increase Rodrigo Borgia's evil factor much (I say this as a Catholic), he was scum, though I like him when Jeremy Irons plays him :) I love that level from Medal of Honor: Underground. It's so absolutely insane that it's just awesome.
  • Darkhawk - September 12, 2011 10:56 p.m.

    The thing that bugged me the most in Assassin's was [spoiler] the final assassination in AC2. I mean, it's fine if they want to invent a whole unrecorded history with Borgias vs. Auditores, but where do they get off having Rodrigo/Alexander VI assassinated in the middle of services? Funnily enough, there's a chance the Pope WAS assassinated (by poison), but I guess Ubisoft needed a big epic battle instead of a sneak-and-poison mission (which I, personally, would have welcomed).
  • babyhenchy1 - September 12, 2011 10:58 p.m.

    Wait, did you play Brotherhood?
  • Darkhawk - September 13, 2011 8:18 a.m.

    Nope. Did they fix that mistake or something?
  • HumorTumor - September 12, 2011 10:28 p.m.

    I remember MoH:Underground. That castle freaked me the hell out, but also confused me because it was so oddball for the tone of the game. I think a good title to look up would be Kessen for the PS2. I believe it focused on Tokugowa's attempt to unite feudal Japan (can't quite remember). But I'm curious as to how accurate it was to the real stories. It did have ninja armies too, which was pretty bad ass.
  • bigwill1221 - September 12, 2011 10:28 p.m.

    Wow never seen that hundred year war game before
  • ElDudeorino - September 12, 2011 10:21 p.m.

    Well done man. An interesting and informative take on the often misused historical basis for games. On a related note, if you make games set in the past I would be more than happy to help your development team avoid these sorts of mistakes. I have a degree in History and am unemployed.
  • codystovall - September 12, 2011 10:19 p.m.

    Between this article and the cracked article that explained 6 world mysteries the world seems less fun...... Science/Historical accuracy....what a drag... Nice article nonetheless. Ps-Bet that loon with the curly hair on ancient aliens would love assassins creed.
  • moparlevi - September 12, 2011 10:16 p.m.

    I love that Mikel Reparaz is doing all the top 7's now.
  • Jamahl - September 12, 2011 10:01 p.m.

    The Assassin's Creed one is kinda unfair. The whole idea of the AC version of the Hassashin is that they TRIED to make it seem like they were terrorists. They didn't tell the whole world that they had a creed, so that they would be in fear of them. The game basically says that it knows how history said things happen, but that history is not always made truthfully. Sure, you could say that it's historically innacurate, but it's a conspiracy game about history actually being innacurate. So it's kinda a weird choice.
  • GamesRadarMikelReparaz - September 12, 2011 10:06 p.m.

    I'm not trying to say the Assassins were terrorists, necessarily, just that the historical Assassins were widely known for not trying to escape (and in fact welcoming death) once they'd killed their targets.
  • Jamahl - September 14, 2011 6:18 p.m.

    "My men do not fear death, Robert, they welcome it and the rewards it brings!" ―Al Mualim shouting to Robert from the walls of Masyaf. They acted like they were basically suicide bombers, and used fake-outs like leaps of faith to convince people they were. Most of the time, however, their executions that let to the belief that they all were were the ones that got botched. Not to mention that the Templars used their power and influence to cover up or defame the existence of the Assassins, even altering history. I think I get the idea, but it's kinda nitpicky if the game explicitly says "We know that history says things happened this way, but in our world, it was a massive coverup to make it seem like that.". Then that's giving a nod to the actual history, but saying "This is our story. This is not a perfect replica, and it's not going to try to be." It's a good article, nonetheless. I know you're a big AC fan, so I don't take this as a personal insult. I just feel that all the innacuracies in AC that exist are sufficiently explained, and everything that is accurate is immense and awesome.

Showing 41-60 of 64 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.