It's set during the Kamakura period yes but takes lots of liberties from the sengoku period in terms of weapons, armor and the way warlords act.
It's funny, I recognized the Sakai armor as Honda Tadakatsu's armor lmao
It's set during the Kamakura period yes but takes lots of liberties from the sengoku period in terms of weapons, armor and the way warlords act.
It's funny, I recognized the Sakai armor as Honda Tadakatsu's armor lmao
But those samurai shouldn't even have the concept of bushido in the first place. See, it's not really about historical accuracy or how the game promotes imperialism. It's more that the game should care about what samurai actually were or at the very least understood what Kurosawa was saying about them. As it is, it seems woefully uninterested in its subject matter and ends up reeking of Orientalism.Well the Japanese aren't living up to "Bushido" either lol. It's like you think Japanese people are exceptional in their romanticizing of Samurai as opposed to any other cultures and their warriors. I think the comparison was originally made because this game seems to be catching heat for it more than other games that do the same thing, and your argument seems to be "well people take the samurai more seriously". That may be true in the west, however I grew up in both Japan and the US and the mythologizing of Samurai in Japanese media is about the same as the mythologizing of Knights or anything else in Western media.
I would've loved it to have been more historically accurate (and to not have taken place in that period at all tbh), however I still don't see how this game promotes imperialism or nationalism.
This is stupid, to expect an artist to accurately represent in full-color the characters they create stories with is to both handcuff them and the viewer/player to this linear world in which creativity and originality is shat on by ethical standards which should never apply to a purely entertainment medium in the first place. Can we not enjoy the glorification of a long-extinct class of people without having to remind ourselves that they weren't good people? We know this
But those samurai shouldn't even have the concept of bushido in the first place. See, it's not really about historical accuracy or how the game promotes imperialism. It's more that the game should care about what samurai actually were or at the very least understood what Kurosawa was saying about them. As it is, it seems woefully uninterested in its subject matter and ends up reeking of Orientalism.
You can compare and contrast this game with Total War: Three Kingdoms that released last year. That game also takes a mythological look at China, but it's a look that's informed by both history and by the novel. The amount of care for the period stands out and the game looks all the better for it. The comparison is a little unfair since Three Kingdoms does want to be at least somewhat historical, but the fact that it actually cares is sort of the point.
The game has two modes: Romance and Records. The Records modes is the historical one. Besides, my point was more about the importance of caring about the material that you're supposed to be depicting. Even if the game was completely fantasy; with magic and dragons and all, it can still feel right if the developers cared about the period in question - verisimilitude being more important than realism.I wouldn't use Three Kingdoms as comparison, you have hero generals fighting each other in bouts and they would have forgone the novel if they wanted to be truly authentic.
The funny thing about Ghosts of Tsushima is that in the actual Tsushima incident, for the few times that Mongol cavalry and Samurai clashed in the Yuan Empire's aborted invasion of Japan, the Mongols kicked ass. Samurai would ride out for individual combat and get mowed down by Yuan archers.
I get that it's a dramatization far removed from reality, but the myth of the samurai as these ultimate warriors is fascinating because they came up short when measured against outsiders, which was only in the few skirmishes in the attempted Yuan invasion of Japan, as well as Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea in the 1500s.
I don't think this is completely fair. The Japanese did manage to win against the first Mongol invasion (albeit they got really lucky). Admittedly they did so using tactics which would be completely foreign to Ghost, so there is that.The funny thing about Ghosts of Tsushima is that in the actual Tsushima incident, for the few times that Mongol cavalry and Samurai clashed in the Yuan Empire's aborted invasion of Japan, the Mongols kicked ass. Samurai would ride out for individual combat and get mowed down by Yuan archers.
I get that it's a dramatization far removed from reality, but the myth of the samurai as these ultimate warriors is fascinating because they came up short when measured against outsiders, which was only in the few skirmishes in the attempted Yuan invasion of Japan, as well as Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea in the 1500s.
Bushido didn't even exist until the Edo period, and by then there were no longer any major battles in Japan.Funny thing about bushido being strict codes, the samurai has absolutely no compunction to use whatever methods possible.
Bushido didn't even exist until the Edo period, and by then there were no longer any major battles in Japan.
But those samurai shouldn't even have the concept of bushido in the first place. See, it's not really about historical accuracy or how the game promotes imperialism. It's more that the game should care about what samurai actually were or at the very least understood what Kurosawa was saying about them. As it is, it seems woefully uninterested in its subject matter and ends up reeking of Orientalism.
You can compare and contrast this game with Total War: Three Kingdoms that released last year. That game also takes a mythological look at China, but it's a look that's informed by both history and by the novel. The amount of care for the period stands out and the game looks all the better for it. The comparison is a little unfair since Three Kingdoms does want to be at least somewhat historical, but the fact that it actually cares is sort of the point.
Yes. I was expanding on your point. It's all the more BS because it's a largely fictional concept.That was what I alluded to in an earlier post. It was basically promoted as a strategy to keep the peace in the Edo period.
They don't call it bushido, but there's no mistake that it's what the speeches are all about.I don't think they even mention Bushido specifically in the game, although they might have early on. It's mostly just "honor" as in "face your opponents head on", but then you become a Ninja so it's whatever lol.
And this is exactly why I think it's fair to say that Ghost is Orientalist.They went more Assassin's Creed style history than historical war games style history. You're basically a good guy samurai who becomes medieval Japanese Batman running around protecting citizens and shit during a full blown Mongol invasion. I mean if people take that seriously that's they're problem lol.
Honestly would love more black and hispanic cowboys as main characters than another John Wayne. The entire old west from media is all myth and wasn't as white as they always show. Cowboy was even a derogatory racist term back then to demean PoC cowhands.I hear red dead doesn't really take on the historical context of cowboys who were mainly just farmers. Also Mario does a colossal misservice to the plight of plumbers in the Italian American community.
Mama mia!
Honestly would love more black and hispanic cowboys as main characters than another John Wayne. The entire old west from media is all myth and wasn't as white as they always show. Cowboy was even a derogatory racist term back then to demean PoC cowhands.
I always thought Samurai couldn't have been these incredibly dutiful and Honorable Warriors that protect everyone.
I'm sure there were some, who probably served one or two specific masters and were honorable to them, but only them.
Most Human beings just aren't capable of living by a specific code like these Perfect Samurai featured in Movies and Games.
I would love tk hear an expert opinion on here.
I don't think this is completely fair. The Japanese did manage to win against the first Mongol invasion (albeit they got really lucky). Admittedly they did so using tactics which would be completely foreign to Ghost, so there is that.
Hideyoshi's invasions were also pretty successful. If not for the Ming intervention, his armies would probably have conquered Korea without too much difficulty. Then again, these were samurai and ashigaru troops with decades of combat experience from the Sengoku and armed with tons of firearms. It's actually a pretty cool dynamic, Koreans with their superior archers and navy, the Japanese with their superior infantry and arquebuses, and the Ming with their superior artillery and cavalry. Too bad nobody would ever use this conflict as a setting.
Bushido didn't even exist until the Edo period, and by then there were no longer any major battles in Japan.
Most samurai in film, at least the most well known films, aren't that at all. The samurai of Kurosawa's films are flawed, or conflict with bushido, or are grey-moral ronin. Other films go even further; the protagonist of Sword of Doom is a sociopathic monster. The protagonist of Harakiri actively fights to destroy and lay bare the hypocrisy of the samurai. Three Outlaw Samurai contrasts a ronin fighting for peasants, one working for a ruthless lord, and one only there for mercenary reasons, and they eventually clash/contrast/join.I always thought Samurai couldn't have been these incredibly dutiful and Honorable Warriors that protect everyone.
I'm sure there were some, who probably served one or two specific masters and were honorable to them, but only them.
Most Human beings just aren't capable of living by a specific code like these Perfect Samurai featured in Movies and Games.
I would love tk hear an expert opinion on here.
Always think about this when I think about Samurai (learnt about it from Dororo).
Tsujigiri - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This is what I'd heard too. The Koreans hold up Admiral Yi as pretty much the main hero of that war, and even in the west he's considered the #1 naval commander of all time.Hideyoshi's invasions were also pretty successful. If not for the Ming intervention, his armies would probably have conquered Korea without too much difficulty. Then again, these were samurai and ashigaru troops with decades of combat experience from the Sengoku and armed with tons of firearms. It's actually a pretty cool dynamic, Koreans with their superior archers and navy, the Japanese with their superior infantry and arquebuses, and the Ming with their superior artillery and cavalry. Too bad nobody would ever use this conflict as a setting.
I'd say Creed gets deeper into real historical details than Tsushima does, but ultimately still uses those details a stepping stones for its own fantastical gameplay. Creed just does this at a more granular level.They went more Assassin's Creed style history than historical war games style history. You're basically a good guy samurai who becomes medieval Japanese Batman running around protecting citizens and shit during a full blown Mongol invasion. I mean if people take that seriously that's they're problem lol.
Most samurai in film, at least the most well known films, aren't that at all. The samurai of Kurosawa's films are flawed, or conflict with bushido, or are grey-moral ronin. Other films go even further; the protagonist of Sword of Doom is a sociopathic monster. The protagonist of Harakiri actively fights to destroy and lay bare the hypocrisy of the samurai. Three Outlaw Samurai contrasts a ronin fighting for peasants, one working for a ruthless lord, and one only there for mercenary reasons, and they eventually clash/contrast/join.
And so on. The "perfect protector samurai" is a rarity from what I've seen.