Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-5088097-20151219195318/@comment-18014300-20170703024732

I have to be honest, I have always thought that the Wild West is irrevocably the worst historical setting for Assassin's Creed conceivable. I mean no offense, but so strong is my opinion on that that I can't express it with enough emphasis.

Here are some reasons: 1) It would be a waste of a year that could've been spent on a more unique setting that's never been done. One of the original premises of Assassin's Creed is the open-world exploration of exotic settings that has been under-represented or not represented at all in video game history. The setting is meant to be unique. This was one of the original appeals of the franchise. For this same reason, I was annoyed by their detour to the Golden Age of Piracy, but I let it pass because exploring the entire Caribbean Sea as the main map of the game was thrilling, the environment was rich, and the story was fine. (The Wild West would not have a rich environment though).

It takes a year or more to make an Assassin's Creed game. The reason why I formerly was one of the few that supported yearly releases because I understand how much ground the series needs to cover and how we don't seem to have much time to cover all of them within like 20 years. Saying so, when there's so many exotic settings to explore, why waste a game, a year or two or three on a setting that's been done already to near-perfection by Red Dead Redemption? It'd be redundant in the video game industry when Assassin's Creed could've spent those precious resources on a game so vastly unique and unprecedented like Origins. Imagine if they had chosen Wild West over ancient Egypt, a game that has seen never before seen an open-world game.

2) It would not only help perpetuate the Eurocentric trend but instill an Americano-centric one This is a very major point for me. I see a lot of Americans always advocating for settings that only deal with their history rather than looking to cultural diversity. I suppose I can't blame them entirely because we like settings that are at home to us, as I would myself cherish an East Asian setting, and most people still want feudal Japan the most. However, I think these people forget the premise of Assassin's Creed to explore culturally rich and exotic settings that has never been covered before, as well as to give representation to peoples around the world who are never represented in media, such as the indigenous Americans in the form of Ratonhnhkaé:ton; the Cajun Aveline de Grandpré; the Middle-Eastern Altaïr (of uncertain ethnicity); the Nubian Egyptian Bayek. Exploring Florence and Venice during the Renaissance counts too. What about the Wild West would add to the cultural diversity of the franchise, a core principle of the series? It would have literally one of the most mainstream settings and mainstream protagonists.

Ubisoft already struggles to steer away from Eurocentricism with a trend of games set only in the Western world, in the 18th century and hesitant to actually commit to a main installment in China, Japan, Maya, Inca, or India. Even as they step into Egypt, Egypt is exotic but not too alien to the Western world due to its cultural proximity with the Hellenic world. Yet those who call for the American Civil War or the Wild West or the War of 1812 are pushing for not only Eurocentric settings, but an Americano-centric one as well (the worst of Eurocentricism), which is so antithetical to one of the founding premises of the series, to cover diverse, original, rich settings and give representation to cultures ignored by the mainstream.

3) Cultural depravity Going off on the last point about Americano-centricism, with the Wild West, we're not just looking at centering purely on white American culture, but unlike Louisiana which as a unique culture that arose from the blending of Africans and the French or Boston which retains a mixture of a founding American atmosphere with the antiquated character of the British, the cultural identity of the Wild West is, in my honest opinion, one of cultural depravity. It had no culture except one of barren lands, desolate streets of "towns" too small to be even called villages, buildings that are just crudely-built shacks, and a world where lawlessness, crime, and ill-mannered barbarism reigned supreme. There was no culture; no flourishing of the arts; no regular clubs where people got together to debate the finer points of scientific, intellectual, and humanitarian cultivation. No elegant architecture that was the result of centuries of human development. It was just a bleak world where people shot at each other for the most childish of reasons, staging primitive duels, a world whose culture enabled immaturity and scoundrels. And unlike the Golden Age of Piracy, there was not a single thing exotic about it because it was just United States at its most base form.

It was still an excellent setting for Red Dead Redemption to explore—I loved that game—but we don't need an Assassin's Creed game devoted to it.