By Hirohito Tsuji (University of East Anglia)
Assassin’s Creed is a popular action game series starring assassins, and the latest title, Assassin’s Creed Shadows, released in 2024, is the first in the series to be set in medieval Japan and features a real-life black man Yasuke and a fictional kunoichi Naoe as the protagonists.
The series touts the high quality of its recreations of the regions and periods in which they take place. However, in this work, the period research is noticeably crude, so it can be frowned upon by Japanese history fans. Worst of all, it is possible in the game to destroy Itatehyōzu Shrine, which is still an object of worship today. The Shrine complained about it, and there has been widespread protest in Japan, including a signature campaign calling for the game’s release to be stopped. The creator Ubisoft distributed a correction programme, however, in practice, destruction remains possible.
The series has included depictions of the destruction of pharaohs’ tombs and Christian churches in the past, but rarely has it attracted such criticism. This could be due to multiple factors.
One reason is that some Japanese consider Ubisoft racist. As mentioned above, this work is notable for its lax representation of historical facts. Some of the landscapes are clearly not Japanese, and there is criticism that there is contempt for the yellow race in the creators’ attitude of equating East Asian countries. The fact that in the game, it is possible to attack Shinto priests who are Japanese, but not to kill Christian priests who are white, could also be perceived as racist.
Another reason is Japanese religious views. Shinto kami are fundamentally different from the monotheistic religions. There are so many kami in existence, and each shrine has its own beliefs. Shrines are the centre of the local community in the same way as in monotheism, but also the local guardians. In other words, an insult to the faith at a shrine means an insult to the whole area. The destruction of the most sacred object of a shrine, the go-shintai, is unacceptable to the Shinto followers, even if it is fiction. From a Shinto standpoint, this game is very punitive. While overtourism has occurred in Japan in recent years with many foreign visitors, there have been cases of some insane visitors uploading on social media images of disrespectful behaviour at Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples, causing headaches for Shinto priests and Buddhist monks. Indeed, the shrine have cited concerns about the emergence of copycats as a reason for protesting to Ubisoft. All in all, Ubisoft’s attitude is provocative towards Japanese religious belief.
Although this game is just fiction, some historians and journalists fear that this will spread a false image of Japan, as the series is famous as based on realism. The case has become a political issue, with the Diet of Japan taking up the matter. What an irony that the game featuring Yasuke as a protagonist for the sake of racial diversity has resulted in racial division.
Suggested readings:
Rick Barba, The Art of Assassin’s Creed Shadows. (Milwaukie: Dark Horse Comics, 2025)
Yūichi Goza, ‘My Thoughts on the Yasuke Issue in Assassin’s Creed’, Agora, 22 July 2024. Available at: https://agora-web.jp/archives/240721081916.html#googtrans(ja|en)
Shin’ichirō Kageyama, ‘New Ubisoft Game “Assassin’s Creed Shadows:” Why the Criticism?’, Japan Forward, 22 July 2024. Available at: https://japan-forward.com/new-ubisoft-game-assassins-creed-shadows-why-the-criticism/
Chantelle Lee, ‘Assassin’s Creed Fans Slam Decision to Include Black Samurai in Feudal Japan Story’, Time, 16 May 2024. Available at: https://time.com/6978997/assassins-creed-shadow-yasuke-controversy/
Thomas Lockley, Geoffrey Girard, African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, A Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan. (Tronto: Hanover Square Press, 2021)
Piggyback Interactive, Assassin’s Creed Shadows: The Complete Official Guide. (London: Piggyback Interactive, 2025)
Kanji Takahashi, ‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows Slammed for Historical Errors and Unauthorized Material’, Japan Forward, 27 February 2025. Available at: https://japan-forward.com/assassins-creed-shadows-slammed-for-historical-errors-and-unauthorized-material/
Kanji Takahashi, ‘Japanese Shrine Protests Assassin’s Creed Shadows as “Utterly Disrespectful”’, Japan Forward, 5 April 2025. Available at: https://japan-forward.com/japanese-shrine-protests-assassins-creed-shadows-as-utterly-disrespectful/
Ubisoft, Assassin’s Creed Shadows: Character Reference Guide. (Montreuil: Ubisoft, 2024) Available at: https://staticctf.ubisoft.com//J3yJr34U2pZ2Ieem48Dwy9uqj5PNUQTn/3bGKVyFkHiabZ5a2SjO7pi/83bf1e6260dcaac48d453399bd573306/ACRED_CharacterReference_Full_FINAL.pdf
Owen Ziegler, ‘Gaming’s Latest Culture War Targets Yasuke, Japan’s Black Samurai’, The Japan Times, 25 May 2024. Available at: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2024/05/25/digital/yasuke-assasins-creed-samurai/
This is such an fascinating topic, thank you Hirohito! It seems like there’s something interesting going on here in terms of heritage vs history, and the Ubisoft statements about this seem to really emphasise not aiming for “historical” accuracy, but the criticisms are coming more from a place of heritage, which carries quite different weight conceptually, especially if it’s coming from the Diet of Japan! I also wonder if some of this reaction is also shaped by the contrast with the conversation that happened around Ubisoft’s models of the Notre Dame when it was damaged in 2014 that (from my understanding very inaccurately) praised Ubisoft because of the way they model heritage sites, so this issue feels worse in light of the rest of their public persona in terms of heritage. Have you noticed any trends in whether the terminology of history vs heritage is used? And how these are translated into/from Japanese in these public statements?
Thank you for bringing your perspective, Hirohito. Controversies regarding destroyed/absent heritage are always very important.
I have a question about shrine preservation/destruction from a historical perspective. Was the principle that shrines should be safeguarded always obeyed in times of conflict? You mentioned that “an insult to the faith at a shrine means an insult to the whole area”. But was there a case of a warlord that *actually wanted* to insult an area, and did so by deliberately razing sacred buildings?
Ah, this is a great point!
Thank you for this paper Hirohito, very interesting analysis into this controversial aspect represented in the game.
Adding to the insightful comments, I can help address some of the aspects of your query Vincius. This was indeed the case throughout Japanese history (notably the Genpei war and Sengoku warring states) of known sacking, damage, and/or destruction of religious sites (although many of them were rebuilt some time after) by armies, besides the typical besieging and destruction of castles. There is a well-known case called the siege of Mount Hiei in 1571 in the outskirts of Kyoto, where Oda Nobunaga attacked and destroyed several main buildings at the Enryaku-ji monastery while killing the monks and civilian inhabitants. This attack was likely a strategic move by Nobunaga to remove the Buddhist militant group occupying the monastery as another rival/threat to his power (which was a common pattern in his military campaigns), but in other periods of history, some of the historical fiction literature (e.g. Tale of Heike) highlighted the dishonor and shame it would bring to a lord or commander in damaging or destroying a religious site, sometimes serving as a figurative metaphor for instigating the decline of a once powerful clan.
I have not played the game, but it seems to me (as covered by Hirohito) that this is less to do with having representations of violence and destruction of Japanese historical sites (albeit still with ethical considerations or limits as to how much can be shown/afforded), but more to do with Ubisoft’s lack of care or sensibility (both in research and gameplay) in connecting or incorporating the player’s actions or choices to these historical incidents, instead allowing players selective indiscrimination around destruction of sites, cultural objects, and individuals as purely ludic outputs via the game system. In a certain way, this seems to fit the classic ludo-narrative dissonance, but Hirohito’s mention of attacking Shinto priests while excluding Christian priests raises another layer around authorial intentionality? Interested to hear your thoughts everyone.
Thanks for pitching in, Ben!
If I may pose a follow-up question: I assume there is a different between Buddhist and Shinto shrines, as well? If I recall from my reading the Heike Monogatari years ago, not only were monasteries involved in the war in the story, but they also participated as belligerents, having warrior monks at their service? And (again, IIRC), some of the major Taira players had also technically taken the vows – but kept meddling in politics all the same?
I had an impression from reading Hirohito’s paper that Shinto shrines were less… directly involved in secular disputes. Was this really the case?
(And just to make it clear: yes, I agree with you and I’m well aware that the Ubisoft’s decision to make this building destructible likely had nothing to do with any of this.)
Really interesting insight, Hirohito! I have two thought. First, echoing Tess’s comment, it seems that the game’s modeling of Japan’s traditional culture is somewhat shallow; in other words, it seems that the game leans toward a stereotypical instead of respectful modeling of the culture. What do you think of this? My second thought is more gameplay-related. I think breakable objects are a staple in modern AAA games. To keep the player from destroying stuff or killing NPCs that they aren’t supposed to, games often simply prevent the action in a case-by-case basis, but this can be immersive-breaking. An alternative solution is to punish the player diegetically, such as by making NPCs refuse to interact with the player after they destroy the Itatehyōzu Shrine. Do you think this second solution would in theory be appreciated by Japanese players?
Furthering that thought: In the past, Ubisoft introduced warnings in their Assassin’s Creed games that you would be desynchronised if you continued, for example, to attack civilians. If you continued to attack / kill citizens, you would indeed be desynchronised. I’m not sure if this feature still exists in today’s games, as the last game in the series I played was AC Origins.
Perhaps that would be a sensible solution, although I honestly can’t quite understand why such objects need to be destructible at all. I can understand the argument made earlier that destructible objects are part of open world games. At the same time, it is possible to limit what is destructible and what is not. In AC Origins, for example, the statues of Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII could be destroyed because they represented his oppressive rule and Bayek, the protagonist of the game, wanted to protect the citizens of Egypt. However, I don’t see the parallel with the shrines, or is there a narrative explanation in the game that is comparable to that of the statues in AC Origins?
Thank you, Hirohito san for your interesting paper. To add to the valuable insights already commented, I can help address some of the aspects of your query Vinicius. Damaging or destroying religious sites was quite a common occurrence throughout Japanese history besides the typical destruction of castles after sieges, particularly in the Genpei war and Sengoku (warring) states period. There is a notable case in 1571 of the attack of Enryaku-ji monastery in the outskirts of Kyotō by Oda Nobunaga and his forces, where several of the main buildings were destroyed as well as the killings of Buddhist monks and civilians. This attack was more of a strategic reason (a common pattern in Nobunaga’s campaigns) in order for Nobunaga to remove the Buddhist militant group within the monastery as another potential threat to his power, but there are older historical fictional literature (e.g. Tale of Heike) that highlights in a figurative sense the shame and dishonour a lord or commander would carry in destroying sites of religious importance, such as a foretelling or the catalyst of the decline of the clan in power.
I would be interested in hearing everyone’s views, but from Hirohito’s descriptions of what players were allowed to do (indiscriminate killing and destruction of objects and material sites), is this situation more than just a case of ludo-narrative dissonance but one of authorial intentionality? I have not played the game, but it seems that this is less to do with depicting or including representations of violence and destruction of historical sites (albeit still within ethical constraints as to how much can be shown), but more with Ubisoft’s lack of sensitivity or case (both in research and gameplay) in disconnecting these kind of actions afforded by the player (i.e. just being controversial ludic outputs from the game system) to the historical background or narratives of these experiences that existed historically during the warring states period.