What happens when you try to shit on historical accuracy

Mat Pat trying to do an "historical analysis" of the shit that For Honor is :
youtube.com/watch?v=gwoGVWgK8v8&t=19s

and the immediate intervention of the historical fighting brigade:
youtube.com/watch?v=18c3S7JiRNA&t=4s
youtube.com/watch?v=o_pCM6gFXXE
youtube.com/watch?v=oTw_i9dBEmM

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QyjyWUrHsFc
youtube.com/watch?v=vN3YsiMDOE8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>ubishit

>female warriors
WRONG!
>Dane Axe is longer than the actual Viking wielding it
WRONG!
>Viking Warlord(why they wouldn't call that hero Viking Housecarl or something is beyond me, fucking warlord lel) carries a fucking Gladius
WRONG!

seems like a pretty shit game

the game is shit.

Mat pat's response was fucking pathetic.People are calling him out nad he is like "No no , guys i do research"
Seriously half the shit in the video could be disproved by simply opening the Wikipedia article

>critiquing the historical accuracy of a fantasy game


Is he retarded?

MatPat more like MatHack.

This is literally deadliest warrior: the game.

It's a fantasy game m8

That's not what happened.Mat Pat, inspired by the game tried to make an historically accurate comparison of 11th century viking/knight/samurai, and failed lamentably.
The three other are adressing why he failed.

yes it is. Still it's sad to see such horrors in a game.

>Still it's sad to see such horrors in a game.
Why? It's fantasy, they never claimed it would be historically accurate.

it is just a dumb bash em up video game, they are trying too hard to make it controversial to get views, likes and subscribs

First of, it's a more like a fighting game than what you suggested.

Second, there's nothing controversial about the game, it's Matpat's crippling idiocy that's being attacked

>there's nothing controversial about the game
exactly, they did this thing called a lie, they lie to get more moneys

But the devs didn't lie, Matpat did.

>Why? It's fantasy, they never claimed it would be historically accurate.
Is fantasy an excuse to make literally EVERYTHING pants-on-head retarded?

Yes.

except it's fantasy that is supposedly BASED ON ACTUAL HUMAN SOCIETIES.
I get it's a game, and don't expect it to be 100%accurate, but the devs could at least have made their research. The vikings looks like they came out of a 10 y o kid imagination. It's just ridiculous.

People still watch MatPat?

Nope. I saw he made that video only when seeing skalla's response.

>BASED ON ACTUAL HUMAN SOCIETIES.
No it isn't. It's based on romanticized caricatures of warrior casts in popular culture. There's no direct similarity to their real life counterpart.

It's not even just the historical inaccuracies, his own video shits on his own conclusions as he obviously gives the viking a bow in the beginning.

Meaning, a viking could drop the samurai's horse regardless of all the other bullshit in the video.

Not to mention that European style of linked riveted mail was incredibly effective against arrows.

>implying

he has a lot of subs right?

There is no reason to base them in reality though.

Especially now that Vikings and shit are so popular in society.

The viking still would have looked badass with a 1,2 meter Dane Axe instead of a 2 meter one.

The viking still would have looked badass with a proper viking sword instead of a Gladius.

It's just ignorance on the developers part.

>like the Knights, Samurai were masters of mounted archery

How fucking retarded so you have to be to think that Knights were mounted archers

For Honor was said to be Fantasy from the fucking start. BF1 was actually about WW1

>tfw we will never get to shoot black nazis

Why? A lot of black nazis are around.

There was no ignorance. The developers know exactly what they're doing, which is making a fantasy game based loosely romanticised warrior cultures.

OP is faggot.
Matpat is doing Deadlest Warrior style theory based on For Honor (probably sponsoder by publisher)
And he does it same way he does his other theories - pants of head retarded. But he is not analazying or criticising game itself

He says among other things that Knights were primarily horseback archers, that Scandinavians couldn't grow food, and that Samurai had katanas in the 11th century. How is any of that in any way defensible?

>2nd link
>faggot LARPer with thor's hammer
Into the trash you go

nd link
>>faggot LARPer with thor's hammer
>Into the trash you go

Give dude a chance.

He makes good stuff.

But he was right. 11th century Vikings go down like bitches because they're poor, don't wear armour and arn't really that good against experienced soldiers, knights are beasts with swords but Samurai have money and bows. Why bother fighting anyone up close when you can just use them as target practise?

Vikings have bows and knights crossbows.
Samurai horse down, samurai then sucks dick and dies with cum in his eyes while pleading for his life.

None of that is incorrect

All is incorrect, even your life.

Topics that are only historical in passing are not actually his topics

No, he's obviously paid to make them.
I used to watch him but stopped when all he was doing was sponsored content and hype-fade games rather that something with content (ie metal gear.)

He just doesn't give a shit about educating his viewers.

They didnt have katana but they had tachi.

the rest of that is wrong however

because he's more interested in turning things into a joke and entertaining than providing advanced educational insight

which is why he makes cracks about how the vikings were poorfags that cant into agriculture so they had to nig themselves into fame

>It's just ignorance on the developers part.
they know which buttons to push. It's the same reason why shogun 2 has anime sword attacks even as their unit descriptions literally say that "This shit didn't happen. They just wrestled IRL"

>gives sourced info
>trash.

>judging someone based on the way he looks.
I've seen History professors and university lecturer more based than any of us could ever been that look like a dirty hobo, or a trashy nerd.

The same old story, first you do it to get attention and subs, then you sell out and do it get a slice of that delicious sponsorship money$.

MatPat is a self-important windbag. He deserves to be taken down a few notches.

It would be standard equipment vs standard warrior type battle. Not specific weapon used by specific warrior vs standard warrior.

Vikings may have used bows/arrows but they weren't the standard issue weapon. Similarly, samurai horse may go down, but they don't go down that often to melee.

In the battle between three, Vikings would go down the fastest simply due to either Samurai's range or knight's charge.

Afterwards, Samurai could kite the knight and shoot arrows.

The battle would end same regardless.

I don't get the vikaboos butthurt when the outcome is same.

> It would be standard equipment vs standard warrior type battle.

Then viking still gets a javelin/throwing axe and both he and the knight still have a shield with the samurai having to move in closer to actually shoot them(because arrows are slow and require seconds to travel 100m, so in a duel long range shooting would be useless).

> Afterwards, Samurai could kite the knight and shoot arrows. The battle would end same regardless.

lol no, samurai arrows would have major issues penetrating mail and the 11th century kite shield is basically impervious to arrows and covers most of the body.

not to mention samurai quivers only had 6-18 arrows usually.

He was one of the "youtube representatives" to the Vatican to meet the pope. Each representative proceeded to give the pope a present. MatPat gave him a copy of the videogame "Undertale". The pope then proceeds to make a public announcement on how the youth are spending too much time on videogames.

>Go to a /pol/ meet up
>Fire at the black nazis attending
wow that was hard

>meet with pope
>give him the hotest meme video game of the year

Pretty autistic desu.

>plays and controls like shit
>expensive
>made my ubisoft, requires uplay
>not even appealing from a historical perspective
dropped

LONG MAY HE REIGN

LONG MAY HE REIGN

get fucked nordic scum

Yeah who cares.

Shoot the horse, horse throws knight off

What's the issue? You don't have to be so autistic about it. A bow is a bow. It will be used for its intended purpose, as a ranged weapon.

>MatPat gave him a copy of the videogame "Undertale". The pope then proceeds to make a public announcement on how the youth are spending too much time on videogames.
Christ, what a fucking faggot.
Of all the games he could've given to the pope he chose Undertale

> Shoot the horse, horse throws knight off

Knight is on foot and waiting.

> What's the issue?

The samurai has limited arrows and 99% chance he wont get through the shield or mail with them.

> You don't have to be so autistic about it. A bow is a bow.

Then the viking can have one and shoot the samurai horse.

> It will be used for its intended purpose, as a ranged weapon.

Yes, and fail.

>knight is on foot and waiting
So 0% chance samurai will lose and >0% chance samurai will win.

> So 0% chance samurai will lose

No, one of them has to eat/sleep sooner or later.

Also, this is in the case of the knight not having a crossbow...which he could have.

So on a battlefield with no food, who could survive?

A knight in full armor or a samurai with bow on his horse.

I'd give it to samurai. Horses can forage from grounds. Knights on ground will be weight down by the horsemen and be constantly be kept without sleeping. Meanwhile horsemen can go as he please without any danger from melee.

Exhaustion + range + mobility + emergency food resource (horse) wins out in your given scenario.

How can he ever recover ?

...

lol what?

We are talking about duel, not battles.

In battles, knights would have crossbowmen = dead samurais all over the place.

>moving goal posts from one to another

No, he is merely backing your moving of the goal posts.

He was just inconsistent.

>type of civilization
Japan
Feudal Europe
vikings?!?!!? (There is no such thing. Calling North european pagans "viking" is as retarded as insisting to call the japanese swords "katanas")

>caste of the warrior
Jap noble elites
Feudal European noble elites
Average joes levied from plebs(at least could have used champions/berserkers for north european pagans)

>timeframe
15 century japanese
11 century knight
11 century peasant

>Its a fantasy game

The only fantasy part about it is the colliding of time periods and if anything that means the historical accuracy should be at its peak.

>Fantasy Game
>Nothing fantasy about it other then 3 warriors from different time period fighting.

>standard issue
Bad argument. Matt had the poorest Viking against a distant relative tier mid range Knight (with only a torso of mail) fighting the fucking shogun

The best way to deliberate on which was better would be like this.

>Knight attack Samurai
Stale mate, we know that spanish soldiers and full armour (with guns) beat ronin in full armour (with guns). Although it's not perfect it means military might goes to knight. Japan is hard as fuck to dominate though so they wouldn't succeed.
>Samurai attacks Knights
Total Japanese rinse out

Knight>Samurai

>Viking Attacks Knights
Stale mates. Vikings were good at raiding but often got reemed without surprise due to fortification and preparation
>Knights attacking Vivkings
Complete rinse out. The vikings couldn't feasibly stop a legitimate ground based attacking force

Knight>Viking

>wooden spoon
>Samurai attacks viking
Hard to say. Vikings were navally strong so they'd probablly stale mate if not win

>viking against samurai
>muh island nation perfect for raiding and whittling away at without taking any real losses or wasting resources
Possible Viking advantage

Viking>Samurai


>final results
Knights>Viking>Samurai
With Knights being the best defenders and Viking being the best invaders.

The details are wrong but are you implying that isn't exactly what they did; nig themselves into fame?

The moment he said "but the knight can't fend off the arrow" I knew he was shit.

Better stick to video games, mat m8.

Shadiversity destroyed him in a reply video btw.

>Stale mate, we know that spanish soldiers and full armour (with guns) beat ronin in full armour (with guns).

This only every happened in naval battles

>Dane
>Gladius

>literally too autistic to admit the Samurai would have to physically engage the Knight
>no he just goes and hangs out until the Knight starves to death
>implying he hasn't quit the field
>implying that's how a battle to the death works
This isn't fucking battle royale, it's an exihibition. The Samurai would get fucked.

>viking shielded from Knight and Sam missles
>throws weapons in response
>Knights horse has protection and lasts longer
>Sam's horse goes down
>Sam gets double penetrated by spears one thrown the other driven
>Knight beats vivking either on horse back or hand to hand
The end.

LONG MAY HE REIGN

>Naval battles aren't battles
This is a dicussion about Vikings, a heavily naval reliant group, Japanese samurai, who live on an island which other than infighting is entirely naval reliant in wars with its neighbours be they defending or attacking. Finally, Knights, who had to deal with naval raids all the time and fights across a channel regularly.
I don't think it being naval means anything in particular.
They still boarded and engaged. They still fought in close combat.

The first few minutes establish that all warriors are from 11th century.

Selective hearing much?

Except that the images of say, armour he used for samurai were from much later periods. He had no fucking clue what he was doing in that regard and bought into the folded over 1000x meme too.

The image of the Viking and the knight were wrong too. Or did you not pay attention?

Not only that, the katana wasn't even given a thought except as an additional bonus scenario.

As I said again, selective hearing is the main issue here.

It matters because the Japanese at taht period really sucked at navel combat. They were much better in battles on land

Thought they were alright in the eleventh century, but guns dont factor in there

However that group in question was in fact a specialised naval group. They were the pirates that were reaming the local area.

In anycase, it's still the closest comparison we have.

My understanding of wako is they mostly raided merchant vessels and raided the coastline, and took anyone who would/could fight.

Of course they were totally unprepared for a ship with cannon and proper sailing rigs

Better than eternally waiting for bannerlord :^)

Mattpat is such a cuck. I used to like him early on but somewhere along the line he became unbearable.

Are there any Veeky Forums related YouTube channels that are good and not cringe?

LONG MAY HE REIGN

Am I the only person bothered that potatoes are featured in For Honor?

Ahoy,
youtube.com/watch?v=QyjyWUrHsFc
or, if you want more historical
youtube.com/watch?v=vN3YsiMDOE8

Bazbattles is pretty good

Dude gave Undertale to the pope. He gets to do something millions of Catholics dream about and he gives him a fucking shitty video game with a toxic fanbase and expects it too show him that "games aren't all about killing" fuck off Mattpat go jump off a bridge. It's not even funny, if he gave something funny I could forgive him but Undertale? When the hell is the pope going to find time to play Undertale? Here's hoping God smites his annoying ass to hell

LONG MAY HE REIGN

LONG MAY HE REIGN

They are called vikings knights and samurais I thought? You sound like a sophist

Average vikings were poor. Average knights were soldiers swearing their allegiance to nobles. The Samurais were the new class during the same time period. They were a powerhouse that was controlling the government and such. Samurais are rich/educated warlords of Heian era. The foot infantry soldiers are the peasant conscripts armies. There's also the buddhist warrior-monk class too which becomes their own faction. They're all separate class of fighters.

So you have vikings who are mainly poor peasants and fishermen raiding poorly defended monasteries and villages and running away/failing hard at any moderately defended area. This is not to say some small percentage of vikings aren't rich or very rich. Just that majority are poor sods.

You have knights employed by the nobles to defend their territory. They are employed as armored horsemen who can basically tank measly peasant attacks like vikings with ease.

You have rich educated samurais who are basically the cream of the crop of the Japanese warfare.

The battle will be basically Samurai/Knight easily dispatching Vikings. Then its ranged Samurai vs Knight.

Samurai vs Knight is the biggest question of weapon/armor. Either the mail/horse can withstand Samurai's arrows or the knight can reach the samurai.

I'd give it to ranged attack over melee.

> I'd give it to ranged attack over melee.

But desu

[Alexiad, VIII.8];

"For he knew that the Franks were difficult to wound, or rather, practically invulnerable, thanks to their armoured coats of mail. Therefore he considered shooting at them useless and quite senseless. For the Frankish defensive arms is this coat of mail, ring woven into ring, and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt."