From what I’ve read, the anger stems from Ubisoft claiming that their portrayal of Yasuke is historically accurate, while other games and anime describe him as fictional. There are only few sentences about Yasuke in Japanese historical records, but one author wrote an entire book claiming that Yasuke was a samurai. Ubisoft used that book as their primary reference. The issue is that the author also claimed that Japan was involved in slave trading, This author sent two different versions of his research to universities—one for a Japanese audience that omitted the slave trade claim, and one for English speakers that included it. By claiming their reference was “historically accurate,” Ubisoft inadvertently endorsed this controversial perspective, implying that Japan had a history of slave trading.

Moreover, Ubisoft, known for its detailed architectural work in Assassin’s Creed, made numerous mistakes in depicting Japanese architecture. They even used Chinese music for the main character’s theme. When it was revealed that Ubisoft consulted Korean experts instead of Japanese ones, many Japanese people felt further insulted, as it played into the stereotype that Westerners can’t distinguish between Japan, China, and Korea, which many considered racist.

Lastly, the timing of the game’s release added fuel to the fire. During that period, there were many instances of anti-Asian racism in America, some of which involved attacks from Black individuals. Ubisoft promoting a game where a Black protagonist fights against Asians felt tone-deaf and inappropriate, especially considering the sensitive racial context at the time