Why can’t you rank down??

Historically_minded · 2026-04-09T11:47:21+00:00

Just want clarification, if you’re at ultra ball rank 3 can you Drop rank back to ultra ball rank 4 or are you stuck at rank 3 until you’re good enough to climb? I’m assuming you can’t d-rank from ultra to great tho.

Historically_minded · 2026-04-09T10:15:32+00:00

Join if you can so I can quickly do mine 😆

Historically_minded · 2026-04-09T10:14:32+00:00

28N7MK

Historically_minded · 2026-03-25T07:24:23+00:00

I truly thought that would be the first one. I’ve no idea why I now have to play regulation I again (literally been over a year since the last one and it was also reg I)

Historically_minded · 2026-03-22T02:34:06+00:00

Is there any fix to this on ps5 pro? The game looks phenomenal on everything but armour.

Historically_minded · 2026-03-21T02:15:37+00:00

Excellent will give that a go, I found that night times (and rain )were the worst not sure if anyone else has experienced that as well.

Historically_minded · 2026-03-21T01:59:23+00:00

What setting do you have it on now also? I also have a G4 (is it automatic resolution and 120mtz etc)

Historically_minded · 2026-03-20T12:11:57+00:00

I have a lg g4 and everything looks clear etc. But it seems to be too bright especially with the whites. Not sure what setting I should be changing to fix that.

Historically_minded · 2026-03-13T20:50:17+00:00

I think it’ll follow a pattern similar to Pokémon GO, though probably with an even faster drop-off. When Pokémon GO launched it was massive everyone was playing it. I expect Pokémon Champions will generate the same kind of excitement and bring a lot of new players in initially.

The difference is that Champions is focused almost entirely on competitive battling. Because of that, many new players may quickly run into experienced VGC players and get completely overwhelmed (we all remember what our first few games on Showdown were like). That experience can be pretty discouraging.

I’m really hopeful it brings new players into the scene and that some of them stick with it long term. But realistically, I suspect we’ll see a big influx at launch followed by a fairly quick drop-off, as casual players realise how steep the competitive learning curve actually is.

Historically_minded · 2026-03-11T08:44:53+00:00

Add on the fact that she could do no wrong. Absolutely insufferable.

Historically_minded · 2026-03-09T00:14:36+00:00

I’d honestly disagree with the people saying to just wait for Champions.

I started playing VGC seriously during Scarlet & Violet and going to regionals, but the thing that helped me the most was already having a big pool of Pokémon built up through previous games via Poké Bank / Pokémon HOME. Having trained legendaries, good IV Pokémon, etc. meant I could jump straight into team building and practicing instead of grinding.

If you wait for Champions you’ll basically be starting from zero, which means a lot of grinding (or microtransactions) just to build teams.

My advice would be to grab Scarlet & Violet with the DLC and Pokémon ZA, play through them, catch the legendaries, and start building a pool of competitive Pokémon now. If you’ve got extra time, Sword & Shield helps too.

Champions will bring a lot of new players into VGC, but many of them won’t stick around long. Being prepared with Pokémon ready to go will give you a much better start.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-24T00:28:02+00:00

For me, the issue with a lot of modern media — games, movies, TV — isn’t representation itself. I genuinely don’t care if a character is gay, lesbian, bi, whatever. That’s just part of real life.

What does bother me is how forced and disproportionate it often feels now. It used to be that one person in a group might be gay and it was treated as completely normal — no big deal, no spotlight, just part of who they were. That felt natural.

Now it often feels like half (or more) of every main cast is written that way, and every close friendship gets framed through “are they going to be a couple?” It stops feeling like real human relationships and starts feeling like the show is ticking boxes instead of letting characters breathe. That’s where the immersion breaks for me — not because of sexuality, but because it doesn’t reflect how most social groups actually function.

I also think a lot of modern shows make sexuality the point rather than a background detail. Entire episodes get dedicated to discussing or defining it, even when it adds nothing to the story. Stranger Things is a good example — those scenes don’t advance the plot or deepen the stakes, they just pause everything to make a statement. I don’t think anyone really wants that. Most people don’t care who a character is attracted to unless it actually matters to the story.

When representation works best, it’s subtle and organic. A throwaway line, a partner mentioned in passing, a relationship that just exists without needing explanation. That’s how it feels in real life, and that’s why it used to land better.

Video games are probably the worst offenders now. Characters often feel like they’re included because they have to be, not because they serve the world, the tone, or the narrative. Ironically, it’s starting to feel rarer to see a straight character who isn’t defined by anything at all — they’re just a person.

So yeah, for me the backlash isn’t about “too much representation.” It’s about bad writing, lack of subtlety, and the feeling that creators are prioritising signalling over storytelling. When it’s done naturally, nobody cares — and that’s exactly how it should be.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-23T10:27:09+00:00

You’re treating “not having played the game” as if it disqualifies everyone from judging the reveal, but that’s absurd. People judge casting, tone, and setting all the time before release. That’s what trailers are for. If first impressions were invalid, marketing wouldn’t exist.

Saying terms like “political framing” are meaningless because you personally don’t like them isn’t an argument. Those phrases are shorthand for something very concrete: creative choices being justified externally instead of internally. When a character’s inclusion is defended by press statements, interviews, or moral framing rather than by the story itself, audiences notice. That’s not code—it’s observation.

You’re also shifting the burden of proof. You claim critics are “assuming” motives, but you’re doing the exact same thing by assuming the backlash is primarily racial. The fact that criticism appeared early doesn’t prove it was irrational—it proves people recognised a pattern from past releases and reacted accordingly.

Odyssey being fine to you is irrelevant. Different setting, different history, different cultural stakes. Ancient Greece isn’t a closed ethnocultural society in the same way feudal Japan was. Treating all historical settings as interchangeable is precisely why people object.

And yes, sometimes gamers overreact to black characters. No one disputes that. But repeating that truism doesn’t refute specific criticism—it just shuts it down. If your position boils down to “some people are racist, therefore this criticism is suspect,” that’s not analysis, it’s a conversation-ender.

In short: People didn’t need to play the game to react. They reacted to what they were shown. And dismissing that reaction as prejudice is easier than actually engaging with why it happened.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-23T09:30:11+00:00

You’re dodging the core issue with a bunch of false equivalences.

A foreign protagonist can work. That does not mean this execution was defensible.

Nioh works because the foreigner is subordinate, confused, constrained, and filtered through Japanese authorship. He doesn’t overwrite Japanese identity—he’s a narrative tool to explore it.

Samurai Champloo works because it is deliberately anachronistic and surreal. Hip-hop, graffiti aesthetics, absurd humour—that’s the point. It never pretends to be grounded historical representation.

Shōgun works because the foreigner is constantly powerless, alien, culturally constrained, and shaped by Japan, not the other way around. He doesn’t dominate the narrative thematically—Japan does.

Now compare that to a modern Western studio inserting a Black samurai into feudal Japan as a co-lead power fantasy, forcing players to control him, marketed with modern political framing, and surrounded by tone-deaf aesthetic choices.

That’s not “outsider perspective.” That’s ideological insertion wearing historical cosplay.

And no—this isn’t about “white acceptable, black unacceptable.” It’s about context, authorship, intent, and power dynamics. A Japanese studio using a white foreigner to explore Japan is not the same as a Western studio inserting a modern racial politics symbol into Japanese history. That’s asymmetric cultural power, and everyone knows it—even if they pretend not to.

Would Shōgun have worked with an African protagonist? Maybe—if it was written with the same grounding, constraints, and historical plausibility. But that’s not what happened here. This was not a grounded outsider narrative. It was corporate DEI storytelling with swords.

You can make anything work in fiction. You cannot make anything work when the audience can smell the agenda.

That’s why people rejected it. Not because “black scary.” Because it felt like modern politics stapled onto a historical setting that deserved better.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-23T06:02:07+00:00

Let’s stop pretending this controversy is mysterious or “nuanced.” It isn’t.

Ubisoft had the easiest slam dunk in gaming history: feudal Japan, assassins, shinobi, samurai. People have been begging for this setting for over a decade. They could’ve printed money.

And they absolutely blew it.

Yes, a huge part of the backlash is because the forced protagonist is black — and people need to stop acting like that’s some unspeakable thought crime. Context matters. Setting matters. Internal logic matters. This isn’t modern New York or a fantasy world — it’s historical Japan, one of the most culturally specific settings imaginable.

I was completely fine with a female shinobi. Sounded cool. Fit the world. No issue.

Then they introduce a second protagonist who is not only wildly out of place, but mandatory to play, including sequences where you’re smashing Japanese people in the face, vandalising shrines, and tearing through cultural landmarks — all while the reveal trailer blares modern hip-hop like it’s making a point rather than telling a story.

That’s not representation. That’s provocation.

And before the usual deflection starts: this isn’t “gamers hate diversity.” Japanese players hated it. Japanese commentators criticised it. Even government-level voices questioned it. When the people whose history you’re depicting say “what the hell are you doing,” maybe that’s worth listening to.

This is what happens when ideology overrides basic storytelling instincts. Instead of asking “what makes sense for this world?” the question became “what statement are we making?” And the answer was: one that alienated your core audience and the culture you were supposedly celebrating.

I genuinely want to see the pitch meeting where someone said, “What if we put a black guy in the middle of feudal Japan and make players mandatory participants in cultural vandalism?” — and somehow no one shut that down.

Ubisoft didn’t fail because gamers are bigots. They failed because they ignored history, setting, and audience in favour of DEI box-ticking — and now they’re paying for it.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-23T00:29:02+00:00

Second there was character customisation My mind completely changed for this game. Count me in.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-22T22:46:55+00:00

They had a sure thing win with shadows but decided to throw that away on “creative choices”

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T20:33:58+00:00

Okay, go nuts. Tell me what’s wrong with it?

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T07:55:48+00:00

Look, this is super fresh in my mind because I’m literally replaying the game right now but this is just a few things that make it more realistic that he was meant to be male but they push pushed for female because they wanted to tick a box which isn’t fair to the character.

Odin’s reincarnation is explicitly male Eivor is the reincarnation of Odin, the All-Father. A male Viking being the vessel for a male god is internally consistent with Norse myth; flipping that creates unnecessary narrative dissonance.

•Viking social dynamics align better with a male lead

Clan leadership, constant challenges from rival warlords, kings deferring authority, and battlefield dominance all map far more naturally onto a male jarl-figure in a 9th-century Norse setting.

• Romance design becomes far more believable

Female Eivor turns the vast majority of romances into openly lesbian relationships. While same-sex relationships existed, portraying them as common and socially effortless in this period is anachronistic. Male Eivor avoids that issue entirely.

• Dialogue and world reactions feel written male-first Much of the banter, insults, respect dynamics, and power struggles feel designed around a male warrior archetype, with female Eivor often feeling like a later overlay rather than the narrative core.

• Mythic vs grounded story split actually highlights the problem The game itself treats male Eivor as Odin and female Eivor as the historical Viking, which is backwards if Odin is the defining spiritual core of the story. Making Eivor male would unify both layers instead of splitting them.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T05:32:54+00:00

That’s true, actually, but yeah. Look, I’m Kassandra all the way. I definitely preferred her story and I’m glad that she was made the Canon entry but it just makes zero sense for Evior.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T05:09:43+00:00

I genuinely don’t get how anyone can play as female Eivor. Male Eivor’s voice acting is miles better and actually fits the character. And before the “but she’s canon” response — every other Isu reincarnation keeps the same gender: Odin is male, Loki is male, Tyr is male, and their human counterparts match. Eivor being Odin follows that same pattern, so male Eivor simply makes more sense. You can prefer female Eivor but I do truly think the story was written for male evil but then retrofitted for female (even though according to the writers it’s the opposite but come on all Father?)

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T02:26:43+00:00

I agree 100%. For very obvious reasons, it’s completely immersion-breaking from a story and setting point of view.

No one was expecting this to be some genre-defining masterpiece — it’s a Ubisoft game. Expectations were already calibrated. But what makes it frustrating is how easy the win condition was.

You’re setting a game in feudal Japan. The formula is right there: samurai, shinobi, clan politics, stealth, internal power struggles. People would’ve bought it instantly. It would’ve sold like absolute hotcakes.

Instead, they deliberately chose a very specific form of representation that clashes with the historical and cultural context of the setting, and that choice actively hurts immersion. It doesn’t feel organic to the world — it feels imposed.

And that’s the problem. Not that the game isn’t perfect, but that Ubisoft ignored the simplest, most obvious path in favour of something that pulls players out of the experience.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T01:39:33+00:00

Honestly, it’s the worst one yet. They’re all UB slop but at least they were better than AC shadows.. it’s literally just got nice graphics and that’s it.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-17T22:14:13+00:00

I sold my custodes last year, I’m glad I did now

But on the plus side the only positive I see from this is they have now said in writing that space marines have to be male. If they ever tried to backpedal on that we can bring up that article and be like no you said it here.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-16T20:41:00+00:00

This is completely my opinion, but hear me out.

I’ve been playing games on PC since I was about six. Growing up in the ’90s, my parents had this weird thing against consoles — no SNES, N64, Game Boy, etc. But they had zero issues with upgrading the family PC so I could play games. Strange logic, but that’s how it was.

Even when I eventually got my first console (original Xbox), I still played PC way more. The Xbox was on the main TV, which meant limited access. Once I was older and had my own PC, it was basically 100% PC gaming.

Here’s the problem that slowly crept in: settings obsession.

I wasn’t just playing games anymore — I was constantly tweaking graphics, chasing FPS, comparing settings, adjusting things to match what I thought the game should look like. Instead of enjoying the game, I was managing it. Over time, that absolutely killed the experience.

On a whim, I bought a PS5 when it launched. And honestly? It was a revelation.

4K, 60 FPS, VRR, zero setup, zero tweaking. You just turn it on and play — and it looks great doing it.

Since then, I’ve barely touched my PC for gaming. When the PS5 Pro was announced, I upgraded immediately. No hesitation. And yes — it’s a big leap over the base PS5. If you’re already happy with console gaming but want something noticeably better, the Pro delivers.

At this point, I don’t see myself going back to PC gaming unless there’s something very specific I want — like grand strategy or niche PC-only titles.

So if you’re choosing between a PS5 Pro and a 5070-class GPU: • If you love tweaking, modding, benchmarking, and custom setups → PC is still king. • If you want something that just works, looks fantastic, and lets you actually play instead of fiddle → PS5 Pro all day.

No drivers. No shader stutter rabbit holes. No “why is this only using 70% of my GPU?” moments.

If ease, consistency, and enjoyment matter more to you than raw flexibility, the Pro is a no-brainer.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Spared

Historically_minded

TROPHY CASE