-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Are we the baddies? Assassin's Creed Valhalla.
- Thread starter jman1954goat
- Start date
If you go in expecting Vinland Saga with a Ubisoft mass market product, you'll be disappointed.
I don't know, a game that lets you force people into slavery would not be a good look for any dev
I mean, there actually isn't such a thing as peaceful settlers, unless you're settling on a desert island.
Not blaming anyone but the level of apologist revisionism happening in this thread kind of shows the OPs point. I'd think most people are right when they say that Ubisoft judged that no one would particulary care about their sanitising of the Vikings. I mean, I'm still intending to buy the game.
It is a weird position compared to both Odyssey and Origins - Origins specifically set up the Greek take over of Egypt as a bad thing, but allowed there were some "Good Greeks". The position of this game is much more having cake and eating it - you're a good viking who only raids bad people, or something.
Edit: Actually I guess Odyssey's positioning the Spartans as some kind of heroes, similar to how most current pop culture does, was pretty much the same thing if not worse.
It is a weird position compared to both Odyssey and Origins - Origins specifically set up the Greek take over of Egypt as a bad thing, but allowed there were some "Good Greeks". The position of this game is much more having cake and eating it - you're a good viking who only raids bad people, or something.
Edit: Actually I guess Odyssey's positioning the Spartans as some kind of heroes, similar to how most current pop culture does, was pretty much the same thing if not worse.
that is uh, not a defense for colonialism today. what if the first assassin's creed game had had you play as a "noble" english crusader?
Last edited:
I didnt mean it as a direct comparison, more like a question out of curiosity.
Genuinely my biggest concern after seeing the CG trailer. They say they've done their historical research and want to be accurate, but then say these English Vikings are from Norway. It's not a good sign at all.
Hopefully we'll get lucky and Eivor's clan will be a minority among Danes when they arrive in England, providing some means of conflict with both sides. And hopefully Alfred will be portrayed as well as he was in the Last Kingdom - flawed but with understandable and relatable intentions. An antagonist against the Vikings for the right reasons, rather than "evil Templar with magic control stick/orb".
Honestly don't really care as I have come to accept that childrens TV shows will be more historically accurate than the game.
My main wonder is if they'll include hnefatafl, as I think that'd be a great minigame to add in
My main wonder is if they'll include hnefatafl, as I think that'd be a great minigame to add in
Well.. the invaders of England may primarily have been Danish, but "Danes" as an umbrella term could be used for all invading Vikings, so using the etymology of 'Danelaw' as evidence they were all Danish doesn't quite work
Yeah, that's probably great advice, I tend to always ruin open world games to myself for that exact reason. Helps that I disabled the compass and that kind of stuff, so the points of interest that I don't naturally come across won't keep calling me in the HUD.
Slightly different, I think. Vikings were pirates by-and-large; their attacks and horrors were wanton and essentially random. Opportunistic. Whereas your example of the Crusades were a highly strategic state-level campaign which was orchestrated very carefully, with every movement and every attack precise and focused with a very long-term goal of cultural reprogramming.
A better comparison would be "Knights' chivalry" culture in England in the middle ages, which in folklore is some honorable system of protection and oversight, but in reality was actually a Viking-esque horror regime where knights wantonly roamed the countryside raping women and slaughtering peasants.
The only adjective I really used in my post was "barbaric", and with that I didn't mean how bad it was (because all colonialism/pillaging is bad), but the WAY in which it's done. "Barbaric" in "style".
"Colonialism" is obviously still heinous, but it is a long-term, very strategic, very malevolently and meticulously planned out affair. "This nation/location has specific resources we want, and we must grow our empire. So let's strike these key locations and turn them, then enslave the populace, reprogram their culture, etc, etc".
Compare that to what we're discussing: essentially piracy and hit-and-run crime. It's not colonialism. It's a wanton approach of "there's a village. Let's attack it, raze it, rape its women, pillage it, then leave and forget it exists," which was the Viking way.
Not always, and not necessarily what we're seeing in Valhalla, which I guess is the turning point of actually trying to colonise places. We won't know until the game's out.
I've been playing RDR2 and for the whole time I have been thinking what is that "freedom" the protagonist gang so desperately wants? The freedom to steal?
At least John in RDR1 wanted to save his family and to lead an honest farming life.
Absolutely. It's a fantastically told story that doesn't shy away from the reality of vikings.
Last edited:
This thread has prompted my realization that I know very little about viking history.
I thought they were just Scandinavian merchants and sailors who settled Greenland and Iceland. I knew they were obviously warriors as well, but that is otherwise the the extent of my understanding. I will probably spend the day reading about them and filling my blind spot.
I thought they were just Scandinavian merchants and sailors who settled Greenland and Iceland. I knew they were obviously warriors as well, but that is otherwise the the extent of my understanding. I will probably spend the day reading about them and filling my blind spot.
i mean, i don't think literally every country in the world was in the habit of launching full-scale violent invasions back then. describing the viking age as "essentially random and opportunistic" is a mega stretch — i don't think it was that easy for them! and as far as the "'twas another time" argument goes, that's like saying that colonialism was a function of a period when the world was just up for grabs.
i think it'd be pretty dumb to make a video game with that message in 2020 and i'm not convinced valhalla's marketing theme of "actually the vikings were just regular bros" is much better. but yeah, will have to wait and see — i am interested in how this is handled!
Now while http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/index.shtml has a horrible design, it is pretty much the best source for accurate information about our ancestors.
Who cares about historical accuracy when you can show beautiful fjords instead of boring fields.
I wouldn't say Vikings were pirates by and large. At first they came to England just to plunder, but after some time they started settlements and tried taking over the whole island, which they controlled almost half of at times.
That really depends on which Crusade we are talking about. My shopping trips have more thought and planing put into them then some Crusades.
Yeh, then they should say that lol. No need to make some alternate reality where they were 'farmers' looking for land to cultivate.
Assassin Creed is a brand not a set of rules, obviously a Viking assassin is just a ridiculous idea Ubi has proven that history is just a visual backdrop for their B movie writing
just finished origins and really enjoyed but know their isn't any historical accuracy in these characters
just finished origins and really enjoyed but know their isn't any historical accuracy in these characters
This is actually relatively accurate. Pirates would even hold votes of whether captain of the boat they took over is good captain or not. Like, I am not claiming they were good, but they... had a brand of sorts. And they behaved in certain ways. If you cooperate, you get off relatively easy, with little to no torture or murder. But if you do not cooperate, you will be made an example off. All of that is to demoralize. So that word spreads around and enxt boat they raid doesn't resist out of fear of retribution. "OMG pirates, they will kill and brutly torture us, unless we give up the goods and don't fight back!" was the kind of attitude they wanted to spread around, to save themselves risk and energy.
If they just slaughtered eveyrone they captured, that would iterally be unpragmatic, because that would mean eveyrone would fight to the bitter end... which means more pirates will get killed. And they don't want to get killed.
There's a huge difference between them being good guys tho, and them just being pragmatic murderers.
Yes, it's "funny" how looting some temples in search of gold and enslaving people can be cool and badass or horrible and genocidal depending on the culture.
There are a lot of games featuring the colonisation of the Americas out there though.
I feel like a lot of people in this thread are missing the point a little here, it's not that the game is set in a period where there are bad people (there were plenty of peaceful people btw there always has been) it's that you are the invading force. It's like if the first game had you playing as a crusader.
It isn't about that fact that people are being killed it's the context and framing of it. AC usually does a good job of making you fight against a large empire or controlling force. Even Black Flag which a lot of people in here are using as a comparison mostly has you fighting the Spanish and British Emipres.
It isn't about that fact that people are being killed it's the context and framing of it. AC usually does a good job of making you fight against a large empire or controlling force. Even Black Flag which a lot of people in here are using as a comparison mostly has you fighting the Spanish and British Emipres.
I'm glad this is being discussed. The Ubi developer interview made my eyes roll somewhat. We all have a relatively good idea about Vikings and/or access to their history. Maybe Ubi should've just said it's a fantasy interpretation of the Viking era and not try and legitimise some of their storytelling decisions.
I mean, it's not the first time we've been the "bad guys" in the series.
In Black Flag you were literally a pirate. You pillaged and plundered and killed everyone in sight just to get rich. You could argue that you were a "rebel", or "fighting the system", but you were still playing as a horrible person who did horrible things, and often to innocent people.
In Odyssey, you played as a mercenary who collaborated with both sides of a conflict just because you got paid to do so. Nothing good or heroic about that either.
And sure, you're the invader in Valhalla, but at least you're invading for a reason. It's not because of greed or for the sake of it, but for survival. Didn't the interview say they were running out of fertile lands or something like that? Not justifying the violence of it all, but... this series has always been violent, right?
I guess we'll have to wait and see how they handle it. Maybe we're just a small clan of "good" Vikings that do what they have to for survival and we see all the bloodthirsty Vikings as rival clans or something.
In Black Flag you were literally a pirate. You pillaged and plundered and killed everyone in sight just to get rich. You could argue that you were a "rebel", or "fighting the system", but you were still playing as a horrible person who did horrible things, and often to innocent people.
In Odyssey, you played as a mercenary who collaborated with both sides of a conflict just because you got paid to do so. Nothing good or heroic about that either.
And sure, you're the invader in Valhalla, but at least you're invading for a reason. It's not because of greed or for the sake of it, but for survival. Didn't the interview say they were running out of fertile lands or something like that? Not justifying the violence of it all, but... this series has always been violent, right?
I guess we'll have to wait and see how they handle it. Maybe we're just a small clan of "good" Vikings that do what they have to for survival and we see all the bloodthirsty Vikings as rival clans or something.
Comparing the British to the Incas is not appropriate, the Spaniards were far superior when it came to military might. The British and Vikings were much more equal, and it was mostly down to the guerilla like tactics used by the Vikings that made them so successful. But there were plently of times the Vikings would get their asses kicked.
I don't really know how the fact that the other has more possibilities to defend themselves makesl ooting and conquering ok. Like, "it's more fair" but ok, still murder.
It would work if they had come to East Anglia to settle down, peacefully, build some quiet farms and villages and need to constantly defend yourselves as 'aliens'.
This made it look like it's full on assaulting and marching on places to loot and destroy.
To be fair, Odyssey jumped a lot between who we should feel support for, the Athenians or the Spartans.
This made it look like it's full on assaulting and marching on places to loot and destroy.
To be fair, Odyssey jumped a lot between who we should feel support for, the Athenians or the Spartans.
OP
OP
I feel like the game would be better served if you were a random citizen of either the saxons or Vikings that gets pulled into the conflict by circumstance instead of bieng a leader in either sides army.
Think Conner in ac3 we are playing someone neutral to the war. instead of bieng a war commander for either side of the revolutionary war (both British and Americans had there problems)
I never said either was ok, but if you can't see the difference between destroying an entire culture along with it's people (including the allies you fought with) and some raiders that even when conquering England left society mostly untouched, I'm not sure what to say.
That kind of seems to be the take here. You are expressly allying with "good" english lords to help them free their territory from the "bad" vikings (shown extensively in the released gameplay footage) and, presumably, "bad" english lords. Eivor's clan of vikings seem to stand aside from the rest of the vikings.
It's essentially the same set up we've seen throughout the series- allying with the oppressed to overthrow their corrupt leaders.
Ubisoft didn't lie.
They used the term farming like how us gamers use it.
The vikings were farming the British for fat loot like we farm npcs.
....
They used the term farming like how us gamers use it.
The vikings were farming the British for fat loot like we farm npcs.
....
This is only partially accurate. *Some* pirates would behave in those ways and some pirates were nicer than others. Also most pirates were nicer to white "civilized" victims, because y'know, they were pretty racist back then.
Henry Avery pulled off one of the biggest aquatic heists ever at the time by capturing the Mughal flagship, the Ganj-i-Sawai, and then they tortured the crew to find out where the riches were held and gangraped several women (many of whom apparently killed themselves to avoid being raped in front of their husbands).
Thomas Antsis was one of those "noble" pirates that you mentioned who ostensibly operated under the pirate code. However, he clearly didn't care too much about that code of ethics when over 20 members of his crew gangraped a woman, broke her back, and tossed her into the sea.
Captain Evans casually mentions how his crew "diverted themselves" with the enslaved women when they captured a ship carrying 250 slaves.
So yeah, while there were some pirates who were known to be kinder, like Benjamin Hornigold, there were many, MANY awful pirates and it's silly to try to portray pirates on the whole as harmless
OP
OP
I regret use of the word evil in the original op and edited it out. I was more talking about how Vikings are classically portrayed but I should have avoided that word specifically when in refrence to multiple entire cultures.
I apologize to any descendents of the many different viking cultures
I apologize to any descendents of the many different viking cultures
Imagine someone back then telling the survivors of viking raids on farms and towns where the English army wasn't present that they were on equal terms so its not so bad.