Max Payne is redeemable and once again fighting against people far worse than him. You can relate to Max's goals.
-
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.
Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications (acoup.blog)
- Thread starter SofNascimento
- Start date
I always go into Assassin's Creed games knowing they are relatively well recreated historic areas that takes a lot of liberties with the actual history to fit in their plot and story. It's always been a bit of a power fantasy. I don't worry too much about historic accuracy in a game where you literally massacre entire outposts of soliders single handedly and not literally have the entire army after you 24/7
eh, Max is not portrayed as unlikeable irredeeable person.
The founding fathers are not good guys at all in AC3.
The game ends with George Washington destroying the main character's village (after promising the opposite, of course) and Connor realizing he's been manipulated the entire time. People hated it and Ubi went immediately back to James Bond superhero figures that always win.
AC4 shows pirates as good guys, true, but at least doesn't ignore slavery and the DLC Freedom Cry is all about it.
Origin clearly shows how Egyptians weren't ok with a Greek pharaoh trying to push Greek culture in Egypt.
It's always a simplified vision of history for the sake of entertainment, but in the case of Valhalla it seems worse than normal. The amount of reality stretching needed to paint Vikings as good guys is too much.
Nah man.
Max is a heroic character. He is a drunk and did a lot of dumb things but never did he do bad stuff and in turn was a bad guy. It is fun game that we need more of but I don't agree that it did the same thing as K&L.
Max is a drunk, mass murdering piece of shit that basically forgets why he exists in MP3 and the game acknowledges this more or less. It does not go to the depths that K&L does in deference to your argument.
Ubisoft treated an interaction in one of the trailers where the raiding leader let's go of a woman and her kid while raiding/pillaging the village, confused the hell out of me.
Now, was that supposed to show modern thinking values, saying this is how it could have been?
Or
When Vikings raids it's all ok, they may attack and loot your neighbors and may not harm you?
Because for some odd reason I was expecting someone else in the raiding party to kill them off screen and leader to have a micro second pause before continuing, but it didn't happen.
Now, was that supposed to show modern thinking values, saying this is how it could have been?
Or
When Vikings raids it's all ok, they may attack and loot your neighbors and may not harm you?
Because for some odd reason I was expecting someone else in the raiding party to kill them off screen and leader to have a micro second pause before continuing, but it didn't happen.
Exactly how I feel. I'm from Sweden so there is a part of me that is embarrassed about my ancestors too. I just can't sympathize at all with the vikings. And I honestly don't think it's a good period of the history to make a game about, it's a really dark and hateful period, I don't feel like anything the vikings do can be justified. Eventually I had to turn off my brain to keep playing. I hope it somehow can end on a good note at least but I have my doubts.
As a Norwegian, I can confirm that "Norse" culture and mythology has become a somewhat touchy subject and is now very much associated with racism and the far-right movement. Which is in some ways a shame because it's a dead culture with no autonomy and it's pretty much an innocent victim of racist shitheads abusing its aesthetics to create a white supremacist narrative.
With that said, viking culture is very much part of Norway's identity, both internally and internationally. Rather than distancing ourselves entirely from all things viking related, the whole Norse mythology thing has kinda been split into its own thing from a culture and identity perspective. I feel it's still generally accepted to include viking culture and aesthetics in popular culture, as long as you stay away from the Norse stuff. I can see that changing fast with more and more people becoming aware of the many other problematic aspects of the viking age, though.
Just my two cents based on my own observations. I'm sure other Scandinavians could offer more insight or other perspectives.
With that said, viking culture is very much part of Norway's identity, both internally and internationally. Rather than distancing ourselves entirely from all things viking related, the whole Norse mythology thing has kinda been split into its own thing from a culture and identity perspective. I feel it's still generally accepted to include viking culture and aesthetics in popular culture, as long as you stay away from the Norse stuff. I can see that changing fast with more and more people becoming aware of the many other problematic aspects of the viking age, though.
Just my two cents based on my own observations. I'm sure other Scandinavians could offer more insight or other perspectives.
Yeah I got this feeling playing it.
The post mentions this but it was odd going on a raid, entering a monastery, killing the priest in front of the treasure chest, and then getting a "don't kill civis or you will desync". It completely broke my immersion for a sec and I had to take a break as I was uncontrollably laughing at the ridiculousness of a viking raider who wouldn't kill a preist in the way of his loot.
The post mentions this but it was odd going on a raid, entering a monastery, killing the priest in front of the treasure chest, and then getting a "don't kill civis or you will desync". It completely broke my immersion for a sec and I had to take a break as I was uncontrollably laughing at the ridiculousness of a viking raider who wouldn't kill a preist in the way of his loot.
Eivor is unwelcome in most every city she goes and the settlement she improves is a danish one not a saxon one. It's the abandoned camp of a Ragnarsson IIRC.
I don't see at all how norse mythology is elevated above christianity, it comes across pretty stupid at several points.
I do agree though that it's weird how tame they made "vikings", even when raiding you can't kill civilians w/o being told you're gonne get desynced (game over) if you kill more.
Oh and the alliances usually conclude with gestures of friendship but you mostly just install a ruler that's friendly to danes to further your interests and in the case of Ivarr you're clearly not on the side of the "good guys".
Like I don't think Ubisoft did much of an anything to make Eivor be sympathetic or one of the good ones, she's a murdering invader that gives you some progressive choices and more cruel ones.
edit: forgot to mention, aren't anglo-saxons invaders in britain themselves?
I don't see at all how norse mythology is elevated above christianity, it comes across pretty stupid at several points.
I do agree though that it's weird how tame they made "vikings", even when raiding you can't kill civilians w/o being told you're gonne get desynced (game over) if you kill more.
Oh and the alliances usually conclude with gestures of friendship but you mostly just install a ruler that's friendly to danes to further your interests and in the case of Ivarr you're clearly not on the side of the "good guys".
Like I don't think Ubisoft did much of an anything to make Eivor be sympathetic or one of the good ones, she's a murdering invader that gives you some progressive choices and more cruel ones.
edit: forgot to mention, aren't anglo-saxons invaders in britain themselves?
Ah, well, i misremembered that one. It's been quite some time since i played it. Sorry.
From what little I've played of Valhalla, while yes it is sanitized I never got the idea that Eivor was a "hero". Just a protagonist. It's pretty obvious after the prologue they are only out for themselves. The game never hides this. In fact Eivor being a Viking is the reason there are no side quests because she wouldn't really help people.
Isn't the "don't kill civilians" thing an inherent thing of the Animus program like in universe? It was that way in every AC so far no?
Also this pretty much, Eivor doesn't feel like a typical AC hero at all.
Also this pretty much, Eivor doesn't feel like a typical AC hero at all.
Yea maybe it's just me but they aren't hero's. They are just warriors who do what they want for their own benefit. I thought it was very clear. They are going to England to pillage and plunder to build their own
Bayek is generally a good guy in the world. I didn't find any of the odyssey protags to belike Bayek
With so many games in the series, I thought everyone knew to blame the animus by now. You're not actually killing anyone inside the historical simulation, a simulation which often gets things wrong.
But yes this game is yet another example of appropriating history and culture for entertainment purposes. I would wait for the discovery tour before calling it excised out completely, but I'm early in the game and even so, clearly the protags and npcs value who rules over the villages, moreso than the people who live in them. That's why the game has the protags go to England in the first place, because they don't want to be under unified rule where they no longer fight among clans. They wanted to rule, and they wanted to go "a-viking".
Odyssey was similar, you fought battles for political purposes, not what was "best for the people". And the character was for-hire to kill people upon request, most of the time on behalf of ordinary people but not always.
But yes this game is yet another example of appropriating history and culture for entertainment purposes. I would wait for the discovery tour before calling it excised out completely, but I'm early in the game and even so, clearly the protags and npcs value who rules over the villages, moreso than the people who live in them. That's why the game has the protags go to England in the first place, because they don't want to be under unified rule where they no longer fight among clans. They wanted to rule, and they wanted to go "a-viking".
Odyssey was similar, you fought battles for political purposes, not what was "best for the people". And the character was for-hire to kill people upon request, most of the time on behalf of ordinary people but not always.
I thought it had to do with living as the ancestor, or in this case DNA subject, lived. So since they weren't a person killing randos, you can't be either
Yes, all the games are like that. You can only kill assassination targets and guards/soldiers. Valhalla is the first game that lets you attack a civilian settlement, though. Any other game has "military camps" you can conquer but they are strictly separated from city areas and there are only soldiers in them.
It's "easier" to display slavery when you're not responsible for it re: Origins/Odyssey versus Valhalla. Bayek was on his quest for revenge with Aya, Kassandra/Alexios were on a quest to destroy the cult and find their mom, Eivor is a part of a "nation" with royalty- Sigurd at its head where historically those settlements were routinely involved in rape/pillaging/slavery. So for in Origins/Odyssey it's "easy" to have slavery front and center since you're on your own and a "part" of it whereas in Valhalla you would be if they had it.
Last edited:
I haven't finished the game yet, so maybe it biffs the landing spectacularly, but... this article's framing of the Ceolwulf stuff is wrong and I'm like 90% sure an "are we the baddies" feel is entirely the point the game is building to.
there's like a truckload of stuff to criticize about this game's story and its relationship with imperialism without pretending it's something it's not, I think. you're absolutely not supposed to think the king-installing stuff is objectively good. It's also very weird to compare tribal norse paganism to organized christianity. for one thing blood sacrifices are absolutely in the game, you can find them—they're sanitized in the sense that i've only come across animal ones, but nonetheless they're there. honestly in general doing "what about blood sacrifices??" while complaining about christianity being portrayed as too hegemonic is pretty rich.
the game is definitely colonialismcore but [gets too close to the mic] so is almost every open world game
Everything you do in that storyline has Bad Vibes, not just in an abstract sense but in a what feels fairly obvious to me in-game sense. Ceolwulf sucks, the handover of the crown clearly frames him as a piece of shit, and the entire game seems to be building towards this idea that eivor is doomed to betray her brother (who is leading these increasingly ill-advised escapades and die. like it's almost eyeroll inducing how much the game is telegraphing "the other shoe is gonna drop soon!" from where I'm at
there's like a truckload of stuff to criticize about this game's story and its relationship with imperialism without pretending it's something it's not, I think. you're absolutely not supposed to think the king-installing stuff is objectively good. It's also very weird to compare tribal norse paganism to organized christianity. for one thing blood sacrifices are absolutely in the game, you can find them—they're sanitized in the sense that i've only come across animal ones, but nonetheless they're there. honestly in general doing "what about blood sacrifices??" while complaining about christianity being portrayed as too hegemonic is pretty rich.
the game is definitely colonialismcore but [gets too close to the mic] so is almost every open world game
Doesn't the animus change shit in some way. Like aren't we seeing this person's life though their filter?
I'm pretty sure the Danes would have thought themselves as happy go lucky adventurers, and believed it was right to take from others whatever they couldn't defend.
I could be wrong though, I thought this type of stuff was explained in game lore.
If not, then yeah, it would have made for a much more interesting story if the backdrop wasn't as sanitized and one-sided.
They could have looked at other fiction like hehe, my avatar's source: The Last Kingdom. It doespa pretty good job of portraying the Danes as bastards and the English as bastards too in their own way. Even the main protagonist is a bastard. But the story remains interesting and compelling, even if everyone is some type of bastard or another. You're not really necessarily rooting for either side, but just watching the tale unfold.
I'm pretty sure the Danes would have thought themselves as happy go lucky adventurers, and believed it was right to take from others whatever they couldn't defend.
I could be wrong though, I thought this type of stuff was explained in game lore.
If not, then yeah, it would have made for a much more interesting story if the backdrop wasn't as sanitized and one-sided.
They could have looked at other fiction like hehe, my avatar's source: The Last Kingdom. It doespa pretty good job of portraying the Danes as bastards and the English as bastards too in their own way. Even the main protagonist is a bastard. But the story remains interesting and compelling, even if everyone is some type of bastard or another. You're not really necessarily rooting for either side, but just watching the tale unfold.
That time period is a lot closer to our reality than the 860s and has a much more direct effect on todays world than viking raids back in pre norman England.
It's not that crazy, it's a complete outsider's view so there are no biases coloring the depiction. Same goes for, say, FMA portraying the consequences of foreign occupation of Muslim/Arab populations on false pretext to fulfill an alternative goal.
I think OP did a disservice to the Author by leaving out the opening part of the piece:
Joel and Ellie are presented as complex human beings, not as irredeemable assholes.
Those games are best approached with a huge amount of salt. There's rape and stuff that it's never shown. For another recent example, during the Mongol invasions of Japan, the Mongols hung on their ships the mutilated corpses of women to demoralise the Japanese.
But at the same time those failed invasions no doubt fueled Japanese imperialism for centuries to come.
History is so fucked up, that the best you can try with a game is to have fun. They're not the medium in which to look for a nuanced opinion.
But at the same time those failed invasions no doubt fueled Japanese imperialism for centuries to come.
History is so fucked up, that the best you can try with a game is to have fun. They're not the medium in which to look for a nuanced opinion.
Its not just Ubisoft. Romanticizing historical events especially of this age is very common in fiction *looks back on a ton of pirate fiction of the ages*.
Personally, I'm ok with this approach. I want to play romantic pirates/Vikings/etc. I don't want to play more accurate versions of them.
Honestly some of the writers were probably debating this, but ubisoft as a whole makes nothing but meaningless games nowadays. Marketing wanted a game with vikings, but didnt want the story that would fit a game with vikings because it would be "too bold" or whatever and would sell less (I think they are wrong on this).
AC is s series that can easily take a risk because its gonna sell anyway. Thats what annoys me about these big devs/pubs. They have these monster IPs that will sell no matter what. Take a fucking risk.
One of the biggest problems I have with this game ..... Eivor is made out to be this goody two shoes that doesnt kill innocents or do anything of that kind, but seems happy to raid innocent places. There should have been more story context as to why Eivor is so "good" when the rest of the vikings and people he meet are absolutely blood thirsty .... It just takes me out.
The best thing about the Vikings tv show is that, they actually showed that Ragnar has a good reason as to why he's not so vicious .... He's more interested in the lands, the culture than being bloodthirsty, even though he's absolutely ruthless and does kill innocents.
Personally, I wouldnt kill innocents in my game because thats not how I play in rpg games, but I do wish more writing and care was taken to blur the lines or offer more choices. I dont mine them straying away from history, but at least make it somewhat believable and nuanced.
The best thing about the Vikings tv show is that, they actually showed that Ragnar has a good reason as to why he's not so vicious .... He's more interested in the lands, the culture than being bloodthirsty, even though he's absolutely ruthless and does kill innocents.
Personally, I wouldnt kill innocents in my game because thats not how I play in rpg games, but I do wish more writing and care was taken to blur the lines or offer more choices. I dont mine them straying away from history, but at least make it somewhat believable and nuanced.
Yeah lol. I would argue this was a worse decision tbh. Decisions like this are why Ubisoft hasnt had a truly fantastic game in a while, they always shy away from those decisions and end up making a bland toothless story. I would argue that these games would sell more if they went for these "risks".
lol reminds me that I stumbled across a prisoner on his knees infront of two blokes with swords, might've been ally vikings or maybe saxons idk, they never attacked me when approaching them. But I instinctively freed the prisoner and killed the guards and coming directly from playing Odyssey I expected a cutscene or at least a Thank you. But the now freed prisoner just ran off and those guarding him lied dead by my feet. No thank you. No XP. No comment from Eivor. Nothing. Apparently not that type of game :p
That's not true. There are plenty of games that choose to have a nuanced opinion or convey a message to the player that isn't just broad strokes. We just don't see it much in the Triple A space due to publishers wanting to sell as many copies as they can of a game.
I love the AC games. But yeah, I would absolutely use the word toothless to describe the narratives of them. Truly prevents them from reaching the next level IMO.
Nothing about what the Vikings did is any more dark and hateful than any other culture of that time as every culture fought over land and enslaved their captives. The barbaric (demonic) perception of Vikings is a distorted image of reality due to all accounts in that time being written down and spread by Catholic clergymen - who as you'd imagine did not take kindly to the pillaging of churches and monasteries of their god. It was not until the 19th century, with a new interest in Scandinavian sources and archaeology, that a romanticised image of the Vikings began to appear as noble savages instead of demonic savages.
I think there's a place for games that are accurate and games that are not. I do think that those games that are not accurate do have some responsibility not to trivialize history too much.
It's kinda fucking hilarious that you get dsynced if you kill civillians, despite Vikings literally meaning "sea-farthing raiders/pirates".
Arguably they should be more susceptible to it because they would mostly encounter these things through popular media hence Japan's abhorrent depiction of black people in pretty much everything. That's all they were shown by american media. Vinland Saga is an exception in that sense.
Imagine if Assassin's Creed 3 had you playing as a-historical perfect English colonizers against backwards flawed native americans, Ubisoft really fuvked on this especially because ,as the article says, pre Christian Norse culture is usually appropriated by white supremacists
It really depends on how you are portraying your game and who you are using as your protagonists. If you are leaning on a problematic society as the protagonists of your story and choose to look past their transgressions, you should be called out for it.
As much as I hate AC3 for many reasons, having the main character be Native American actually did help avoid a total sanitization of the founding fathers.
Obviously they barely go into much depth of them not being great, but at least Connor does call at least one of them out on their shit for owning slaves, and I think he even gets pissed at Washington for not actually doing anything for the Native Americans.
Thank you for this thread OP! It's been insightful to read through even though I haven't personally played the game.
Your comment helps shed some light on how this historical period and its depictions are viewed by the region it originates from.
I was wondering what you meant by "Rather than distancing ourselves entirely from all things viking related, the whole Norse mythology thing has kinda been split into its own thing from a culture and identity perspective. I feel it's still generally accepted to include viking culture and aesthetics in popular culture, as long as you stay away from the Norse stuff." ?
Viking stuff is more preferred to see in popular culture than Norse stuff? I take what you said to mean that other pieces of media that incorporate Norse mythology are starting to be frowned upon because of the far-right movement abusing its symbols/aesthetics? Things like Thor in the MCU or the most recent God of War game that don't shy away from Norse stuff is less accepted nowadays?
(Apologies if I misunderstood!)
Your comment helps shed some light on how this historical period and its depictions are viewed by the region it originates from.
I was wondering what you meant by "Rather than distancing ourselves entirely from all things viking related, the whole Norse mythology thing has kinda been split into its own thing from a culture and identity perspective. I feel it's still generally accepted to include viking culture and aesthetics in popular culture, as long as you stay away from the Norse stuff." ?
Viking stuff is more preferred to see in popular culture than Norse stuff? I take what you said to mean that other pieces of media that incorporate Norse mythology are starting to be frowned upon because of the far-right movement abusing its symbols/aesthetics? Things like Thor in the MCU or the most recent God of War game that don't shy away from Norse stuff is less accepted nowadays?
(Apologies if I misunderstood!)
What a nonsensical comparison, the impact of British colonisation on native Americans is still felt to this day whereas the impact of Norse colonisation in England today doesn't extend further than... vocabulary and place names?
It's absolutely a thing with AC games, but honestly also games in general.
Like wasn't Black Flag the most beloved AC game before (probably) Valhalla? A game where you play a pirate who attacks absolutely everyone and sinks trader ships because he believes he's entitled to fame and riches?
Like wasn't Black Flag the most beloved AC game before (probably) Valhalla? A game where you play a pirate who attacks absolutely everyone and sinks trader ships because he believes he's entitled to fame and riches?
It's going to be a few hours before I have anything like enough time to read this, but I'm curious if it deals at all with the fact that the English Church power structure is itself a colonizing force at this point in history. Skimming the pull quotes from the OP, "Vikings = colonizers, English = colonized" is a very simplistic view of the situation, and I haven't seen the game really engage with the fact that the English Christians are themselves colonizing the hell out of the pre-existing Britons/Welsh populations at this point in time, following in the footsteps of the Romans.
OP
OP
Because concepts of imperialism and racial and cultural superiority aren't something that stays in the past. I think the article is quite emphatic the end result with Vahalla is not a product of design, but still a real part of the game. And a game like this can mold people's view of what imperialism and colonization are. And form an imagine not very different than the one that motivate the europeans power in the 19th and 20th centuries.
It really just depends on the source, plus there are other factors that go into those depictions from the source culture. Like Japan already has significant issues with colorism/mistreatment of native peoples, which makes anti-black racism more palatable due to already entrenched cultural attitudes. That doesn't necessarily apply as much when critiquing ancient Nordic cultures or US military expansionism in the Middle East.