Farming and colonizing uncharted territory, imagine vikings(the sea faring people) would have colonized america. With a less destructive belief system.
@@marocat4749 Some of them tried and got kicked out again. In practice it would have been too far away and too densely populated without a massive plague pile-on like the one that happened in the 15th century.
@@Healermain15 The natives in the north were actually found to be more resistant to European diseases than In the south. Remember that by the time europeans encountered them again, it'd only been around 600 years.
The statues of Thor all have horned helmets.... you thought you could escape, but you'd be wrong. I think there are also a few godly helms with wings, which is both better (in that it references Wagner in a more thoughtful way than horns) and worse (in that Wagner stole them from stereotypes of Roman gods).
Adding to the pop culture crimes against historical combat: No helmets. Fire arrows. Artillery shell trebuchets. Tin foil armour. Not enough spears. No formation combat. Armies keep fighting after 20% casualties. Supply chains aren't a constant big deal to raid/defend. Telegraphed over strikes. Not just starving out the town. There's more. So much more.
I figured this game would be playing historically fast and loose for the aesthetic when you go north of Fornburg to Valka's hut and her "hut" is a full-blown magnificent pre-Christian stave church, somehow all by itself way up in the mountains in the 9th century! Wrong place, wrong time, wrong religion! Beautiful and ridiculous, and above all not! a! HUT! And just moments earlier I'd recognized a raven design on a shield in Fornburg as being from an actual coin from Óláfr Sigtryggsson's reign in Jórvík... what historical accuracy whiplash...
That's the general rule with big money corporate "art", isn't it? There's always at least a few people on the team who do the research and want to stay true to the source... and then on the other hand you've got the marketing department and the executives. The latter group has all the authority, so the former only get to show off their historical accuracy in the small details. I'm 90% certain that the reason the Celts look like spooky druids, is that some guy from marketing had a chart showing how much money Witcher 3 made.
@@Tleilaxu0 "Guys, spooky pagan shit SELLS!! Make it spooky and pagan! With animal skulls! And blood shroom magic juice!" Tom from Marketing, probably.
@@Tleilaxu0 The irony there would be that Witcher 3, despite being completely fantasy, actually handled the Celts better than Ubisoft did, as Skellige is loosely based on the Norse-Gaels (Gaelic clans in Ireland and Scotland that had mixed with Norse settlers and incorporated aspects of their culture).
I actually thought it was the only truly cool historical innacuracy. All else is kinda stupid, but this has no chance of people actually thinking the Norse found Excalibur and doesn't harm any group of people, so it's just harmless fun. The thing about the celtic people is really disgusting though...
One thing that personally bothered me about the raids - the game "desynchroises" you if you harm any civilians during them. Which is ludicrous, considering vikings' main targets - water-adjacent monasteries and villages - were chock-full of civilians and didn't have a lot of protection. So Valhalla using AC's classic "this is not what this character would have done" immersion breaker mechanic on a VIKING who's pillaging a monastery is tone-deaf at best, and whitewashing at worst.
@@arhamshahid5015 Basically, a big reason for why vikings in particular had a pretty bad reputation was their preference for "soft" targets, i.e. monasteries, churches and villages. Places that didn't have a lot of guards, but a lot of squishy civilians - civilians who either ended up dead or enslaved as a result of those raids. So the game PENALISING you for harming civilians (even by accident), while you're sacking their homes and stealing all their valuables is... kinda ridiculous
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that in previous AC games, you totally could've just walk around killing civis. At the very least, I remember doing that in the PSP AC. Is there any reason to do that? No. Does it harm you? Probably. But the game never stops you from doing so.
As a Norse historian who's into video games, I've been asked repeatedly by friends why my interest in this game has been so low. Thanks for providing a video I can just point people to instead of going on another hour long rant.
That's because you don't play videogames, this game fares way better than so many historical games out there. Ghost of Tsushima is nonsense for example.
He said he is into video games though. Just because he isn't interested into Valhalla, a game that portrays the history it presents terribly, doesn't mean he isn't into video games. That's absurd.
Me three, except I consulted on the script for this video and will be livestreaming a full playthrough starting next month, so I've committed to another 100 hours of rant...
I love a good greatsword, For Gorum and all, but come on man. This is Vikings. Good luck getting a blade that long outside of Jotunheim I mean goodness me.
Can you blame him? I mean all of England's neighbouring countries directly or indirectly reference beating England in their anthems they were, to one extant or annother, the colonial big bad for like 500 years on and of
@Ulises Leon Richard was the crusading king, and all the wars with France where thinly veiled attempts to nick bits of their country I'm not saying it's full blown imperium but it's at least imperumish The earlier stuff that you mentioned was a fascinating cultural mixing pot but wasn't really ENGLAND. Please don't get me wrong I think the whole history of our Isles is fascinating, but you can't deny, from a lot of perspectives the English were the baddies
Because the largest markets for these games are the United States, Canada, the UK and Australia. Therefore the main consideration is to make games that are most palatable to those markets. It's that simple. I wonder how accurate the siege of Paris will be, given that Ubisoft is technically a French company based in Paris.
This should've taken place with a Viking joining the Varangian Guard in Byzantine and the surrounding region. They could have easily made a the protagonist an assassin for the Emperor at the time and gone around the region doing his bidding and other missions. Missed opportunity in my opinion. Hopefully it'll become some DLC later or a sequel
Britons wearing skulls and pelts... The Britons and Gaels were Christian before the Anglo-Saxons. St Piran's Oratory in Cornwall (One of the oldest Christian sites in Britain) was built in the C6th century while the Anglo-Saxons were still converting into the 7th century.
Yeah wearing skulls and pelts is ridiculous, but Christian is a pretty loose term when it came to Ireland and the rest of the Irish Sea lands back then
Insular and Celtic Christianity, while different to Catholicism, was not a far cry from other converted peoples interpretation of the scripts even the Roman (East and West) Church had schisms and debates on the true interpretation of the faith. The main concessions made by the Catholic Missionaries to the Irish to convert them was the adopting of some of their Gods as Saints such as Brigid and retaining some Gael and Briton traditions such as certain season-based festivals, Celtic style rites and river sword/tool offerings. These were done in the name of God rather than their Pagan Gods.
You know what really bugged me? The character exploration scetches, done during early development, are on point. They have a lot of personality and still convey the time period quite nicely. And then they just said f*ck it and went down the Marvel Thor- vikings tv-show - heavy metal route instead. Like you said, literally every culture portrayed is done dirty like that... I mean, Yanli's whole personality is that she likes spicy food. Because she's asian. Like, seriously? There is no nuance to anything.
Nope, Sykrim was wrong in the opposite direction: Norse men were fond of grooming, they didn't look like gruff filthy dudes that wear rags and don't give a fuck
YES! Having giggled my way through @TheWelshViking's historical (in)accuracy review of the Vikings TV series, seeing the game character aesthetics portrayed in this video feels like a weird flashback to that 🤭 Especially the bizarre makeup & hair choices!
Red can you do a video on the Slavic gods? They aren't that well known by people. People only know about Baba Yaga. They may no Chernebog from american gods or play Smith. I would love for you to do a video on the god Veles and Perun.
Well... If anyone is a Fire Emblem fan; Veles is technically known. The dragon Velezark is a dragon connected to dragons of other FE games Medeus (earth), Idunn (darkness), Anankos (water), Grima (magic and underworld) and what is Veles oh yeah a god of magic, earth, underworld, and water!
Old AC: We didn't give Altair a crossbow because that would be historically inaccurate. New AC: After fighting Medusa in Atlantis pull Excalibur out of the stone as an unbeatable Viking straight out of an Amon Amarth video.
Okay people say they removed the crossbow from AC1 because it was historically inaccurate, that's not true. They removed it because it made the game unbalanced. If they removed it because it was historically inaccurate it wouldn't have been in the trailer.
Wait; does the player actually pull Excalibur out of a stone?! Excalibur and the Sword in the Stone are not the same swords! Excalibur was a replacement for the sword in the stone after that sword broke during a fight.
@@matthewmuir8884 They do get conflated together a lot in tv shows and movies for narrative convenience. Not excusing it, just offering an explanation.
@@SpaceNerd117 in their defense though true Arthurian legend has fallen out of fashion so most people only know the "popular" version in which Excalibur and the SitS are one and the same weapon. They also have it as a giant 2 handed sword which.... also, very wrong.
I feel like Ubisoft wanted to do more with "For Honor" but the game didn't do as well as they hoped so they just decided to take their ideas & put them into an Assassin's Creed (one of their more profitable properties) game
At least the Vikings didn't have horned helmets, even Dreamworks got that wrong. I also like the hammer amulets. That's a Thor reference that is historically accurate.
I'm actually suprised Blue didn't mention that, that's already a big step in the right direction though I do agree the always tattooed and furred-covered does get old/weird XD.
Being of Scandinavian descent, the fact that Viking iconography has been yoinked by white supremacists is frustrating and horrifying. I go looking for traditional hairstyles, or symbolism so i can connect to/ learn about my roots and inevitably run into some racist BS.
@Ulises Leon I don't know there were also Cowboys and Knights. Those are pretty cool, but maybe I shouldn't say that because those assholes are going to move over there next.
@Ulises Leon Rome was not multicultural, it was an empire. Yes, it had many cultures and ethnicities, but there was no pretense of equality among them, the Romans were always assumed to be on top, and everybody was a barbarian.
@@wilhelmseleorningcniht9410 this is exactly what I'm talking about! I got interested in various Icelandic music, but the comment sections were horrific!!! I hate that there are people who think the color of their skin, or where their ancestors are from makes them superior. As if there was some inherent difference in that. I wish there was some way to take the iconography back from these scumbags!
In the south of England near Portsmouth there’s a big Roman palace called “Roman fishbourne palace” and I tried to find it in the game but it’s not there, proper pissed me off
I don't know why anyone would expect Ubisoft to be faithful to history when they can't even be faithful to fiction. Like that time they decided that Shelob the spider monster from the LOTR was a goth Galadriel waifu all along.
then don't play games. I'm really sorry, but the harsh truth is this: don't play games and don't watch movies if you're going to have issues. If Assassin's Creed is bad, you're just going to cringe at the rest.
@@MrHerecomesjohnny see, it’s not that I have this issue with all of them. It’s that this game in particular is a bad offender. I could at least deal with odyssey’s representation of the myths, but this one has too much to simply ignore.
@@MrHerecomesjohnny no piece of media is free of criticism, especially those that claim some form of realism and fail miserably to do, added on the stereotyping of cultures is outdated and dangerous no matter the media outlet.
One of the things i hate the most with this game and series like Vikings is whenever they show the viking homeland, they show icy fjords between gigantic mountains. Sure that exists in Scandinavia, however most vikings invading England during this time where Danes. If you have ever seen Denmark, i'll know it is flatter than a pancake, but that is never show because Norwegian fjords look nicer.
Eh, it's honestly par for the course. Too busy covering up abuse of their staff by their execs to actually consider historical accuracy. The abuse of their staff has pretty much turned me off of ubisoft games or even really consume media about ubisoft products.
I was hoping that this game would star Ahmad ibn-Fadlan as the main character, exploring the Viking World, augmenting it with the story from 1, and even throw a reference to Eaters of the Dead/the 13th Warrior
Ubisoft: We want vikings, but we only want to implement the boring realistic part, and completely overhaul actually interesting history for an eye-rollingly annoying and inaccurate one.
@@labradude That's a false dichotomy and you know it. It doesn't have to be a documentary to get facts right. And the Isu never appeared in AC1, you only got to see the Apple of Eden used at the very end. The early games knew to keep the scifi nonsense in the background, to actually enhance the otherwise very well done historical settings.
@@felixhaggblom7562 I think it's more the older games used the Sci-fi stuff to further the modern day story. Like everything that happened that was sci-fi was specifically for the Modern day and for Desmond's eyes but since Ubisoft doesn't care for the modern day story anymore all the sci-fi stuff is stuck in the past stories and doesn't even really further the modern day anymore. I think that's one of the issues I have story wise with the newer games. They forget that the past parts are supposed to be Historical somewhat fiction stories but the modern day stuff is supposed to be the Sci-fi stuff.
@@labradude The Isu aren't magical alien creatures they are just a scientifically advanced race that came before the humans. Everything the isu do are grounded in science and isn't just pulled from there asses.
Just a quick point about those stave "Churches", I do believe there is evidence that suggests that they were modeled or possibly converted from norse temples, so I feel that they make sense.
That was a theory that gained popularity in the mid-20th century, but there is no archeological evidence to support this. All stave church remains have date to well into the christian period.
Played AC for years. This one is ok. Not the best, not the worst. I’ve always looked at the series as saying “what if the history isn’t what history says it was” kind of thing so taking liberties with history hasn’t bothered me. Thiiiis one pushes the envelope though. Couriously, playing this has had the side effect of making me actually find and read actual history to see what really happened, which is rather cool. Love your analysis of it!
As I'm Irish and have often lived near old monasteries that were built in the time the game is set watching you play the game recently was jarring and kind of sullied my wish to play it. I can understand not wanting to deal with the terrible reality of what happened during viking raids. But if that is the case don't set it during those times. Ireland is dotted with round towers that were specifically built in order to protect the people during a viking raid with elevated entries that couldn't be gotten to without a ladder and that ladder was pulled up when the people were inside. Generally leaving the valuables outside so the vikings could take the gold they wanted and leave the people behind. There wasn't any fighting them, I don't even think it was considered an option in many places. Raids were successful because they were fast, unpredictable and terrifying. But eventually the raiders settled in Ireland and now a lot of our largest cities and towns have at least some roots from viking times and now most people in Ireland have viking heritage. I think I would have preferred to have seen them in a post initial settlement stage and some of the later conflicts, when it was essentially kingdoms vs kingdoms not raiders vs people. It would remove a lot of the icky and yeah cultural insensitivity. Maybe have one of those flashback combats to a raid if you want to include it. But tread lightly. While I'm not the biggest AC fan I've played a good few of them and enjoyed their concepts. But I doubt I'll get this one... my fiancé might though. (Also the power level feels super gamey and weird... don't know how I square with that - I know it's in other games too)
"The Celts were done dirty" Ah, so literally the standard fare for the Celts :( A society that was shockingly well treating of women and very skilled with smithing and ironwork. Nah, naked people, spoopy antlers and throwing woad on their entire body. What about lime washed hair? Huh?
@ImpishDCrealm Ah, I meant like the Celts of Gaul and Iberia. Their use of throwing weapons as a preamble to a charge would have moved the Romans away from being hoplite wannabes.
@ImpishDCrealm The Gauls had always terrorised Rome for quite a while until Caesar put an end to them. Going back to when they were the first to sack Rome thanks to Brennus, then joining Hannibal as some of elite mercenaries. Their defeat did not solely come from being bad at war or anything, so much as it was being badly divided and also dealing with fucking Gaius Julius. The Picts were fierce, but Rome would have conquered them had they decided they were worth the trouble. Thankfully for them, Rome was not interested in Pictish territory, preferring to take on the Parthians instead. And Boudicca's rebellion failed quite badly in the end, so she's not the best example either. As for the Irish, Rome wasn't interested in them either, so they weren't conquered.
@ImpishDCrealm No, I meant Brennus, chieftain of the Sennones tribe. He defeated the Romans in the Battle of Allia and his sacking was the only one the Romans had for 800 years until the Visigoths came. And like I said, the Roman's weren't exactly being thrashed by the Picts- they just weren't bothered with annexing them.
Can I recommend the manga and anime Vinland Saga in terms of piece of fiction focused on Vikings ? Not only is it a good story with good characters and good themes but, as far as I can tell and know, it manages to be one of the most faithful representations of Vikings in modern media. The author might be Japanese but he's been to Iceland for research and has clearly accomplished a lot of work for his story to be coherent. Now, it does diverge a bit from historical facts concerning certain characters that have actually existed but since we don't have that many details about their lives, it feels more like Vinland Saga is filling the gaps we have.
I'd say this is a good general take on the game and the associated history, and the note about how this makes people believe it because it feels real reminds me of the problems with Braveheart's historical accuracy
To be fair regarding the whole church-in-Asgard thing, that's probably Eivor's imagination. The Asgard sequences were basically a pseudo-animus where Eivor relieved the memories of Odin/Havi during the time of the First Civilization. But since its not a "complete" animus, Eivor's mind re-skinned everything with the architecture and the culture he associated the gods with.
I wouldn’t say this game is “dangerous.” That’s too far. I’d be dangerous if it billed itself as a 100 percent accurate historical simulation. But it doesn’t. It straight up tells you this is a “work of fiction” in the opening. You might be expecting too much from these games. As a history buff and avid AC player, I’ve never used this series to blindly learn history (and no one does). Like most people, I just use them as a springboard into history, where I first get introduced to a historical event from this game and then I research that topic independently afterward. That’s the way these games are meant to be played and the way every casual history fan plays them. Again, personally I think you went overboard when you called it dangerous. You might want to give players more credit. We know these games aren’t history books.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. I do the same exact thing. Particularly what I always like to do is search up any historical point of interest that appears in-game and compare it with a google image, just to get a perspective on what certain monuments "probably" looked like in the time period presented. If anything, playing this game has excited me more about diving deeper into Medieval history, even if I know for a fact that a lot of things shown in-game are sensationalized for the sake of cool looking aesthetics. I also think Blue went too overboard with this review. I think there were a lot of places that were recreated in-game that were very faithful to their real-life counterparts (i.e. The Dover Cliffs, Stonehenge, King's Bury Ridge, Hadrian's Wall, etc.)
Agreed. No AC game has ever been truly historically accurate. Not even the old games that everyone loves. Even the Ezio series purposefully goes off the walls. I don't know why Blue got so mad with this one.
@@josiahcruz2610 Exactly. I’ve been researching Viking history like crazy over the past week, too. And I credit this game for making me so interested in the topic. Same thing with Odyssey. Heck, that’s why I love the classics so much now.
Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking. I love history, but sometimes I think hardcore history buffs put too much weight into how accurate to a period (especially periods with poor records and later revision as the Vikings) a piece of entertainment media is, i.e. calling it dangerous. If a person wants to seek out the history an AC game won't sate their thirst nor turn their opinion and If a person takes an AC games as 100% historic truth then they were probably never going to dig deeper in the first place.
Could you do a Celts video on their iron age culture and society? I hardly ever see it from history youtubers despite it being a pillar of "Western Society and history".
Doesn't mean everyone wearing them is part of a hate group. The hairstyles, artstyle/tattoos and symbols are also popular among metal fans (especially folk & power metal) and naturally modern pagans, many if not most of whom don't want to have anything to do with racists. But like with every large group, pagans (and metalheads) have members from across the entire political spectrum.
Zero Punctation: The focus on the Viking's authentic culture and diversity ruins the Barbaric Fantasy. Blue: The focus on the Barbaric Fantasy ruins the Viking's authentic culture and diversity. Me: Oh. So nobody's happy. Thanks, Ubisoft.
Hey I’ve been watching for a while now and today as a review before our Inca and mayan test he played one of your videos and under my mask I was smiling so big and I wanted to scream like yes!
My history assigned the miscellaneous myths as additional viewing material for our module this month of ancient religion and mythology. You guys have some great stuff!!
Honestly I think it would’ve made far more sense for the main character to be a Saxon, raiding, conquest, slave taking doesn’t seem like an Assassin thing to do. I still think Assassins Creed Origins is the best and I really think historical accuracy is far, far cooler then hollywood Vikings clad in dead animals and duel wielding. I also hate the perception that Vikings or Danes were a league ahead of the Saxons in terms of martial skill, when they were really quite comparable.
"picking battles they knew they had already won" is a biiiit of a stretch, but I think a better way to rephrase that, and NOT make Viking lovers rage quit (lol), is to say that they used clever tactics to win, such as when they snatched Winchester near Christmas, 876, under Alfred the Great's nose, or when they were able to sack multiple HEAVILY defended cities in Italy by disguising their warriors and infiltrating the walls. Sounds like some assassin's creed level stuff to me! Side note: I hold Blue and Red in the highest regard, and I love all of their videos, this is just one lonely little voice from a History Buff and big fan of Assassins' Creed games :3
If you count 9th century battles, when a fyrd is able to muster and meet them, the Norse winrate sits somewhere in the 40% mark. So Blue did definitely exaggerate, but also it's an absolutely trash win-loss rate (the 886 siege of Paris stands out when a stupidly, ridiculously larger Norse force failed to take Paris from a few hundred (if the Frankish accounts are to believed) defenders. Now, I think there's some hefty exaggeration, but it still was probably a force many, many times the size of the defenders).
@@Ludohistory well there are other factors besides the size of the force. Supplies, morale, strategy (which even when very thoroughly thought out can fail when you step onto the battlefield, and technology level in some cases). The Norse won many battles, but they were often on the Sea. It took them abit to begin adapting to land based tactics, but we saw they did make advancements in that regard. In the later periods, when they started to form larger armies, that was still new. Sure they had armies before, but usually not at such sizes. They were more atuned to guerilla warfare, and reconnaissance.
@@ironwolf2244 what? Do you think that Norse peoples never fought on land prior to the Viking Age?? that's absurd! While naval combat did happen, including in this time period, it was a minority of all combat, and throughout the Vendel period and the early Viking Age, there were near-constant land-based skirmishes betweeen Scandinavian chieftains. Those skirmishes weren't ambushes or anything of the sort. They were well-familiar with the tactics of a battle. The Vikings were also well-acquainted with sieges, with Islamic accounts of the 844 sack of Seville claiming that they used catapults to break the walls of the city (something also indicated with the contemporary attack on Luna, in italy). They were not doing anything that would pass for "Guerilla warfare" - they were doing standard warfare with 4 or 5 disjointed armies, with boats to go from one place to another. What actually happened is that the Great Viking Army saw their initial successes when they could wear down the relatively restrictive warrior elite of England. The thegns fared quite well when they could get a fair fight (even the capture of Jorvik was initially a victory for the Northumbrians, but the Norse managed to regroup and turn the fight after the Northumbrians opened the gates to pursue the "defeated" Vikings)! But, they had to spread out too thin in order to be able to respond to raids that could occur in lots of places, or spend their entire year running around after the Vikings, which just wasn't sustainable. So, Wessex first (and Mercia shortly later) introduced the fyrd, which added one rank down the social hierarchy and dramatically increased their military capacity to be able to respond to multiple threats at the same time. Aelfred also built a new navy that outclassed the longship and a series of burhs, or fortresses, to make sure that there was a respectable garrison always ready to head off an attack.
Any thoughts on the...shall we say, *problematic* depiction of Saxons who never take slaves, never commit war crimes, and push native religious people to violate their vows and are THANKED for doing so?
@@stc3145 I disagree. But I think it boils down to almost the same thing in the end. Either, 1, Ragnar did not exist. Or, 2, Ragnar did exist. But he did none of the things we know him to have done and didn't meet or know any of the people he supposedly had relationships with either. Not even his so called sons. He is at best a shadowy figure lost in the mists of history we know nothing about. Which, when you think about it, is almost the same thing as saying "Ragnar did not exist". Because even if he did, he is nothing like the Ragnar we've heard about.
4:35 Actually we don't have any written records of warrior Scandinavian women and the archeological records we do have have been recently proven to have been intentionally misinterpreted by certain, now disgraced, people. Scandinavian women did fight to defend homesteads and farms when push came to shove but they never participated in raids and pitched battles at all. The way Scandinavian settlement worked is: popular Scandinavian organizes an expedition. Men join expedition. If the expedition is successful and the new lands worth settling are discovered/conquered, they go back for the women and children and start a settlement. If you want to know more I highly recommend the writings of Ibn Fadlan
I’m really enjoying Valhalla, but it does strike me as quite strange that Southeast England is in glorious springtime whilst the north and Norway are both in snowy winter... I know Ubisoft got flak for all of Greece looking basically the same, but England really isn’t big enough to have different seasons across different parts of the country. Also, as a Brit I’m shocked and appalled at just how colourful and beautiful my homeland is. They definitely needed for overcast grey and crappy, moist half-rain that isn’t heavy enough to be considered rain, nor light enough to be considered mist.
I have a huge exam assignment where i have to write 20 pages long document, were we had to choose a subject, i choose "is ac valhalla historic correct, and if not, why" this video helped me a lot, thanks for the awesome video like and subcribed
Just tell me if the names Hervor or Tyrfing come up in any capacity in this game. (Hervor is a Saga berserker lady and Tyrfing is her cursed sword. A character who is criminally underrated in popular culture.)
I've been playing Assassin's Creed since the first game, I've seen the Holy Land in the 3rd Crusade, Renaissance Italy, Colonial America, the Caribbean in the 'Golden Age of Piracy', Revolutionary France, Victorian London, and recently Ptolomeic Egypt and Ancient Greece. When I heard that they were creating a game depicting the Vikings invasion of England, I was so excited because that was my ancestor's history. I thought the world would finally see past the belief that Vikings were nothing more than pillaging rapists who burned down anything in their path. Instead, they half-assed the job by delving into history as they usually do, but also adding pop culture elements for the sake of an RPG feel. I love RPGs as much as the next person, but I was expecting to get the feel of walking in another time and experiencing history through my eyes. If I wanted a Viking fantasy, I'd start another playthrough in Skyrim. I expected more from Ubisoft, and I got history shrouded by pop culture. I still want to play the game, though I can't help but wonder what this means for the future of the series.
I have to add a little in defence of ubisofts history usage. Although we should all expect that a game isn't going to be 100% historically correct, their historians have done some digging. The storyline including Rhodri and Angharad impressed me. Although Gwriad was more likely Rhodris son not brother, they were both killed in battle against a saxon invasion led by ceolwolf of mercia. Although the battle actually happened on Anglesey not in mercia. Timelines pretty close too as their deaths were either 873 or 877. The only big issue i notice is they used "Fawr" as the Welsh translation for "great" when "Mawr" is the actual one used. As a part of British history that is little known about im impressed they've added it.
Unfortunate. I feel like Assassin’s Creed needs to move on, tell a tale that can actually be synthesized with their world. Stop trying to give players a power fantasy in a faux-historical time period, I think it does more harm than good.
There is a totally cool statue of King Alfred in Winchester, as yes, it was the capital of Wessex. Winchester is just north of Southampton, and about a 1hour drive along the M3 motorway from where I live. Definitely worth a visit.
It seems to me they took a look at the general sources we have for the vikings, saw how poor they were and decided they'd take whatever interpretation they liked most of each individual thing from across the entire period and slap it together. I can understand that reasoning, and having seen enough silent screaming matches in the comments section of any video on the subject, I get wanting to just go with whatever's appealing and forget academics and armchair historians, but I don't really like it. With the amount of stylisation here without the real historical substance to back it up, it appeals too much to that edgy goth-viking subculture who want to embody all their own insecure power fantasies (and in some cases blatant bigotry and prejudice) vicariously through the stereotyped and glammed up image the vikings have developed in recent years, and that just irks me because of the association with those kinds of people (they also happen to be some of the dumber aforementioned commenters). At this point, Ubisoft clearly don't want to make Assassin's Creed games or historical games anymore - they want to make fantasy games inspired by popular history (i.e. the sensationalised stuff), in this case a classic DnD barbarian-themed rpg with Old Norse elements, and that would be fine, but they just can't let go of that sweet, sweet brand recognition (although at this point I can't be the only one who sees the AC tag as a bit of a turn-off). TL;DR pandering to pretentious "modern viking" types disappoints me and I wish Ubisoft would just follow their dreams and make a Conan rip-off
I've been playing all of the AC games since the start. I've never really took any of it as accurate facts in the same way I don't take any Hollywood movie as fact, even if they claim it to be. I'm Scandinavian, so I do know my Viking history and groan at some of the depictions in this game. Not just the vikings, celts, and historical buildings, but all other stuff like Polar bears in the southern part of Norway?
*SPOILERS AHEAD, TREAD CAREFULLY* The way the handled Ivar The Bonless' death is pretty shitty too, I mean he supposedly died in Ireland in 873 AD, not in Mercia as the game depicts.
At this point they really should just create a spiritual successor series to Assassin's Creed and make it either full-blown Historical Fiction or Historical Fantasy. Flip-flopping between the two just creates so many problems.
One more critique here: You said that christian stave churches don’t belong in Asgard but you completely missed and left out the noticeably Greco-Roman statues on each side of the Bifrost bridge.
I would have loved it if it was possible to go to Muslim Iberia in the game. It makes sense historically for the vikings to go there, and it would have given us some of those classic urban environments that the older games had.
The one point I disagree with you on is the siege in East Anglia, since the entire point of that sequence is "protect the home we have made". It's not about the raiding, but driving off raiders who've gained a foothold to protect both newly settled Danish populations and the resident Saxons.
Can we talk about how the game endorses colonialism? The Danes are portrayed as being these heroes and just rulers while the Saxons are portrayed as villainous and evil for fighting tooth and nail for _defending their homes from foreign invaders?_ That's colonialism. When Britain itself would go on to do that a century later we all recognising how awful it was. Sure the Saxons also aren't the natives of Britain but two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't think any modern group of people can be considered 'native' if you think it only applies to the originals, the line between migration and colonisation is a blurry one at times.
Of course, there is this little problem of what the heck Celtic and Norse religion actually *looked* like. I've been trying to find details about that and mostly running into neo-pagan silliness. Like portraying Morrígan as a gentle and peaceful nature fairy traipsing around barefoot while handing out flowers. *Morrígan.* Goddess(es) of war and fate. Who'd transform into a crow and eat the eyeballs of the slain. And everyone seems to just gloss over how *both* groups practiced human sacrifice. Celts weren't the feral woodland folk obsessed with wearing as many antlers as possible that AC: Valhalla portrays them as, and the Norse *definitely* weren't prototype prison gangs. They *were,* however, metal as hell.
Uhm there are 3 mentions of female viking wariors in the eddas and countless more mentions that women and children were kept away from battle. "Shield maidens" were an extreme rarity
The most authentic part of this game is the Music. Done by Elder Einar. I knew this game was never going to touch Senua's Sacrifice. Just another AC load of BS that hasn't been decent since Black Sails. To be a Viking. It is not banditry. The point was to explore & create a new settlement that was not as hard to farm or control as the Scandinavian landscape that originally created the 'Vikings' out of necessity. Exploration. Adventure. A story to tell the Gods. & a way to honor them, by blood & sacrifice. & Mushrooms.
I find it weird that vikings are constantly depicted with tattoos and body paint when that's always been more of a Pictish/Celtic thing. Why couldn't we get more Celts in tartan and woad? Or even some Romano Celts? Ugh, this is definitely fantasy with hand picked historical elements.
Tartans are awesome. Used by the Irish, Scots, Norse, and the Welsh too I think (not too sure on them though). And it can range from plain cloth to elaborate patterns and dyes.
