[Megathread] Assassin's Creed: Valhalla

[Skizzit]

Bunch of history experts in this thread acting like the Assasin's Creed series is suddenly meant to be an accurate portrayal of history and not a series about two fictional secret societies fighting for centuries over magical macguffins from an ancient super advanced race.

[Witchblade77]

Wow, so much delusion.

The vikings didn't conquer. They raided villages for supplies and riches.
Only the protagonist in the video has some semblance of honor. Notice he had to stop his buddy from killing that woman. But not as much honor as to...not raid defenseless villages.

And the English were totally justified. I have more sympathy for the English in this vid than for the vikings.

Reminds me of this story

this particular group seems to be conquering. since in a video they put up a new statue of Odin. since their own village didn't get raided (so there was no reason for their own statue to get destroyed), I'm presuming that that statue is going up in a village they took over. and yes, some of them get caught up in bloodlust more then others. but as far as i can tell - the whole point of that speech being juxtaposed with actions of the vikings was to show that they are not just some slavering souless beasts that king was portraying them as. i was also replying to the argument above that stated that vikings were portrayed as victims. as video litteraly shows them as aggressors, i'm not sure how THAT conclusion was drawn.

and to reiterate. I'm specifically speaking of how the TRAILER is portraying vikings and english.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Are we still acting like AC is authetic history outside of like maybe the setting itself and places? Cause I'm ok if History is altered a little bit(Oh no Vikings aren't near as crazy as they probably were). I don't think people should really see AC as authentic history, more like as someone said fictional history.

[Larsadius]

Might be reading too much into this, but I really didn't like the tone of that trailer or how the trailer implied the vikings would be portrayed.

Vikings are cool and all, but the trailer paints them as just misunderstood outcasts being suppressed and singled out by an evil, screaming tyrant king. Let's be real, vikings were morally grey AT BEST and at worst, vicious, murderous raiders. The English kings had every good reason in the world to want to stamp them out. If Assassin's Creed is really going the rout of making them the freedom-loving good guys fighting back against the evil English despot, I'm going to be pissed enough that no matter how fun the gameplay is, it will likely ruin any enjoyment I might get out of it.

Vikings were awesome, but they were a brutal, violent people with a dark religion that practiced human sacrifice. If I were a game developer I would lean into that instead of try to completely and utterly whitewash the nature of the vikings.

Refer to my comment a few pages back. Your understanding of Vikings is about a century out of date.

- - - Updated - - -

Except we're not talking about the British as they would end up becoming. We're talking about at a specific point in their history when they were the victims of an alien culture that invaded to plunder and rape and pillage. We're also not talking about the Native Americans. Neither is the game.

The game appears to be making the aggressors (the vikings) into the victims when AT THIS SPECIFIC POINT IN TIME, the truth was the exact opposite. It's like if some guy tried to invade your house, steal your shit and rape your wife and/or daughter, and you successfully fought him off, and he ran off telling everyone how HE was the victim and you're the asshole who attacked him unprovoked.

And even if the vikings were half as bad as portrayed (unlikely, given what we know about their culture), they're still pretty damn bad.

Get a load of this guy thinking history is black and white

- - - Updated - - -

What exactly is interesting about a "vikings=literal devils" interpretation of history? That's like Warhammer levels of deep narrative.

Vikings did raids and their religion did include human sacrifices in specific circumstances, those are facts. But facts also show they were also well known as traders and for its time had a pretty good structure in terms of governance and how it handled disputes (a la "the Things"). How Norse/Viking culture operated is far more complex than the surface level "evul barbarians" knowledge we inherited.

THere's nothing interesting about it because it was a narrative crafted by the church to give people a reason to martyr themselves and crusade against something. It was a false narrative created a thousand years ago and some people still believe it because reading is hard.

[Great Destiny Man]

THere's nothing interesting about it because it was a narrative crafted by the church to give people a reason to martyr themselves and crusade against something. It was a false narrative created a thousand years ago and some people still believe it because reading is hard.

Oh I know that church spin had a lot to do with that narrative. I'm just confused why people think an AC game would benefit more from a story that had Vikings as the most evilest bastards ever to walk the face of the earth vs a story that had that had them adhering to certain moral codes.

[Jastall]

Just want to throw in as devil's advocate:

The game is called Assassin's Creed: VALHALLA. Which would tend to imply the beliefs of the vikings/nordic people during a specific time-period, and possibly allowing for more of the mythical/legendary types of content rather than historical accuracy. That's on top of the Assassin's Creed universe, where there are some shenanigans going on with aliens and maybe time-travelers and such. I tend to defer to the likes of Shadversity when it comes to analyzing these kinds of videos. And in his opinion basically not a whole hell of a lot of the trailer was historically accurate at all.

So while I think that there might be some nods towards "real" vikings, I doubt this installment is going to have much more than a token effort towards being historically accurate.

I treat Assassin's Creed much I'd treat, say, Romance of the Three Kingdoms or Sekiro. Yeah, it happens on Earth and references historical places, events and characters, but beyond that it's absolute nonsense and any pretense to historical accuracy is thrown out the window in favor of fun gameplay and/or creating a world the devs and players like. The series is about as grounded in reality as Bioshock and Deus Ex are, and you know what? I'll take it if it means I can rampage around what is effectively fantasy Greece/Norway/England and do cool shit.

[Gallahadd]

Might be reading too much into this, but I really didn't like the tone of that trailer or how the trailer implied the vikings would be portrayed.

You 1000000% are. Or possibly, you're willfully misinterpreting the information given.

Things we know so far about ACV:

BRUTAL combat, which will include beheading and dismemberment.

The new mechanic of the game is "Raids". Which is gathering your crew, sailing to a small village and burning that motherfucker down, so you can steal their stuff to fund you war effort. Implied, but not confirmed, you can also kidnap peope to populate your settlment.

King Alfred signs a declaration of war, stating: "It's time to speak to them, in a language they WILL understand!". Which to ME implies that he's tried and failed at talking to the vikings.

It's also been said, more than once, that Alfred won't be a "Moustache twirling villain" and it's hinted that he won't even be the main antagonist of the game.

What MMO-C sees:
Eivor stopping one of his men from killing a woman and her kids, while on a raid which includes burning her whole fucking village to the ground.

"OMFG, why are they whitewashing Vikings! This isn't historically accurate!"

[Skizzit]

Why are people worried about the historical accuracy of this game? I don't remember ever seeing anyone worry about it for any of the previous games in the series.

[Larsadius]

Oh I know that church spin had a lot to do with that narrative. I'm just confused why people think an AC game would benefit more from a story that had Vikings as the most evilest bastards ever to walk the face of the earth vs a story that had that had them adhering to certain moral codes.

Armchair historians *really* value the little understanding of history that they have, so when something comes along and challenges it they have to speak up about it in hopes that someone will be impressed.

Example: Armchair historian believes Vikings were a monolithic raider-rapist archetype where everyone acted as a hivemind, and they believe their bag of 'facts' is something that gives them worth as a person of gives them a 'cultured' image. Armchair historian then sees a game depicting Vikings as not that. Armchair historian now has to call out the 'inaccuracy' in hopes that an actual historian won't see it and they'll both be the hero who called out a historical flaw, but also validate that little bag of facts which they depend on to keep up the guise of being a real historian.

That is why you see so many people trying to always be right on the internet. The more things they correct, the smarter they'll seem and people will start associating their avatar with intelligence. Trailers for video games are fair game for correcting with this in mind.

The irony of me doing this very thing is not lost on me either. I created this account back in Witcher days to correct racists on the internet claiming medieval/renaissance Poland didn't have black people as a reason for them being mad about black people being in their fantasy series. I just genuinely believe misinformation is dangerous and I try to help where I can with this little grunt account.

[WintersLegion]

The game is sending a person with the morals from today, to lead a viking clan from the past. You don't think that maybe they would lead them in a less savage way

The person using the Animus Device is unable to change the past they are more watchers.

[Nerraw]

The person using the Animus Device is unable to change the past they are more watchers.

Well......

The messages left in the Egyptian tombs seemed to indicate that Layla Hassan's Animus design might one day be able to do this. Odyssey's modern day stuff went more into the theoretical possibilities of this.

We also know that the Isu were working on something similar to avert them being wiped out by the solar flare but abandoned the project because it was too dangerous. It's most likely linked to the "sixth sense" that the games started poking at. We're 100% going to be seeing more of that stuff.

[Corvus]

King Alfred signs a declaration of war, stating: "It's time to speak to them, in a language they WILL understand!". Which to ME implies that he's tried and failed at talking to the vikings.

It's also been said, more than once, that Alfred won't be a "Moustache twirling villain" and it's hinted that he won't even be the main antagonist of the game.

Alfred shouldn't be an antagonist. At all. Nor should the Saxons. I'm not saying that they were snowy white, but the whole thing ignores all the history of what had gone on. Maybe the plot makes the Saxons the good guys and your character switches side, but the trailer in no way implied anything but that the Saxons were being the antagonists.

The game takes place just a handful of years after what the Saxons called the Great Heathen Army. For some time the Norse had been content to raid, pillage, rape and murder up and down the coastline, mostly hitting undefended places like monasteries and villages and fleeing before any organised resistance cold show up. This had gone on for around a century until the Norse decided, screw just raiding, lets just go and invade and take over the place. Which they did.

They overran all of Saxon England but for Wessex, and even that was a close run thing. At one point Alfred had to go into hiding and conduct a guerrilla campaign against the Norse until he finally drove them out of Wessex and secured his kingdom, but it was a long time before the Saxons managed to recapture their lost lands.

And the real Alfred was a great man. He was sickly all of his life and a scholar. While he was undoubtably brave, he was no warrior. He was an intellectual. He was also 4th in line for the throne - he was never meant to be king, but after his brothers died young he came to the throne - he himself was only in his early 20s when he came to the throne. As a king he was known to be a learned man who valued education, a reformer of the legal and military system and a merciful and gracious leader well loved by his people.

Turning him into even slightly antagonistic is very strange decision.

The protagonist may not be involved in the invasion, but he is living on land that a handful of years before had been captured by an invading army, and the local inhabitants killed, enslaved or driven out. It'd be like playing a coloniser of Africa or America (wether Dutch, Spanish, French or English) and going out and killing the native inhabitants who just want to be left alone.

[Witchblade77]

Alfred shouldn't be an antagonist. At all. Nor should the Saxons. I'm not saying that they were snowy white, but the whole thing ignores all the history of what had gone on. Maybe the plot makes the Saxons the good guys and your character switches side, but the trailer in no way implied anything but that the Saxons were being the antagonists.

The game takes place just a handful of years after what the Saxons called the Great Heathen Army. For some time the Norse had been content to raid, pillage, rape and murder up and down the coastline, mostly hitting undefended places like monasteries and villages and fleeing before any organised resistance cold show up. This had gone on for around a century until the Norse decided, screw just raiding, lets just go and invade and take over the place. Which they did.

They overran all of Saxon England but for Wessex, and even that was a close run thing. At one point Alfred had to go into hiding and conduct a guerrilla campaign against the Norse until he finally drove them out of Wessex and secured his kingdom, but it was a long time before the Saxons managed to recapture their lost lands.

And the real Alfred was a great man. He was sickly all of his life and a scholar. While he was undoubtably brave, he was no warrior. He was an intellectual. He was also 4th in line for the throne - he was never meant to be king, but after his brothers died young he came to the throne - he himself was only in his early 20s when he came to the throne. As a king he was known to be a learned man who valued education, a reformer of the legal and military system and a merciful and gracious leader well loved by his people.

Turning him into even slightly antagonistic is very strange decision.

The protagonist may not be involved in the invasion, but he is living on land that a handful of years before had been captured by an invading army, and the local inhabitants killed, enslaved or driven out. It'd be like playing a coloniser of Africa or America (wether Dutch, Spanish, French or English) and going out and killing the native inhabitants who just want to be left alone.

see, i don't understand this reasoning.

trailer shows Alfred deciding to fight back, and the most antagonistic thing he does is dehumanize vikings in eyes of his subjects, so that they are more eager to fight back with him. that's not antagonistic, that's "i've head enough"

if anything, impression I got from the trailer that antagonist is his general, of the silent smirk. (if I were to guess, he is a templar agent)

trailer makes it pretty clear that vikings are agressor's here. they are attacking villages. and in end of trailer - they meet resistance. the only thing that trailer did was try to humanize vikings a bit, make them at least somewhat sympathetic. how do people keep seeing king who is making a plan of DEFENSE - as antagonist? I just... don't understand. that whole scene with burning arrows. that is a COUNTER ATTACK. they are loosing those arrows on boats that just made land on ENGLISH shores.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

If the story is anything similar to AC:O both sides will be hostile to our Viking boy or girl in some form. Honestly, we need more context.

[Corvus]

If the story is anything similar to AC:O both sides will be hostile to our Viking boy or girl in some form. Honestly, we need more context.

AC:O is a little bit different - you are a neutral party dropped into civil war. AC:V has you being on one side (the Norse) from the start, and you are specifically stated to being attacking the Saxons but no mention of attacking other Norse.

[Skizzit]

Alfred shouldn't be an antagonist. At all. Nor should the Saxons. I'm not saying that they were snowy white, but the whole thing ignores all the history of what had gone on. Maybe the plot makes the Saxons the good guys and your character switches side, but the trailer in no way implied anything but that the Saxons were being the antagonists.

The game takes place just a handful of years after what the Saxons called the Great Heathen Army. For some time the Norse had been content to raid, pillage, rape and murder up and down the coastline, mostly hitting undefended places like monasteries and villages and fleeing before any organised resistance cold show up. This had gone on for around a century until the Norse decided, screw just raiding, lets just go and invade and take over the place. Which they did.

They overran all of Saxon England but for Wessex, and even that was a close run thing. At one point Alfred had to go into hiding and conduct a guerrilla campaign against the Norse until he finally drove them out of Wessex and secured his kingdom, but it was a long time before the Saxons managed to recapture their lost lands.

And the real Alfred was a great man. He was sickly all of his life and a scholar. While he was undoubtably brave, he was no warrior. He was an intellectual. He was also 4th in line for the throne - he was never meant to be king, but after his brothers died young he came to the throne - he himself was only in his early 20s when he came to the throne. As a king he was known to be a learned man who valued education, a reformer of the legal and military system and a merciful and gracious leader well loved by his people.

Turning him into even slightly antagonistic is very strange decision.

The protagonist may not be involved in the invasion, but he is living on land that a handful of years before had been captured by an invading army, and the local inhabitants killed, enslaved or driven out. It'd be like playing a coloniser of Africa or America (wether Dutch, Spanish, French or English) and going out and killing the native inhabitants who just want to be left alone.

Assassin's Creed =/= a history textbook. It's a video game. The series have never claimed to be historically accurate and it isn't going to change with this game. I mean, this is same series that turned Leonardo da Vinci basically into Q from James Bond and had one game end with the player character making shadow clones of himself to fight against a magic staff wielding Pope. Complaining about historical inaccuracies is kinda pointless.

[Super Kami Dende]

I'm thinking they've said before they won't, because it's been done to death in so many other games.

TBF they also said they'd never do Egypt or Vikings. So hardly off the table now anymore.

[Volatilis]

I mean, this is same series that turned Leonardo da Vinci basically into Q from James Bond and had one game end with the player character making shadow clones of himself to fight against a magic staff wielding Pope. Complaining about historical inaccuracies is kinda pointless.

Hey Magic Staff wielding Pope sounds like history to me!

/s.

Imagine getting your history info from a combat/stealth based video game though...srsly internet have a day off.

[Super Kami Dende]

Origins: epic architecture in numerous cities like Alexandria or Thebes, also pyramids.
Odyssey: epic architecture in cities like Athens, iconic places like temple of Corinth, the olympic games and many more.
Valhalla: wooden houses and the castle of York.

Me: sad.

You realise when Vikings were raiding the Britons, there were massive Castles and Cities there?

- - - Updated - - -

Are we still acting like AC is authetic history.

Did anyone ever? The games have literally always been unbelievable.

[Traveler Voltin]

my interest has been peaked.