I know it has its flaws, but I still love this game
Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
101–110 of 325 posts
Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do they need to be inclusive? Do samurai games need to include red-haired Celts and curly-haired Bantus, you know, for diversity? What's the point of this? Lying about history to make some people feel better?
That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate. The 'problem' (if you believe it is a problem) is once game companies are happy to "lie" about one aspect of history without any concern while at the same time refusing to "lie" about another part of history because it would 'ruin the historical accuracy'. If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn aro…
>If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't add something because it wouldn't be historically accurate. You have to use a better excuse, like you felt it would be dumb or that you didn't feel like it.
So a werewolf invasion of the Tokugawa shogunate would need to include Latinx genderfuild bipocs or be racist?
I guess I'm racist then.
Puts on Nazi hat and reads historically accurate accounts of Stalingrad
Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
#103I think what people are missing is that this is a work of fiction. Any work of fiction is entitled to do whatever it wants really. So what if it white washes stuff for the masses, maybe thats a good thing. If people experience the past only as a fictional place where people are gentle and sensitive, if there is wide acknowledgment of race and gender, in the way that we actually want from our society today, isn’t that…
This is dangerous stuff. What if there was an Assassin's Creed that showed slavery in a positive light? Or the glory of killing Rightists in China in the 50s? Or Turks killing Armenians in 1918? People might look into it, but a lot of people are going to take it at face value and even if they do look it up, there initial exposure is going to color their expectations.
Then don’t take your ethical values from video games?
This Puritanization of all art and entertainment is disturbing.
Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do they need to be inclusive? Do samurai games need to include red-haired Celts and curly-haired Bantus, you know, for diversity? What's the point of this? Lying about history to make some people feel better?
Because games are supposed to be fun and it’s more fun if the player feels included.
>Because games are supposed to be fun and it’s more fun if the player feels included.
Yes, playing CKIII I feel the need to be included when I setup an African cannibal tribe that invades Europe and commits genocide.
Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s totally plausible that some of these merchants ended up there that's the same conclusion that the author came to; they just presume there would be a higher ratio of African origin individuals rather than Asia due to trade-route proximities.
But the Vikings traded via Russia down to Persia, so Asian representation not less likely?
While it is true that vikings traded and travelled down there - the famous Varangian Guard of Byzantium is a notable example. It does make Asian representation less likely.
Trade with North and West Africa was purely maritime whereas to travel and trade across what is now Russia land travel was required, even if rivers made up most of the distance. This drastically slowed down travel time making it much more likely those Asian merchants would sell their goods on to an intermediary rather than travel all the way to Scandinavia and then on to Britain.
On another tack I suppose it also doesn't really make sense for an Asian merchant like that to go on to Britain if they were in Scandinavia - I doubt they'd get better deals on goods or more demand for their goods. And they wouldn't return that way. Whereas African merchants would happen upon Britain first and would stop on their way back if they actually did travel all the way to Scandinavia.
Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate. The 'problem' (if you believe it is a problem) is once game companies are happy to "lie" about one aspect of history without any concern while at the same time refusing to "lie" about another part of history because it would 'ruin the historical accuracy'. If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn aro…
>If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't add something because it wouldn't be historically accurate. You have to use a better excuse, like you felt it would be dumb or that you didn't feel like it. So a werewolf invasion of the Tokugawa shogunate would need to include Latinx genderfuild bipocs or be racist? I guess I'm racist then. Puts on Nazi hat and rea…
So a werewolf invasion of the Tokugawa shogunate would need to include Latinx genderfuild bipocs or be racist?
Literally no one is saying that.
I guess I'm racist then.
If that makes you happy.
Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't add something because it wouldn't be historically accurate. You have to use a better excuse, like you felt it would be dumb or that you didn't feel like it. So a werewolf invasion of the Tokugawa shogunate would need to include Latinx genderfuild bipocs or be racist? I guess I'm racist then. Puts on Nazi hat and rea…
So a werewolf invasion of the Tokugawa shogunate would need to include Latinx genderfuild bipocs or be racist? Literally no one is saying that. I guess I'm racist then. If that makes you happy.
>Literally no one is saying that.
You literally were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
#108I think what people are missing is that this is a work of fiction. Any work of fiction is entitled to do whatever it wants really. So what if it white washes stuff for the masses, maybe thats a good thing. If people experience the past only as a fictional place where people are gentle and sensitive, if there is wide acknowledgment of race and gender, in the way that we actually want from our society today, isn’t that…
This is dangerous stuff. What if there was an Assassin's Creed that showed slavery in a positive light? Or the glory of killing Rightists in China in the 50s? Or Turks killing Armenians in 1918? People might look into it, but a lot of people are going to take it at face value and even if they do look it up, there initial exposure is going to color their expectations.
You could easily see this with release of movie Dunkirk - it pretty much completely erased the French defense line from mention (there's a short scene showing them basically sitting around) which caused a huge amount of english speaking internet to insult and disparage the French.
Reality? The French fought tooth and nail to defend the British retreat from the beaches. The movie however deleted this from public conciousness by a simple omission, changing how people understand history.
And this happens with Hollywood and blockbuster games all the time.
Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
#109You're supposed to see the world through the memories of a 9th century Viking (who also happens to be a great figure of the Nordic mythology), of course the invasion of England will be portrayed in a positive light and Anglo-Saxons would be seen as inferior people. It's a Triple-A game featuring gods, diverse Vikings, and a dude with an axe in his head; if one takes it as a reputable historical source, I say the prob…
As the blog post points out within a decade of the 'great heathen army' and just four years after this game is supposedly set a majority of these vikings had converted to Christianity including prominent leaders among them. That's a very different picture than what the game portrays.
There is also a difference between what the characters say and believe and what the environment depicts - e.g. there's not a problem with the norse thinking that they're doing good but rather with how the game constructs places which reinforce that narrative. e.g. the uninhabited river valley, the lack of slave trading
Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications
#110> I think the problem can be neatly summed up in just one thing about the game: the game will ‘desyncronize’ you (meaning produce a game over) if your character kills civilians While I agree this broke immersion completely for me, I don't think you want 10 year olds killing civilians.
But it's okay for 10 year olds to kill combatants?
Edit: That statement alone is underdeveloped but I wanted to provoke a reaction. Given that the above comment says that killing civilians is what would make this game inappropriate for a ten year old it implies that the rest of the game is appropriate.