Live data from Hacker News

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

acoup.blog

11–20 of 325 posts

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#11
Lovely article.

The conflict between making a videogame (or any bit of popculture really) enjoyable and inclusive vs. historically accurate often comes up and both sides have a fair point. My personal solution is to both enjoy the content and then try to educate myself through articles like this one.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#12

> Now, do I think that the developers set out to create a sanitized defense of colonialism (much less an apologia for Nazi race ideology)? Of course not. But they ended up doing it anyway. I agree with the article's main points, but I think the author gives the game's creators too much credit here. You could tell from the first trailer that this game was going to engage in historical revisionism of the "the Vikings w…

I don't think it's Ubisoft's fault, really - in 2020, you just can't produce a game where migrating people are presented as the bad guys who kill, rape and loot the locals indiscriminately.

I'm more frustrated by the lack of diverse body types... there is no way malnutrition, lack of modern-day medicine and violence can produce as many healthy bodies as what we see in Ubisoft titles.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#13

There’s lots of evidence of trade with African and MiddleEastern merchants in Viking-age Scandinavia; it’s totally plausible that some of these merchants ended up there

An account of such event was recorded by Ibn Fadlan, an arabic scholar and traveller. Extra-history made an animated story about it :

https://youtu.be/RSURd15qfWQ

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#14
He carefully distinguishes the game from his criticism of what it portrays and elucidates the discrepancies with careful reference to how things actually were so I can learn something[0]. IMO it's a first class perspective which I'll print out to read properly later. I can't complain about any of this.

(Massive moggy BTW)

[0] although vikings being predatory bastards I pretty much knew already, but there's plenty more I don't.

(edit to remove innuendo)

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#15
post #3

This is the problem with historic games. Either you acknowledge the bad and good things, or you white wash the past. As the author notes at the end: „As I have argued here many times, fiction is often how the public conceptualizes the past and that concept of the past shapes the decisions we make in the present.“

I disagree with this conclusion because it disregards agency of players. I see more similarities to warnings about the dangers of books in contrast to how it might display historic events too critically or too uncritically.

One mistake might be that we try to patronize people too much and that enlightenment might favor a relaxed approach. I am sure if historic depictions nurture interest in an era, people would search for additional information.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#16

Lovely article. The conflict between making a videogame (or any bit of popculture really) enjoyable and inclusive vs. historically accurate often comes up and both sides have a fair point. My personal solution is to both enjoy the content and then try to educate myself through articles like this one.

The fact that foreign traders are present in a game that, produced a decade or so ago, would very much not have had them means that the tension is less between "inclusivity" and "historical accuracy", and more between "contemporary, preconceived notions" and "historical accuracy". It turns out that "inclusivity" is more historically-accurate when compared to what we would have gotten in the past.

In the end, it really is about healthy skepticism, especially of long-held beliefs and "knowledge".

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#17

> Now, do I think that the developers set out to create a sanitized defense of colonialism (much less an apologia for Nazi race ideology)? Of course not. But they ended up doing it anyway. I agree with the article's main points, but I think the author gives the game's creators too much credit here. You could tell from the first trailer that this game was going to engage in historical revisionism of the "the Vikings w…

This is a disturbing trend that I hope to see called out more frequently in the future. Several of the latest Call of Duties "play" similarly. Even fantasy isn't immune: imagine my dismay, as a fan of Werewolf: The Apocalypse, when I found that the protagonist of the long-awaited game adaptation unambiguously resembled a paramilitary skinhead type (both in look and language). It's frustrating, with everything going on in the world, to see game devs cynically tapping into that toxic vein.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#18
post #3

This is the problem with historic games. Either you acknowledge the bad and good things, or you white wash the past. As the author notes at the end: „As I have argued here many times, fiction is often how the public conceptualizes the past and that concept of the past shapes the decisions we make in the present.“

I disagree with this conclusion because it disregards agency of players. I see more similarities to warnings about the dangers of books in contrast to how it might display historic events too critically or too uncritically. One mistake might be that we try to patronize people too much and that enlightenment might favor a relaxed approach. I am sure if historic depictions nurture interest in an era, people would searc…

As a player you cannot do _anything whatsoever_ to change the setting and rules of the game: you cannot be nicer or less nice to the indigenous people, you have to loot and destroy their religious centers, you have endure having their religion mocked by your compatriots, you cannot convert to the local religion...

You have to play a Aryan colonial invader who disdains the local culture and religion because your own culture is so much superior, and you have to do that wearing the historically inaccurate trappings of of what people a century ago imagined vikings looked like -- trappings that have been appropriated by neo-nazis.

There's no agency at all for players in this regard.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#19

> Now, do I think that the developers set out to create a sanitized defense of colonialism (much less an apologia for Nazi race ideology)? Of course not. But they ended up doing it anyway. I agree with the article's main points, but I think the author gives the game's creators too much credit here. You could tell from the first trailer that this game was going to engage in historical revisionism of the "the Vikings w…

I don't think it's Ubisoft's fault, really - in 2020, you just can't produce a game where migrating people are presented as the bad guys who kill, rape and loot the locals indiscriminately. I'm more frustrated by the lack of diverse body types... there is no way malnutrition, lack of modern-day medicine and violence can produce as many healthy bodies as what we see in Ubisoft titles.

Considering Ubisoft's track record with depicting the disabled and downtrodden I'd rather them not engage with the subject at all. You may recall the homeless beggar woman and mentally ill man from Assassin's Creed 1, both of which existed just to try and annoy the player into killing them.

Re: Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

#20
> But given the relative size of video-game markets, it isn’t hard to see why that decision might have been made [to include anachronistic ethnicities]

Is anyone seriously believing that the lack of Africans limiting the market of, say, Samurai games? Why would it limit the market of Viking games?

Post reply on HN