Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

>I 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.

I think you may want to qualify that statement a little bit. The author covers this point as well: "Imagine the equivalent of a game set in the American South or the Caribbean pre-1865 in which slavery was simply not present at all"

Would you have any issues with AC:Confederacy game, where slavery is not a thing? Where the North is seen as evil, while South is seen as kind, gentle and chivalrous? That's the scale of what AC:Valhalla did to their portrayal of invading Vikings vs the Anglo-Saxon populations.

>Whenever I played Civilization as a kid and had “Mongolians build the pyramids” I never thought thats a historical fact

Did you read the article? The author points out a few historical inaccuracies (like the lack of mail armor being worn) but also mentions that those are not a big deal because he understands that this isn't a historical simulation. That's not a problem with the game, although it is nice and appreciated when the artist takes care to cover even the small details.

Considering the anti-christian tone of the game I think they were completely missing Christians. (I haven't played the game, so I'm taking the article's word on how it portrays Christians as fact, which might or might not be true) You cannot claim diversity if you are missing a faction - even if the faction is one you consider against your beliefs.

I find the two pretty orthogonal...

Seems like the only way for this to work out at all is for the hero to go home after a year (ie before converting): grow old. The entire setting needs to be an old man telling young kids about the old glory and trying to convert them from Christianity. That is about the only way you can justify only showing those actions: his memory, and latter life surrounded by Christian means he wants to remember only those parts. But now you really need to get the player to realize that this his a romanticized past - the player must spend a lot of time seeing contradictions in the player (that is it becomes obvious some things didn't happen the way the player played them!). There are a lot more implications of this line that I can figure out in a few minutes.

> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity.

I wonder when that was, cause pop culture has always cared about that in one way or another. I believe you are projecting.

> The most relevant point of this article is not about historical accuracy, but on the contradiction of claiming cultural sensitivity by including gender and origin diversity while totally missing the point on deeper issues.

I can't summarize this fantastic write-up, but either way, here goes...

The author goes to great lengths about how in said game the Scandinavian culture is only shown in a positive light (with the bad such as slavery and rites being avoided), whereas the Christian religion is deliberately put into a bad light. That is what the article is mainly about. Example: Christianity is shown as intolerant and hegemonic, Scandinavian the intolerance and hegemony is avoided at all costs. Slavery? Pillaging? Apparently non-existent; instead the Scandinavians colonized Saxon ground, and never took slaves, never raped women, never pillaged or set anything a-fire. Furthermore, Norse culture was very patriarchal, this game shows nothing of that either.

The gender/origin issue is minor in comparison, both in coverage as well as in how relevant the author finds it. Gender a subset of the lack of showing the patriarchy in Scandinavian culture. Origin is a bit odd, as the trade route with North-Africa is more accessible than the one to Eastern Europe and Asia whereas the races shown do not reflect this. It is you who finds the gender/origin issue 'the most relevant'; not the author, nor did the author ever imply such.

A fantasy world can be based on real history as we know it (consider, for example, the Nordic theme in World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, or the Norsca and Warriors of Chaos in Total War: Warhammer II). If it is then inaccurate, we're OK with that, we see it as artistic freedom. This game tries to base itself directly on history. Big difference!

The author also literally claims the following:

> [...] And to be clear, that is not empowering feminism so much as virtue viewed from a society (like the Romans) which blithely assumed that men were better; it is misogyny masquerading as empowerment. And of course the game indulges in this too, as noted above.

The author does not, at all, appear to agree with your take on the matter.

The author's final chapter is titled: "Conclusion: A Love Letter to Colonialism" which again isn't your take on the matter.

As a side note, what I find funny, is that in a certain music genre, Scandinavian culture is idolized as well: metal music. Certain metal bands, such as for example Amon Amarth, exercise this practice. Coincidentally, the music is also going against the Christian religious dominance. I believe the game is made with such 'counter-culture' in mind; as the deeply religious Christians would not opt to play a Scandinavian religious person. I admit, pure speculation from my side.