Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla and the Unfortunate Implications

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 325 posts

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

#141

Post by chungus_khan »

Fnoord wrote: post #130
xalava wrote: post #38

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've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity. With proper education anyone can compensate and treat them as pure simplistic fiction, but I do think that th…

> 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…

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

I see people pining for this forgotten past time a lot, and it makes me realize that none of them remember or think the same way of things like the satanic panic, moral majority, etc, let alone remember the times when people got offended over the mere suggestion of an interracial couple or a woman who didn't want to be a housewife. Oh the scandals that would occur if basically any program run today were to be broadcast then. They don't remember the Television Code or the CCA, nor did they grow up on a diet of classic Hays-code era films, dripping in extreme sensitivity.

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

#142

Post by GavinMcG »

konjin wrote: post #97
boudewijnrempt wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

The Norse are not Aryans. The Aryans were nomadic horse tribes who lived some 3000 years before the game started and were closer to the Mongols than anyone of recent memory.

But words sometimes mean more than one thing, and for better or worse, "Aryan" is far more frequently used in the sense developed in the scientific racism movement of the 19th century.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

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

#143

Post by kerng »

gelert wrote: post #109
tdsamardzhiev wrote: post #98

You'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 wi…

So many things in the blog post I didn't know - but fascinating and makes you think.... it's like the Spaniards and Portugese would have adopted Native American religions at one point.

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

#144

Post by toomanybeersies »

seer wrote: post #84

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. 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…

People still believe that Vikings had horns on their helmets, thanks to popular culture portraying them that way.

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

#145

Post by kerng »

himinlomax wrote: post #21
MatekCopatek wrote: post #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.

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?

It's about appealing to as many buyers as somehow possible I guess.

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

#146

Post by konjin »

GavinMcG wrote: post #142
konjin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Norse are not Aryans. The Aryans were nomadic horse tribes who lived some 3000 years before the game started and were closer to the Mongols than anyone of recent memory.

But words sometimes mean more than one thing, and for better or worse, "Aryan" is far more frequently used in the sense developed in the scientific racism movement of the 19th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

Interesting, so you're fine with calling blacks niggers because they were in the 19th century?

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

#147

Post by viraptor »

JeremyNT wrote: post #120
himinlomax wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate See, that makes some sense if you're doing high fantasy and shit that's set in a wholly fictional world. But just because some parts of a game are not realistic does not mean you should just forget about even trying. It makes no sense. > If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't…

You realize that the premise of this series is that, in a distopian near future, scientists unlock the ability for people to access their genetic memories and inhabit the bodies of their ancestors, who were guided by alien forces and augmented with powerful technological relics. The AC series really never asks you to take it very seriously. To the extent that actual history is present, it's almost like fan service.

It may not ask you to take it seriously, but it says "now you're in a period based on reality you know and a specific culture". The sci-fi part is pretty disconnected from the history part.

Compare that to time travel in dystopian future in the last bioshock where you have some known elements but you also project fire from your hands to fight a mecha-lincoln. That establishes a parallel universe where anything goes and it doesn't matter what you borrow into the story.

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

#148

Post by bluGill »

gelert wrote: post #105
Ar-Curunir wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

To add to that an Asian merchant would need to know a very large number of languages to go that far on land. The African merchants traveling by ship need to know their home language and whatever language is spoken where they trade. If you stop at a port along the way you aren't there to trade your goods, just a few supplies: possibly food, or alcohol and prostitutes (note that I always use the oxford comma!) which can be done with simple gestures. When you cross land you travel through too many villages to risk not knowing them all (or having a guide who does).

The cost of land travel as well means that almost nothing is going to be traded long distances. Any merchant from Asia is guaranteed to be talking directly to the powerful king - if there isn't a powerful king (which England was just starting to get) there isn't enough wealth to make anything worth bringing that far.

This does leave the curiosity. The person who doesn't fit in back home: so he travels far and lives as an exotic figure, moving around often enough before the locals figure out why he isn't welcome back home.

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

#149

Post by galangalalgol »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #103
enkid wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the precise criticism is that it was already puritanized. I don't think the argument was thay they set out to make mysogynist nazi propaganda, but that the cliche reorganizing machine that is a AAA gamehouse looked around at society, gears whirled, and the resulting thing that would sell the best that came flying out was a combination of white supremacist mythology, mockery of christianity, and the devaluation of femininity. Its not a critique of the game so much as it is of the society that produced it.

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

#150

Post by throwaway894345 »

criley2 wrote: post #90
mam2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity. Same, and as unpopular it may be, i firmly believe it's kind of better to not care. Because the opposite is precisely what happens here, which is caring only about a specific set of 'aspects' that are currently fashionable in the society, while failing to cover for the large majority of inequalities that are not "visible". It's…

>> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity. >Same, and as unpopular it may be, i firmly believe it's kind of better to not care. As a white dude, I've found that "not caring about it" means "only white male characters are allowed" I've noticed that folks who "don't care about it" actually care A LARGE AMOUNT, A VERY VERY LARGE AMOUNT, when a non-male or non-white protago…

> when a non-male or non-white protagonist is the only option

There’s a difference between a racist or sexist reaction (anger about a character’s race or sex) and anger that the studio picked the character’s race or sex as a nod to their own identity politics (or perhaps kowtowing to the broader identity politics that are so fashionable these days). It’s the same difference between racism and equality. It’s hard to tell from your comment whether you object to the racist reaction or the egalitarian reaction or both, but at least in my opinion the racist reaction is very uncommon.

> Just saying, in my experience, "don't care about it" is literally identical to "marginalize everyone but me", as that's our history.

That’s not our history though; our history was literally “marginalize blacks, women, native americans, italians, irish, eastern europeans, asians, etc”. We have made remarkable progress toward equality, and that’s due to egalitarianism—teaching people that superficial characteristics oughtn’t matter—not merely a different identity hierarchy. “Not caring about it” is precisely the key innovation and the catalyst for so much progress.

Post reply on HN