Ingel_Riday 10 posts
Haha. I'm not mad about it, really. I just think it sucks on multiple levels.
A. It is utterly disingenuous and repugnantly cynical to market the game with the male version, focus on the male lead in gameplay previews, and then use the novelization and comics (which almost no one reads, for good reason) to canonize the female version and pander to "progressives." They did this with Odyssey, too.
B. There has never been a society in human history where gender was a mere cosmetic option. A female Eagle Bearer would have faced major societal barriers in Athens, wouldn't have even been allowed to watch the Olympics, and would have discovered that her greatest and most vital duty within Spartan society would be... to get knocked up and raise fighting sons for the army. But nope. Not in Odyssey. Gender has as little significance as what color shirt you picked this morning.
It makes the storytelling kind of... well, insipid. I don't want some woke, overly dramatized "oh, being a woman REALLY sucked back then guys. Patriarchy and men = bad. sob sob" narrative, but it should matter. It's flavor for the character. It's context. Without it, there's a real disconnect between the heaps of effort put into historical accuracy for the setting and the complete LACK THEREOF regarding the lead.
Same goes with Valhalla. Vikings had women on their crews, but usually it was because a male raider was sick and if no one from his family participated, no one from his family got anything. So his wife or his sister would get some armor, a weapon, and take his place. There's evidence of this... and a goodly amount of evidence that such said wife or sister would get... boat guarding duty. Women are, on average, slimmer and smaller than men. They weren't put on the front lines of a raid. They kept the getaway longboat safe.
It would be interesting to see Isu-blooded female Eivor buck the trend. Maybe she'd flex her demigod blood, like Kassandra, to break through historical gender norms and go against the proverbial current. Maybe there would be some character-building moments resulting from that for both female-Eivor and the supporting cast. Maybe it could be a story beat or two; enemies underestimating a female vikingr, not realizing at first that it was a demigod female vikingr.
But nope. Gender means as little as picking a purple shirt or a green shirt in the morning. Bland, insipid, meaningless drivel. All this effort at historical accuracy in setting undercut by game characters and writing (ironically, Eivor's enemies don't get this treatment. The Anglo-Saxon armies are all male and societal gender norms are predominantly maintained. Guess you're meant to hate them? Weird)
C. It makes most playthroughs meaningless what-if scenarios. I had no trouble getting invested in Ezio, Haythem, Shay, Bayek, Jacob & Evie, and so on... but since I didn't pick "the canon character" in Odyssey, my playthrough was just an Animus "what-if" scenario. Same here. It strips my immersion of any lore significance whatsoever. By comparison, this is not a problem with most RPGs like Skyrim or Cyperpunk 2077, because they aren't churning out mountains of unwanted novels and comics that canonize "The Dragonborn" or "V." The Dragonborn saved Tamriel. "Who was the Dragonborn?" No one knows; the Dragonborn is shrouded in mystery. Done. Everyone's Dragonborn is The Dragonborn. There is no non-canonical wrong choice.
Not here. Who fought the Order of the Ancients? Kassandra. Who led the Raven Clan? Female Eivor of the Chain Smoker Clan. In essence... if you didn't pick an Argonian berserker lesbian Stormcloak, then you didn't pick the canonical Dragonborn and your playthrough was a "Skyrim what-if" scenario. Scrub.
So yeah, not mad. I just think it's cynical, kind of lame from a story-telling perspective, and indirectly tells 67% or so of the playerbase that their playthroughs were non-canonical animus tomfoolery that never happened. Pick a gender for the lead and stick with it.
DreadGrrl 165 posts
The more you type, the less convincing you become. You clearly know nothing about the circumstances regarding the characters’ development or Ubisoft’s “staffing” issues, and you fail to see the relevance. It’s pretty obvious that you’re just wanting to grind an axe: an old, tired, worn out axe.
TaleraRis 21 posts
They are both canon. If you've gotten to the end game and you still don't know how, you've apparently been sleeping through the entire story.
Carcharodon75 6 posts
I'm Norwegian. Eivor is a female Norwegian name so playing Eivor as male is ridiculous to me.
Even more than.
Yet there are minority of players with this knowledge advantage of yours. I bet the major portion players won't even be able to understand it, due to speaking different languages.
Thank you for sharing!
For me Eivor sounds like a similar name to Ivar (Ivarr).
@taleraris female Eivor is Canon. Male Eivor is not. I've completed the story 3 times so I get the twist (it would work for both gender options to be honest) . You're 'canonically' male for dream sequences which only account for less that 10% of the game.
So both versions are not Canon. A 90% 10% split does not qualify the 10% as Canon. That's like saying a beef burger is veggie because it has lettuce in.
It's not a bad thing having a Canon female protagonist at all, but if the devs are going to give players the choice of being a man or woman, they need to respect the players choice - like or hate Odyssey, they did this well as Alexios' story was not Canon, yet you wouldn't know that unless it was specifically specified.
If I choose to play as a man in Vahalla, I shouldn't keep being referred to as her or she and that kinda breaks the experience.
And although it is a bug (ubosift have confirmed it and there have been reports this had happened either way) , that's what's the OP is more annoyed about
MicHaeL_MonStaR 26 posts
Such an angry boi... I don't see an issue. - Moving along...
TaleraRis 21 posts
She is canon to the historical setting. Male Odin is canon to the original Asgard setting. They're both canon. Ubisoft never promised anything regarding canonicity regarding percentage of the game or the setting. Just that they were both canon and there was a reason that was explained in the story.
@taleraris that is not what was promised I'm afraid. Ubisoft directly said that that Eivor as both genders was Canon in a way that doesn't affect the story. When pressed on this, they did say playing as either throughout would not affect the story. And it does.
So, I do appreciate that in your option and thought process that Ubisoft fulfilled their promise and portrayed both genders as canon. I think we'll have to agree to disagree as the main character players play as is the historical character, whom is cannonically female. Also, considering it was no surprise that odin is male and onsidering that you only play as him for 10% of the game... I don't feel the need to repeat my analogy. Following from this, there are quite a few plot holes regarding the story of the sages. For example, and one that as been raised is why has odin's sage come back as a woman and all the others stayed as their respective genders? (odin was not much of a shape shifter in mythology, he was either himself or wearing a disguise as an old man- loki was the one who changed genders, forms and species a lot). How come only one (I won't say who) ever actually regains their memories in a say that follows ac lore? and how come the others retain their distinct personalities and identities? One in gameplay has no visions, no issues or no urge about their sage.
My overall point in this that male Eivor is not Canon, and it was said that either version of Eivor was. That the isu Odin is male who you play as for a small portion of the story does not qualify as 'both genders for Eivor as Canon' as you are affectively playing a different character shirt different morales.
Again, feel free to disagree as this is only an option.
Personally, I stick with male Eivor as I find his voice actor more immersive and engaging. Also, the beard options rock
@karloz1995 there is evidence for female warriors in history? Admittedly they are rare but they did exist in certain cultures. The celts and early slavs had female warriors which has been proven. Even in Greece, there was a few historical female warriors, although they were exceptions. Its only viking shieldmaidens whom are debated as they're mentioned in sagas and there are a few warrior burials with a confirmed or suspected woman (birka for example). The arguments for (briefly) are that there's evidence they existed and that surviving viking law codes, women could hold titles and land - so why is it a stretch for there to be woman warriors? Especially as there is evidence suggesting they existed. The against (briefly) is that the saga depictions are mythological and that there are equal depictions of woman using weapons in religious ceremonies etc.
So in truth, it's impossible to know for sure as the debates with always ebb back and forth. Only way to know for sure is go back in time
Gravelmead 62 posts
@fimbulthulur I never play a game with gender issues on my mind, but when the dev's make the game with gender issues on theirs, that is when they take away the immersion and connection for the player and attempt to lead the player by the nose. In short, they ruin their own game trying to get a political message across which has the effect of turning the player against said message. They do more harm than good.
ProdiGurl 0 posts
@ingel_riday This is a VIDEO GAME . . Ubi has been moving towards male & female choice since Syndicate & Origins.
Players were whining and criticizing even back then that they weren't making a Female assassin - but apparently the majority choose male characters (like myself) - I also play as Male Eivor in this one - I played Alexios in Odyssey. So they've offered a choice.
They've been changing AC to accommodate player choice and gain new player interest to the series. The whole 'canon' thing to me is already lost and as an older player since AC II & Brotherhood, I'm fine with it. It makes the early games even more Nostalgic and good to replay.
The changes are made and you either enjoy the game for what it is or you get lost in your rigid demands for the old AC constructs - - and speaking of that, Valhalla has more Assassins Creed vibe than Odyssey did so I give them credit for listening to players