24 Likes/270 Replies/3466 Views
Many players haven't played The Elder Scrolls 1-4, yet they played Skyrim and fell in love with the series. This is my case as well and since I am in love with Skyrim I wait for TES6. I wont replay the previous ones, bcs poor graphics. But I read what was needed to understand them.
Same here, I started AC properly with Valhalla. I didn't properly play the third installment.
So when the dev team are making bugs, plot mistakes and glitches it doesn't attract many new players to the AC stories, right?
I was excited about this game, when they announced its making, since I am somewhat connected to scandinavian (norse) people and their culture.
And I was pleasantly surprised that they will add two equal gender options. I prefer to play war games as a male.
And now they delivered a game full of plot mistakes, where the game treats your male character as female and male. What's worse it is constantly suggesting that I should have chosen female option.
This is immersion breaking and game ruining.
Whatever you say.
You can laugh it off first two or three times, but later it arises a feeling of disrespect from the devs towards you, bcs you invest money, time and effort to live the story of your character as you chose ( bcs the free choice was promised) but the game constantly corrects you.
It is always politics, politics are everywhere.
Ubisoft, unfortunately, are prisoners of politics as well.
@fimbulthulur I think you'll have to agree to disagree. A lot of projects (film, art, TV etc.) seek controversy as it does help advertise their film and does being in a wider audience. Look at the film 'the house that Jack built'. It was so graphic in its subject's violence and gore and caused controversy as loads of film reviewers were sick or walked out. Due to this, it raked in nearly triple what the studio expected.
But to a certain degree you're right, some stuff needs to appease an audience. Like a kids film would be ripped apart if it wasn't politically correct.
Video-games are not usually subject to this as normally they are the ones pushing boundaries. That said, ubisoft have come under a lot fire since 2019 as their senior execs (the ones whom were forced out of the company a few months ago) refused to mske a game with a female protagonist as they said no one would buy it. Along with this, they were rumours (some confirmed) of sexism and sexual misconduct in the company. So I think, to a degree they had to add a level of political correctness to the game to avoid any further issues.
It's always going to be difficult making a game based on history as you need to appease to a wider audience, but not disrespect the period too much. They couldn't have an popular game on ancient Greece as the greeks were extraordinarily sexist (minor exceptions with the Spartans) and showing this faithfully would alienate potentially a lot of players.
But, personally (feel free to disagree), I do not think having a leftist agenda was a primary factor in the making of the game.
I do think the game was rushed and many aspects were overlooked, such as male Eivor having incorrect dialogue pronouns, no one handed swords, a butt load of bugs etc.
Exactly, politics are everywhere. Whether intentionally or unintentionally.
You probably understand better than anyone here with what I am so unpleased with, since you are here from the beginning.
They didn't deliver what they promised.
This is already a bad reputation for them.
And if we go deeper to " why they didn't do it", then we can find many possible factors, which discussed before - from bad development work to bad management to bad advertising to political adjustment.
It can also be that all that reasons are valid.
But anyway, they didn't deliver on their promise and probably lied.
@fimbulthulur they didn't fulfil their promise no. On a variety of areas.
Whilst both gender options have a role in the story, the historical eivor is female - so the male isn't. It's not a game breaking issue, but it's just a lie they told. They overlooked the male Eivor dialogue which is annoying as hell. If I Chose to play as a bloke - let me play as a bloke that's recognised as a bloke by the game.. They lied by saying they'd offer a full viking experience, lied again .. No One handed swords, raids get dull VERY quickly, no massive open battles - literally can't play the game in the style I like as I am a swordsman (I've got two degrees on the viking age -no one challenge me on the accuracy of one handed swords existing/being used - there is soooo much evidence confirming they were used), failed on making it a assassin's creed game 'Eivor will be heavily involved with the hidden ones- no they're not. It's literally eivor doing a mutually beneficial favour as to why they're hunting them down. EVERYONE was hoping he'd join them in the end, and they're just like naaa.
I know I'm venting, but whilst I do really enjoy the game, it just disappoints on so many levels. They lied about the story, lied about gameplay, lied about the game being ready (so many bugs), lied about being a proper viking experience, lied about the game revolving around player choice and they lied about it 'being loyal to the franchise'.
These are my own opinions, and anyone is free to agree or disagree... But damn
@fimbulthulur there are loads of books on it, so I'd just recommend searching on amazon, just have a gander to look at the publisher to make sure it's a legit reliable book. There are also a lot of web pages that have a rough translation of each, just bare in mind there are inconsisties on their websites
@fimbulthulur it was never my speciality. I focused more on nature of viking age warfare, the societies of the warriors (both Anglo-Saxons and vikings) and early expansions into England, so basically the time the game is set.
A good book is Viking Language 1: language, runes and Icelandic sagas by Jesse L Byock. Try to get the most recent edition (on edition 2 or 3 now I think...) as it's always being updated and improved.
TheCosmicBob 73 posts
While I am not at all concerned about male/female Eivor, since it is a choice available (even in the middle of playing the game), I am playing the female Eivor and she is constantly being referred to as "he/him" by NPCs. So, I don't think it's a big plot by Ubisoft to force a gender on the player, since I'm getting misgendered as a female character and apparently others are having the issue as a male character.
It's just abysmal QA testing.
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.