5 Likes/14 Replies/333 ViewsOriginal poster DredgenPreacher 7 posts
I’m not too excited or even engaged with the historical inaccuracies. It’s a game I know. It’s fictional.
A good way to draw some of these historical inaccuracies to make sense in the time line or location of AC would be small story beats explaining how these characters got to Ravensthorpe.
Or how there’s a big black Viking
Bridging these things would really add depth to the random characters introduced. And it wouldn’t be something that’s just amusing because it’s random diversity pandering.
So could we get a more in-depth story into why or how we got a big black viking? I understand he was a raider. But how did he get to that point? At what point did he travel to the top of the world and discover Vikings? Or who journeyed south and recruited him?
Is he from a specific area? Will we see a game set in Africa or South Africa? It would be really cool to see these bridges being made. And the story potential with these diverse characters.
Just don’t leave these characters as random one offs devoid of explanation just because you’re trying to be diverse.
Be diverse. Break the historical accuracy. But at least add some depth and quality to the characters you introduce.
OrcBeard92 152 posts
@dredgenpreacher I was alarmed when I first saw him, but as @Fimbulthulur says, Vagn explains his past the more you raid. After that, I was on board with it. As long as there is some explanation for why someone is there, or who they are, I can get behind it.
Seeing characters like Yanli, or Petra I found slightly jarring at first sight, but once they explained themselves, it was fine. I remember when they were doing press for this game, they liked to mention how Arabs met with Vikings and so on - (dhiram coins showing up in Gotland, even statues of buddha).
So I think we have to allow that games will then take some dramatic license with this to spice it up a bit. From my experience, race has always been approached with a good degree of maturity in the Assassins series. Their handling of Adéwale in Black Flag, and the world he lived in, being the freshest in my memory. In Origins the Greek vs. Egyptian tension was completely justified and believable. When I saw characters of varying ethnicity in Odyssey, I didn't bat an eyelid. Greece, Egypt and the world as a whole in ancient times, was genuinely more fluid than I think we give it credit for. Though it would always have been a minority.
That being said, those characters like Vagn are in the minority, so it makes meeting them a bit more special I guess. We could sit here and pick apart why the animus translates Anglo-Saxon into cockney and yorkshire accents, but it'd be pointless. I actually kind of like Vagn. I just wish his character model was a bit more polished, given how important he may end up being to the settlement. He looks a bit rough around the edges, even for a Vikingr.
Alec_Fortescue 16 posts
This is a standard. Been discussed ad-nausem. It's not going anywhere. Be content or just don't buy a product. I have a bigger problem with the clothing and armaments in this game when it comes to historical accuracies. It's far worse than token characters in the name of diversity. xD
ElMadre1 87 posts
I don't care if I see King Tut riding a llama through Lunden as long as the stupid cow will leave its enclosure in Asgard. Oh, and give me my big fish.
TheChuckIII 9 posts
We're playing a game about an advanced civilization who created humans along with an apple that literally has mind control. All of this and you're concerned with historical accuracy??
@thechuckiii funnily enough... Yes. The game is classed as a historical fiction. Emphasis on the the HISTORICAL part. The whole purpose of assassin's creed (this is according to ubisoft BTW) is to create fictional, individual stories set in the back drop of a factual historical period
RHYLASS 32 posts
Your being educated.
Is all. Divergent times divert tidies. Pun intended.
Can be a chore at times granted. But you need it.
@gloomseeker this is the first one that I've played through and have gone "what...", especially in regards to historical appearances, weapons and armours.
O-E-Smith 18 posts
@gloomseeker It's completely historically inaccurate. Everything from weapons and armour (they had nothing like the iron star flail back then) to a random black Viking and a Chinese looking shop keeper to copious amounts of women on the battlefield (female warriors existed but were very rare). Also the architecture is ridiculous... the Roman ruins would have been hardly visible and they wouldn't have been anywhere near as large. Plus the people back then wouldn't have lived in them, they would have built new structures on top of them. And bizarrely all the "new" Christian structures are overgrown, dilapidated & ruined... but they were built new and would have been taken care of during a time when society was extremely pious.
The worst part of the game for me is how they portray the Vikings & Eivor as likable, noble and heroic characters. While they portray the English as dumb, unwashed, violent, crude, evil people. But the fact is that the Vikings invaded a land that was already populated and commenced a terrifying campaign of pillage, [censored] and slaughter of innocent men, women & children and were (rightly) loathed by the native population.
So I guess mass murder, theft & destruction of religious monuments in the name of colonisation is OK if it's directed towards the English and Christians.
@o-e-smith the vikings were definite invaders, but they weren't better or worse than the native anglo saxons, they both waged war in identical ways. You only only go look at what evidence there is for the mercian wars. They were just pagan so got a negative press, especially as they sacked churches. (this is funnily enough what was already happening in warfare pre viking age anyway).
In the areas they settled, there was something of a synthesis, the natives and invaders lived side by side very successfully. York is a perfect example. By the time of the game is set, they expanded the city and, despite the new rulers being pagan, still kept the churches well maintained and appointed bishops to keep the peace and allowed religious freedom.
Their invasion didn't lead to ethnic cleansing, it more or less just replaced the existing ruling elites (and even then not completely). So the vikings being terrifying savages isn't quite right. They enacted the same style of warfare as everyone else, they were just more successful
@o-e-smith I just want to clarify, the way the vikings age portrayed in the game, especially in Gloucestershire, Shropshire, Oxfordshire and Essex is hilariously wrong. Well, the Essex story line is just ridiculous. Alfred the great was fighting a war to survive... Why would he commit forces abroad in Essex? Also it was under viking rule being part of East anglia? A viking certainly wouldn't be welcome in Gloucester at this time either as Gloucester and most of west Midlands held out against the vikings. The Gloucestershire arc is the most inaccurate line that just makes me angry tbh. WHY they the vikings welcomed in Oxford I have no idea....especially to rebel again some Earl... Like no...
hroozenbeek 1024 posts
@o-e-smith Don't forget that only a few centuries before, the Anglo-Saxons "invaded a land that was already populated". That's what king Arthur was fighting against, at least according to most stories. So be careful when you refer to "the native population".
But yes, the Roman ruins look a bit too much.