I'm going to start by saying I really love the game. I can even overlook the bugs that I assume will be patched soonish. But why not include one of the most popular, well known and significant weapons in the assassin creed series. Especially in a viking game. No Ulfberhts, no Merovingian swords, no Abingdon swords. They were symbols of power, prestige and war in the viking age. Not including them is a huugge mistake and something of a blight on the game. It is immersion breaking, it's not allowing many players to not play the name in their own style. Especially with shows such as Vikings and the Last Kingdom reiterating the use and significance of swords to a viking age warrior.
It baffles there has been no response to this or pledge to fix it. Game reviewers have noticed and have mentioned the lack of swords, fans have voiced their disappointment as well as history nerds (such as myself) saying that there really is no leg to stand on in regards to not including them, but instead massive, bigger than Eivor, longswords.
Leading on from this, in the future, can their be more realistic armour and gear in Assassin creed valhalla. Minus a few exceptions, Odyssey's gear looked at least plausible, whereas over half of Vahalla'a gear looks like it belongs in World of Warcraft, not a game about history.

Please do something to fix this very easily fixable things to make a good game great.

So, i have played this game since launch. I had such high hopes for it. Assassin's creed is my most favourite video game franchise and the vikings are a period of history I spent years of my life studying. I was so excited when it was announced. I literally had friends calling me asking if I had watched the launch trailer.
So imagine my utter disappointment in what was realised over three months ago. A buggy, glitchy, unfinished, unpolished mess of a game that completely s***t all over such an amazing period kg history. I'm all for creative liberty when adapting a historical period, but how the vikings have been treated/portrayed in the game is a joke, and how the Anglo-Saxons are portrayed is even worse. I could bore people with all the details but ultimately, there are enough posts on heyr doing that. Not to mention they cut out one of the most historically significant weapons from the viking age (one handed sword) without an excuse or explanation. The main story ends on such a low point (just before a major historical event) it was so disappointing
Even in gameplay, it disappoints. The combat is okay, but the forced animations mid-combat break the immersion and flow, boss battles are so unbalanced, doing them in a chore and narrative wise, there is literally no drive to get involved in the central assassin-templar conflict.
Since launch I have defended this game, made excuses about why ubisoft have designed the game as they have, but now I'm done. With the most recent river raids update the game has become a boring slog. No features fans have BEGGED for are included, such as one handed swords, Historically accurite armours or a transmog system and instead we get a reskin piece of gear that is like the english flag just came on the thegn armour, no new weapons, no worthwhile skills, nothing. The raids are boring and I don't see a point in doing. Even in the trailer, ubisoft seem bored with it already. The game is still bugged for many players, so many issues haven't been fixed and worse... You have people sticking up for the game saying, it's unfinished. AN UNFINISHED GAME SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED! Dlcs and post launch plan should add to what's there, not complete an unfinished experience. You. Wouldn't buy a car with 3 wheels would you?
There's seems to be minimal support on the forum, and around 90% of the posts on here are saying how thr game has too many issues and bugs that just aren't being addressed.
It's safe to say, this is the last assassin's creed game I'm getting: I'm certainly not playing unless serious improvements are made.
I know this is a rant, and I'm happy to debate stuff, just... I had such high hopes for this game

@leoraptor1979 that is not true. At all. Sorry. Two handed swords didn't exist until the 13th century. Its a well known historical fact. They used axes, spears, seaxes and one handed swords. If anything, theybpopularised using axes in warfare. There are is so much evidence supporting this. There is absolutely no evidence, archaeological or historical that the vikings used two handed swords, flails or war hammers. There's more evidence that wealthier vikings used one handed swords over most weapons. You can look at viking warrior graves in Ingleby and Repton in the UK to show this as they were buried with their swords (which were one handed)
I've literally spent five years of my life obtaining two degrees on the subject of the viking age and specifically warfare so I do actually know what I'm talking about and I'm sorry to say what you're saying is just not true.

@tantalus_jb tbh no one is really sure how many shieldmaidens existed, or what portion of a viking army they'd made up. Some scholars argue that they never existed at all. In the written record, there are 2 (non mythical and that I can remember off the top of my head) that are mentioned by name, lagertha and Brynhilda. And out of those 2, only lagertha's achievements are actually described. Personally, I do think they existed, but just not in large numbers.
Personally, I have no issue with there being loads in the game and in media portrayals. I think it is awesome.
I take issue, when if you choose to be male Eivor, the game treats your decision as if its wrong, non Canon and just incorrect. It's a bit insulting when the game advertised that both gender options were Canon when they're clearly not and your in game experience is affected by your bearded vikingr being refered to as a beautiful daughter... That's the main issue that's being raised by this thread.
If the game advertised itself as Eivor being female only, it wouldn't be an issue

@tantalus_jb unfortunately, he is right. Besides the odd exception, most viking warriors/leaders were men, they were often favoured. The vikings were certainly more progressive than most cultures at their time, but they weren't quite equal. That's not to say women rulers and warriors didn't exist, they just were a rarity unfortunately.

Okay, so this is going to be a long post. Ngl, I do enjoy the game. There's plenty I like but there's equal about I dislike, which is not okay. Firstly, no one handed swords? Enough people have complained (including me) about why this is dumb so I won't go on about. I'm playing on xbox one S. I've never played a Assassin game as buggy. Even when I got unity it wasn't this bad (I got until week after launch). Many times I've just dropped dead whilst sailing or riding somewhere for no reason. Prompts don't always work, weird times I've just fallen through the ground and have had to restart the game. Or when I've fast travelled from Lunden to freeze and have Eivor free fall a foot of a poorly rendered roof for 15 minutes.
And the combat. Ngl the combat when it works is enjoyable. That said, when it bugs, glitches or moves don't work like they should it ruins the experience. Plus stunning enemies... Wtaf. Its can be useful, but why would I invest time, resources and ingots on a weapon that I can't use to kill enemies or bosses? Adding insult to injury, I can't even use the weapon I want to use (one handed sword) but can use a enemies' own sword to kill him? WHY?! Then there's the oversized weapons... Again WHY? Why increase the size of a dane axe or longsword to commmically large proportions? The range doesn't change much when they increase in size anyway so even the hitbox system negates the reason why they become bigger. Only justifiable weapon this works is the spear. It looks almost final fantasy or monster hunter level weird. And coming from someone who's actually handed real weapons (I was part of a reenactment group before covid) using this weapons of that size would be impossible to swing and manouver effectively (I'm not exactly a small guy either as I'm 6.2 and a gym freak). Also, why no proper conquest battles or defensive raids? I know there's been chatter that It'll be patched in, but the fact it's not out on day 1 is just weird? Odyssey had more features and things to do on day 1?

Also, as I've seen LOADS of people have said, what is the point in killing the order of ancients or zealots? There is literally no incentive. When the combat system works and doesn't glitch out, it's fun. But there's no reason to do it. Oh I get a medallion which when handed in doesn't give me diddly squat, I get some money and a rune I could've just brought from a merchant? The order of ancients is even worse. Half the time there's not even a fight to be had. Theres no incentive to hunt them down at all, no cool equipment, not narrative threads pushing the story on, nothing. I've completed the game only killing the order that the story made me kill. What's the point hunting down the others other than to complete the game and get a cinematic. So either give players a rewards, like cool pieces if equipment, or something else worth the gameplay to do.

This brings me onto my next topic and potential SPOILERS. Why end the game at the historical event it ends at? WHY?! I can't even get my head around why they end it where they do. They should've ended it at the Battle of Edington where it established a status quo (for the most part) in England and created the dane law for the next 3-4 decades? Ending it just before that with no suggestion of a DLC which includes it just ends it at a really weird point where in a matter of months, everything changes really dramatically. It's like watching a guy pull back a bow string and then stop watching as he's about to let go. If anyone has seen series 1 of the The Last Kingdom or read anything about viking age England, they know what I'm on about.

I'm a huge history nerd, and the viking age is literally my bread and butter (I have 2 degrees studying the period), and assassin creed is my most favourite video-game series. Should've been a match made in heaven. But they have rushed it, made so many mistakes and oversights it's borderline game breaking.

Finally, this game seems to be a war between the developers/writers and producers/marketing team as to. The characters gender. Obviously having the option to have a female or Male Eivor is awesome, but the game and writing clearly pushes you to be a female? The name Eivor is a female name, I'm currently playing as a male and LOADS of characters have referred to me as she and Eivor's height in gameplay is weirdly shorter than 90% of characters yet in cinematics is a foot taller? Like [censored].
Yet, the marketing, box cover art and trailers clearly favour a male character? If it didn't have an effect on gameplay I wouldny care, but the whole process has clearly been rushed.

Sorry for the long post, I'm just so disappointed in this game. I'm fighting the urge to go back to odyssey, I really am trying to love this game, but it just needs so much work to make it a good game.

@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

@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

100% accuracy isn't achievable true. However, one handed swords have been a staple of the series (and many other fantasy TV series, films and games) and it is weird not having them. Especially in a game that champions player choice and freedom. Many players, including myself, prefer to use swords in a video game.

Right, this toxic thread has dragged on long enough with people just repeating the same points.
I'm going to paraphrase the most up to date historical viewpoint and information about the role of women in the viking age for the vikings. First and foremost, the vikings were a patriarchal society. As much as that sucks they were. Men were favoured as children (which actually led to a disproportionate male-female population across Scandinavia), as warriors, providers and leaders. However, women actually had more social freedoms than men in the viking age and in most cases, they weren't prevented from doing a lot of things traditionally associated with what a 'man' should do. There's a lot of evidence, both physical and written, that suggests that women could take up male roles and no one would bat an eye or question them. It is now accepted (yes, widely accepted by the most up to date historians, scholars and archaeologists) that women warriors did exist and there are graves across Europe showing this, a lot more than 3... And because men were expected to fulfil certain roles in society, they were ridiculed for breaking such roles or even wearing clothes or wearing their hair in ways that were deemed unmasculine. Women were not restricted in the same way. There's even a lot of evidence that suggests that same-sex female relationships were accepted, but same sex male relationships weren't (unfortunately there was a lot of homophobia against man on man same sex relations in viking age society)
I would go on to talk about marriage etc. That that is a bit heavy and complicated and is a bit irrelevant to this thread.
But overall, women warriors DID exist and they did fight. As someone has already mentioned on here, the repton burial (a VERY famous viking age wartime burial site in England) has around 300 odd bodies in one graves all having died from battlefields injuries and yes, around 20% of them were women. That's just one example out of dozens showing they existed. As I've said before, the historical debate about their role in warfare varies, but ultimately, the most up to date studies supports the idea they were active in warfare. Yes, their numbers in the game are exaggerated massively, but oh well. There are bigger issues in the game that need to be fixed, such as no one handed swords or lack of historical armours.
I recommend that people read proper scholarship on this issue from within the past 5 years, not popular history books that simplify the issue or use out of date views that have since been disproven.
New archaeological finds, new runic inscriptions and new interpretations of the written sources are always being put forward.

@davidtsmith333 I don't agree personally. I don't use them. And I don't find the range to be an advantage. Most players (friends and people on here) want the actual one handed sword, regardless of stats. I'd much rather use an actual one handed sword that isn't comically large. Especially as it looks cooler, would be faster and actually allow you to use one of the most famous viking age weapons in a game about vikings....

@cap-cla I am hoping it'll start in the aftermath of the viking defeat at Edington against Alfred. It was a hugely significant battle that changed alot in England. It'll mean Eivor will have to look abroad (enter viking kingdom of Dublin) for new allies. And I'm hoping it'll lead on from here

@davidtsmith333 no there's not? The swords in vahalla currently look comically large and unrealistic.
I mean if you're happy with them, crack on. But the ommision of actual viking age one handed swords as a usable weapon is a joke. I'm happy that they're going to be added at some point with either the Paris DLC or maybe even before. But they should've prioritised them over adding a syths in the upcoming druids dlc. I can't comprehend ubisofts thought process

@franklinc2px my pleasure

@max18400 also, anything by Neil price is gold. Furthermore, another great historian to look up, is Ben raffield,he has done some phenomenal articles on viking age armies

Okay, there are, loads of really great books on the vikings. I've got 2 degrees (one BA and 1 MA on viking age warfare). On warfare, I recommend a book by a scholar called Guy Halsall called warfare and society in the barbarian West. He looks at the Anglo-Saxons, Franks and vikings, but they're all linked and is perhaps one of the most reliable, well researched and well explained books. But, for university level, be careful as not all books are "accepted" in academic works.
So, books by popular publishers, like the BBC, are not accepted as they're considered popular histories. Usually if they're published by a university/college they're good to use. BBC histories are a great starting point, but they often generalise and simplify stuff (yes hammer and the cross is a popular history unfortunately) and are frowned upon by assessors. I would also be VERY careful about using anything ubisoft or assassin's creed for historical information as, as a game Vahalla is the most inaccurate depiction of the vikings I have ever seen.

@paddy234 you are joking right? They aren't brutal at all in the game or savage? They're often treated as the liberators in the game, which is the opposite of whst they actually were. They cut out a lot of brutal realities of the vikings, such as human sacrifices, killing civilians during raids, slave trade. Ngl the only brutal character is ivar who's portrayal is so laughable and incorrect it's its own problem.
And I agree with they didn't remake history to make it suitable for a 'woke' audience (which is a wider audience and this rewriting of history is its own complex problem). But it doesn't take away from the fact an expert of ancient Greece (many of whom my friends from university are) can sit back, and enjoy and appreciate odyssey. I cannot do the same for valhalla. There's too much that's overlooked, ignored or just flat out incorrect.

@paddy234 vahalla is a poorer depiction of the viking age than odyssey was for classical Greece. Yes, there was a lot wrong in odyssey (historically) but there was also a lot right. Vahalla is so historically bad its laughable, its not past the point of creative licencing to the point of actually taking the [censored]

Definitely not. If you found odyssey boring, this one will send you to sleep. Has some nice moments in, but the story is a painful slog (many of the compulsory quest arcs have nothing to do with the main narrative), historically it is the least accurate out of all the assassin's crews. So no. It's not worth the money

@theonlykanga ngl, I think vahalla is my least most favourite assassin creed game. I've never been so disappointed in a game to be honest. Origins and Odyssey were a far superior games. Granted, they weren't perfect, but vahalla was just meh. The story had some great bits in, but a lot of rubbish which made a mockery of the viking age with out inaccurate they are, and they mostly just felt like compulsory side quests that rips the player away from the main story. The gear looks so ott and fantasy, it doesn't feel like a historical fiction game, rather than a full on fantasy. In another thread, I said that I was laughing over the fact the witcher has better interpretation of vikings than an actual game... About vikings.