This particular period and setting in Viking history is stale | Forums

[Greybush1982]

You are talking about Newfoundland and Greenland at best, because that's all they got to before they tucked tail and collapsed. That would provide you with a very small map and very little variety in story and open-world setting.

Nope. I'm talking about North America.
The only long time settlements were in Newfoundland and Greenland, but there's a lot that points towards them having expeditions at least as far south as New Brunswick.
From Norway to Greenland to Canada is a pretty decent sized map.

[VestigialLlama4]

The only long time settlements were in Newfoundland and Greenland, but there's a lot that points towards them having expeditions at least as far south as New Brunswick. From Norway to Greenland to Canada is a pretty decent sized map.

I read on this, among historians there are maximal and minimal debates, but the consensus is that the number of people sent to settle in North America or Vinland is very small, far smaller than the settlers who came to England and Ireland, and the ones who settled in greater numbers in Iceland.

There's no way that people of that quantity settled to the extent that maximalists claim. The small sparse settlements that we find bear it out.

I think it will be cool to see the Vinland Expedition in a DLC or so, but it's not enough for a main game. From a Setting POV, whole chunks of barren cold and land doesn't seem very interesting or exciting in terms of variety.

The First Nations people who existed then or came into contact with the Vikings are not known to us by name of tribe, and that's going to have to be conjectured in since there are many theories about it.

[Greybush1982]

Fair point.
While it does give a much broader artistic license, not knowing somewhat important details like what the native tribes were called does take away from the usual historical tidbits.

But unless you're hoping for a AC version of Setters or Civilization, the size of the settlements probably aren't gonna be much bigger.

[Megas_Doux]

I feel exactly the same as you. It’s not just that the period is already extensively explored in media, but also the setting. You could have set the game in the same period, just base it in Scandinavia instead of England, and you’d have a much more unique starting point for stories.

Yup, I also think it's a bit lazy. Our history is so much more thank just raids to England. Of course you want/need conflict for an AC game, but it's not like there weren't plenty of interesting feuds and conflicts within Denmark, Norway and Sweden during the Viking age. And personally, I always found the settlements of the Orkney and the Hebrides, and of course Iceland and parts of Ireland, just as interesting.

So yes, if the game mainly takes place in England, and a bit in Norway, it will be a huge disappointment (just like calling a male viking Eivor...).

I understand your feelings about it, I truly do.

However, there's something both of you have to understand as well...This is a video game produced by a company whose main goal is to make money, period. A video game under the circumstances you are proposin will lack, to say the least, the alure to the masses of what are currently getting here. In other words, whereas interesting from a historic perspective, will bore the hell out of the pretty much everybody in 5 minutes. In the end, and again, this is a video game and not an article to be published on the Smithsonian Online or a University.