Hi,
I am looking into playing this new game, played all of the Assassins Creed games, loved them.
The most interesting thing for me is how are they going to "justify" the fact that we are playing a Viking, which were known to be blood thirsty warriors that were killing anything in their way.
If we are going to compare it to AC Rogue for example, then ever there, playing as a templar, it was kind of neutral - you could not kill any innocent people.
But here you are clearly going to raid villages as it was shown in trailers / gameplay videos.
I am not against violent games. But picking a group of people that were known to be very violent in our history, is very odd choice.
I also loved watching Vikings TV Series, but there is a difference between watching cruel people doing their thing and doing it yourself, even when its a virtual world.
Well, since the Assasin-Templar Conflict (or Hidden Ones - order of Ancients as it will be in this games) permeates all of human history (technically since Cain and Abel, the order acted organized since Semekhare in ancient Egypt, the Hiden Ones since Bayek & Aya) it is only "natural" that the viking era with all its gore, bloodthirst and cruelty will be part of it, especially since the region where Valhalla plays out (england) is a pretty important part of the AC Universe and likely will be its history: a key part of it will be the setting of valhalla: the period of vikings raids and the unification of the kingdoms.
With the premise of the conflict being a part of human history there is no need for justification really, because basically almost every possible historc scenario has enough wiggle rooom to host this conflict, even if it may seem a bit awkward like with pirates or vikings. But to be fair, most of the AC time periods weren´t exactly philantropist dreamscenarios.
You cannot go full rampage and slaughter people at will anyways, that will lead to desynchronisation. And a possible concflict between necessary raiding to provide a future for kith and kin and the tenets and principles of the creed will make for great story opportunities.
The game is based on the Assassins' one of the most violent groups in history ...... They were the 10th Century version of ISIS for cripes sakesOriginally Posted by Zeev86 Go to original post
So if in your mind you can make Assassins to be the good guys like you have for over a decade why would it be hard for you to make the Vikings the good guys?
It's a video game, try not to overthink it ........
Before trying to "justify" "Vikings", we have to define the word "viking".
There were not such things as "Vikings". It's a word which puts a whole era in a box with clear borders. What we call the viking era was a much more complex world in reality.
Strictly speaking, "Vikings" never existed. The term didnt refer to men, it was not a nationality neither, nor an ethnic membership, it was an activity. Going "viking" or doing a "viking".
Sure most of them were Scandinavians (north germanic), but there were vikings even in Northern Poland (Wolin, Truso) and Northern Germany (Hedeby), Baltic states (Grobina, Riga), the Finnish Archipelagos of Åland, western/southern Finland (Turku, Pori), even inner Finland and the region of Häme (Wanain, Birckala)
All these had different ways to be "vikings". Some went pure piracy, some others adopted a more "standard" way for trying to be rich.
All of them though used the same vector of conquest: the ship.
My personal definition of a "viking" is: a pagan guy from northern Europe between the VIIIth and the XIth century doing different things, more or less legal, and more or less moral, to get money, using a ship for travelling from a place to another. The guy also used more or less the same weapons, the same boats, and worshiped more or less the same gods.
And even there, people tend to put the "bloodthirsty raider" as #1. Sure they were pirates, but not only.
Most of the times, especially eastern "vikings", they were traders. Sometimes even mercenaries.
I think that on the contrary, roleplaying a "Viking" is quite easy as you can be whatever you want, and still be more or less historically correct.
(how many times did I say "more or less" haha)
![]()
It'll be like the awful Black Flag game, where while you're helping the Assassins you aren't actually one so you're ion their side but not following the Creed instead being villainous scum. No doubt late in the game we'll realize the errors of our ways and join the Assassins proper.
That said, I expect the Assassins like always to be nothing but giant hypocrites, doing everything they stand against but saying when they do it it's fine.
The Assassins killed over 60,000 people in Lisbon alone. I’m not sure how many they killed in Port-Au-Prince. I suspect their death toll exceeds that of the Vikings by a substantial amount.Originally Posted by longjohn119 Go to original post
Don't forget Ezio setting a city on fire to get access to one Templar, killing who knows how many innocent civilians. Or Connor having a fleet bombard New York to get access to Lee. Or supporting pirates who killed, raped, robbed countless people. Or did nothing to help innocent people in the French Revolution. Or Jacob ruining London's infrastructure to the point Starrick was the good guy. Or causing the Roman Republic to fall by killing Julius Caesar (a ruler whom in reality they would have supported but Ubisoft butchered his character).Originally Posted by DreadGrrl Go to original post
Why are we supposed to root for them again? They certainly don't have the people's best interests at heart.
Cause you're not. You're playing settlers in a strange, foreign land that doesn't like you and isn't welcoming. Ignore the marketing. Watch the actual gameplay videos and listen to what Darby is saying. You're trying to find a new home for your clan. Yes, you are going to clash some with the current residents. But that's not what the focus is.