Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@LordofHats

Because humans aren’t a Hive Mind where every bodies collectively responsible for every action. Most Saxons would just be agricultural workers living and dying on their farms; probably never putting a hand to a weapon. To characterise them as “evil by modern standards” is pretty extreme. These people would have been innocent of committing any wrong against the Norse and any Viking using “oh but Charlemagne did bad things to us” as an excuse to kill and steal is not justifiable. That’s clearly an excuse and a poor self interested one at that.

Under five percent of medieval people could be warriors due to the limits of the time. These men represented a distinct class who proactively chose that life for themselves and to go raiding. Anybody who does that cannot have been good. People had moral standards in Christianity and other religions and they chose to ignore them. You can’t assume everyone in the past was ignorant and thus they could never be considered evil. Humans are biologically identical to what they were back then. So yeah this not complicated at all who the good and bad guys are. The faction which launched the war and is the instigator of the violence.

The game glorifies men who we should be glad are in the ground and should go unmourned. We aren’t talking about a Bjorn in his boat who liked to make pretty silver broaches. The game wants to glorify Viking Warriors, going on raids and the power of that group.

Are the Saxon Warriors bad for opposing this army? No, that’s a million miles from what is being depicted. The game depicts them as the Templar loving villains who want to enslave humanity set against the Freedom loving Norse. That’s very far from a morally grey depiction.

Plus I distrust the motivations around glorifying the Norse. Ubisoft in all its other games depicts the aggressor Imperialist faction has the pro Templar one. Refusing to do that here and making the conquering army raiding and enslaving a few small Kingdoms on the edge of the world the pro freedom little guy makes no sense. It’s purely because people like the Vikings and so they get whitewashed in everything they are in. Pretty much every film, TV show and game does this.

Any other faction that did what they did would be vilified. I object to the insistent attempt to sanitise them because people think they’re cool.

Because humans aren’t a Hive Mind where every bodies collectively responsible for every action.

vs
<rest of post>

Dunno how to illustrate my confusion and frustration here. You're arguing against what you say you're arguing.

The game depicts them as the Templar loving villains who want to enslave humanity set against the Freedom loving Norse.

This, however... this one's easy.
The very first 'Templar loving hive mind villain' the game presents to you... is Norse.

Voss wrote:

Because humans aren’t a Hive Mind where every bodies collectively responsible for every action.

vs
<rest of post>

Dunno how to illustrate my confusion and frustration here. You're arguing against what you say you're arguing.

The game depicts them as the Templar loving villains who want to enslave humanity set against the Freedom loving Norse.

This, however... this one's easy.
The very first 'Templar loving hive mind villain' the game presents to you... is Norse.

The post is pretty clear. This game presents the Saxons as evil and the Viking army invading them as Noble Savage Good Guys. I don’t think that’s appropriate and it’s only because of the popularity of the group.

The responses people have done are apologia for the Viking’s. Either they weren’t an invasion at all, Saxon peasants can be blamed for Christian missionaries in the Baltic and Charlemagne so it’s a just war, Viking is okay because it was the done thing and people were just dumb in the past so we can’t apply moral judgements and this insistence that the Great Heathen Army should be conflated with Norse fishermen and craftsmen in Scandinavia. The game is depicting the military. That class of feudal soldier who have chosen to be the scum of the earth because they want power. The game depicts them as heroes fighting evil Saxons.

Because you start in a Norse area? I’d hazard a guess that he’s leaning towards the Christianity of the Templar’s who are represented by the Saxon characters. Plus a few rotten eggs allows the devs to make the case that not all Vikings were bad. If the only one taking thralls is the one twisted by the Templar’s well that must mean it’s nothing to do with the Norse themselves. Plus, Ubisoft chose to lean heavily into the Noble Savage vs Tyrannical Civilisation dynamic in that trailer. If this Norse is like “ohh with this writing we can do so much” and being very unviking then that’s not really Ubisoft throwing shades at the Norse.

I’d hazard a guess that he’s leaning towards the Christianity of the Templar’s who are represented by the Saxon characters.

Unsurprisingly at this point, you'd be wrong.

You're making a lot of assumptions that have nothing to do with the game or anything in it. Posting diatribes on a subject you clearly aren't willing to do the work to find out if what you're saying is even vaguely true is incredibly annoying.

The responses people have done are apologia for the Viking’s

And willful mischaracterization of what people have tried (repeatedly) to explain to you is even worse than annoying.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
The post is pretty clear.

It's really not.

The responses people have done are apologia for the Viking’s.

That's mostly 'because humans aren’t a Hive Mind where every bodies collectively responsible for every action,' which is what you've spent this entire thread arguing but are now using it as a defense of your position. You're in here arguing the virtues of Saxon civilization vs the evils of Viking plundering with no sense of hypocrisy. On top of that you're making a dubious argument citing historical events, and now you're arguing that the history doesn't matter because game bad Saxons good (or something, I really don't know what you want at this point it kind of seems like you just want to be indignant and this isn't really a discussion so much as a soap box for you to scream at the wind from).

You're paragoning incoherence.

The game is depicting the military. That class of feudal soldier who have chosen to be the scum of the earth because they want power.

And now you're appealing to feudal idealism. Notions of romantic Chivalry wouldn't even exist for a few hundred more years. These soldiers you're calling the scum of the earth are how the armies of most of Europe, West and North, functioned in this time period. The line between an army serving a lord and a band of brigands pillaging the countryside was a lot more fluid than the romanticism of later generations would have you believe. The Vikings became famous for being really good at something a lot of people were doing in that age.

The game depicts them as heroes fighting evil Saxons.

Well it would be rather weird to not give the player character a heroic goal even as he murders his way to victory (this is basically every video game).

Plus a few rotten eggs allows the devs to make the case that not all Vikings were bad.

Incoherent.

Not all Vikings were bad doesn't really need a case to be made. Viking is loose term in history. We apply it with little sense of reason. Sometimes Vikings would go pillaging. Sometimes they would engage in more peaceful endeavors. Some became the body guards of the Byzantine Emperors. Others would return Sicily to Christendom (and were a lot less genocidal about it than the Spanish were later on in Spain). Rollo established the permanent Norman (Norman -> North Man -> Viking by another name) occupancy of the lands that would become Normandy, effectively selling his services to France to defend their northern shores (his direct descendents include William the Conquerer and Richard the Lionheart). Erik the Red was a Viking. He was also the first European to settle North America when he established colonies in Greenland. Vikings discovered Islands in the Atlantic, expanded the trade networks of the Med Sea, pushed the boundaries of the known world, and yeah, they were donkey-caves. Most people in the 9th century with weapons were.

You really don't see the irony in complaining that a video game is painting the Saxons as the bad guys, and you're meanwhile demanding everyone see the Vikings as the bad guys?

Plus, Ubisoft chose to lean heavily into the Noble Savage vs Tyrannical Civilisation dynamic in that trailer.

I think Ubisoft thinks Vikings are cool and will make them money. You're searching for conspiracies where none exist.

If this Norse is like “ohh with this writing we can do so much” and being very unviking then that’s not really Ubisoft throwing shades at the Norse.

Incoherent.

The game depicts them as the Templar loving villains who want to enslave humanity set against the Freedom loving Norse.

Yeah, I saw this complaint back when the games were set during the Crusades too. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.

Voss wrote:

I’d hazard a guess that he’s leaning towards the Christianity of the Templar’s who are represented by the Saxon characters.

Unsurprisingly at this point, you'd be wrong.

You're making a lot of assumptions that have nothing to do with the game or anything in it. Posting diatribes on a subject you clearly aren't willing to do the work to find out if what you're saying is even vaguely true is incredibly annoying.

The responses people have done are apologia for the Viking’s

And willful mischaracterization of what people have tried (repeatedly) to explain to you is even worse than annoying.

It would be pretty odd to buy the game when I don’t agree with the premise.

It’s exactly what they are saying. The view is that you should not apply any moral judgement or standard to the Vikings whilst at the same time glorifying the culture as this amazing thing in art and literature.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
The post is pretty clear.

It's really not.

The responses people have done are apologia for the Viking’s.

That's mostly 'because humans aren’t a Hive Mind where every bodies collectively responsible for every action,' which is what you've spent this entire thread arguing but are now using it as a defense of your position. You're in here arguing the virtues of Saxon civilization vs the evils of Viking plundering with no sense of hypocrisy. On top of that you're making a dubious argument citing historical events, and now you're arguing that the history doesn't matter because game bad Saxons good (or something, I really don't know what you want at this point it kind of seems like you just want to be indignant and this isn't really a discussion so much as a soap box for you to scream at the wind from).

You're paragoning incoherence.

The game is depicting the military. That class of feudal soldier who have chosen to be the scum of the earth because they want power.

And now you're appealing to feudal idealism. Notions of romantic Chivalry wouldn't even exist for a few hundred more years. These soldiers you're calling the scum of the earth are how the armies of most of Europe, West and North, functioned in this time period. The line between an army serving a lord and a band of brigands pillaging the countryside was a lot more fluid than the romanticism of later generations would have you believe. The Vikings became famous for being really good at something a lot of people were doing in that age.

The game depicts them as heroes fighting evil Saxons.

Well it would be rather weird to not give the player character a heroic goal even as he murders his way to victory (this is basically every video game).

Plus a few rotten eggs allows the devs to make the case that not all Vikings were bad.

Incoherent.

Not all Vikings were bad doesn't really need a case to be made. Viking is loose term in history. We apply it with little sense of reason. Sometimes Vikings would go pillaging. Sometimes they would engage in more peaceful endeavors. Some became the body guards of the Byzantine Emperors. Others would return Sicily to Christendom (and were a lot less genocidal about it than the Spanish were later on in Spain). Rollo established the permanent Norman (Norman -> North Man -> Viking by another name) occupancy of the lands that would become Normandy, effectively selling his services to France to defend their northern shores (his direct descendents include William the Conquerer and Richard the Lionheart). Erik the Red was a Viking. He was also the first European to settle North America when he established colonies in Greenland. Vikings discovered Islands in the Atlantic, expanded the trade networks of the Med Sea, pushed the boundaries of the known world, and yeah, they were donkey-caves. Most people in the 9th century with weapons were.

You really don't see the irony in complaining that a video game is painting the Saxons as the bad guys, and you're meanwhile demanding everyone see the Vikings as the bad guys?

Plus, Ubisoft chose to lean heavily into the Noble Savage vs Tyrannical Civilisation dynamic in that trailer.

I think Ubisoft thinks Vikings are cool and will make them money. You're searching for conspiracies where none exist.

If this Norse is like “ohh with this writing we can do so much” and being very unviking then that’s not really Ubisoft throwing shades at the Norse.

Incoherent.

The game depicts them as the Templar loving villains who want to enslave humanity set against the Freedom loving Norse.

Yeah, I saw this complaint back when the games were set during the Crusades too. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.

Because you haven’t read my post.

I have not at any point talked about the “virtues” of Saxon Civ beyond they’re farmers minding their own business and are the victims here. Hardly some glowing resume. Then some Danish King decides he wants more slaves and land. I am saying that those Kings, those Sons of Ragnar, those killers that got on their boats to murder and reave should not be glorified in everything they are in. I don’t see Vikings celebrated for their fishing okay. They’re celebrated because they killed people and were good at it. So if I demonise Vikings yes it refers to the raiders and the army; because that’s the only reason we remember them.

Medieval Saxon Kings aren’t glorified in pop culture like the Vikings. If anything the opposite is true. At best the Saxon period is just seen as a dusty footnote before the Battle of Hastings and after the Fall of Rome. So there’s no point dwelling on Saxon War Crimes because they don’t need to be. The TV show Vikings and the Last Kingdom does a pretty thorough job demonising them or throwing very ugly matter of fact depictions. There’s no gloss being rammed in your face like you get with Vikings.

So when people are saying “ohh it’s all morally grey” they don’t really mean that. They don’t want dusty matter of fact descriptions of what Vikings actually did. They want to validate why they glorify a pack of murderers and thieves. Oh they’re just as bad as the Saxons, lets get back to watching Ragnar be a hero on Vikings, painting Space Wolves and listening the Viking themed music. Well they obviously don’t view them as bad if they’re that popular.

Removed - Rule #1 please

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Medieval Saxon Kings aren’t glorified in pop culture like the Vikings.

Probably the only true statement you've made this thread. . . And frankly, I don't get why you want to grind THIS axe at THIS game. . . Making "those dirty saxon dogs" the bad guy is a trope in fictional settings since at the very least, the 1980s. And that came from somewhere. I'll blame Victorian England, since we can lay blame all willy nilly with no real evidence.


LoH has a degree in history. As do I. Now, I readily point out, I have not read as much of the Viking Age as some others. . . But you seem to have ignored my earlier post where I say, In THIS game, you fight both for and against Saxons. You fight both for and against "Danes" . . . The Order has infiltrated all sides of the conflict on the isle. If you cant see that because you're so blinded by horned helms and axes of Norsemen, well, then I've got nothin' for you. Maybe stick to less "political" games, like Super Mario Bros.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Voss wrote:

I’d hazard a guess that he’s leaning towards the Christianity of the Templar’s who are represented by the Saxon characters.

Unsurprisingly at this point, you'd be wrong.

You're making a lot of assumptions that have nothing to do with the game or anything in it. Posting diatribes on a subject you clearly aren't willing to do the work to find out if what you're saying is even vaguely true is incredibly annoying.

The responses people have done are apologia for the Viking’s

And willful mischaracterization of what people have tried (repeatedly) to explain to you is even worse than annoying.

It would be pretty odd to buy the game when I don’t agree with the premise.
.

You aren't disagreeing with the 'premise.' You're manufacturing scenarios about a product you admit to knowing nothing about, and making a big deal about how your fake scenarios are 'evil.' Its like watching the 80s congressional hearings on rock and roll, and listening to Tipper Gore claim that Warpigs and Iron Man are pro-war Satanism. Every claim is evidence that you're making up things to 'outraged' about, as nothing matches up to what's actually in the game.

If you actually had hands on experience or viewing time with the game, you could come up with criticism that addresses the actual game, not your fantasies about it. That might be worthwhile. This illusory outrage isn't.

It’s exactly what they are saying. The view is that you should not apply any moral judgement or standard to the Vikings whilst at the same time glorifying the culture as this amazing thing in art and literature.

Glorify nothing. Judge nothing. Examine actual evidence and form an opinion of the product as a game.
Don't grind axes at fabrications.

Boy, that escalated quickly...

@Totalwar1402, if this topic raises your blood pressure so much, maybe don't play this game?

Also, your nick is Totalwar... see no irony there?