Hacker News Reader

Comment by stupidcar | Hacker News Reader

> Now, do I think that the developers set out to create a sanitized defense of colonialism (much less an apologia for Nazi race ideology)? Of course not. But they ended up doing it anyway.

I agree with the article's main points, but I think the author gives the game's creators too much credit here. You could tell from the first trailer that this game was going to engage in historical revisionism of the "the Vikings were really noble heroes" type. This isn't oversight or subtext, it's a conscious and deliberate choice.

The people who made this game weren't stupid or ignorant. If they chose to erase the reality of Viking slavery and violence against defenceless civilians, it wasn't an accident. They may (or may not) have intended to defend colonialism in general, but this game is an entirely intentional attempt to defend _Viking_ colonialism specifically. And they will have been perfectly aware that this played into neo-Nazi tropes.

View on HN

I don't think it's Ubisoft's fault, really - in 2020, you just can't produce a game where migrating people are presented as the bad guys who kill, rape and loot the locals indiscriminately.

I'm more frustrated by the lack of diverse body types... there is no way malnutrition, lack of modern-day medicine and violence can produce as many healthy bodies as what we see in Ubisoft titles.

Considering Ubisoft's track record with depicting the disabled and downtrodden I'd rather them not engage with the subject at all. You may recall the homeless beggar woman and mentally ill man from Assassin's Creed 1, both of which existed just to try and annoy the player into killing them.

I don't remember those characters (AssCreed 1 was a long time ago). Thanks for the reminder !

Unfortunately in 2020 it looks like even acknowladging the existance of things like slavery is somehow equated with approval of those things. There was a case where someone got upset(on twitter, of course) that there is a character in Valhalla who is described as "disfigured" - apparently that's ableism. So Ubisoft apologized, don't know if that description got changed or not in the end, but even if such small things end up getting the company to apologize, how could you even contemplate adding a topic like slavery in?

Just make sure the slaves are Slavs, that's probably the only way to include it in the game.

Calling someone with a disability disfigured is mean. Just because in the past you wouldn't get called out for it doesn't make not mean.

Then you have to realize that in having your character call someone disfigured in your fictional work is also mean without treading extremely carefully. You have to use your voice as the narrator to make it clear that this wasn't an okay thing to do. It's the same as DnD rules where "it's what my character would do" isn't an excuse for being cruel and making people feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. Everyone has a story of that one guy who makes women uncomfortable by having their character rape someone -- sometimes someone in the party -- and get mad when the DM says no and kicks them out.

I literally don't understand, maybe it's because English is not my first language, but I don't think that's it. The person in question was literally described as "disfigured in a house fire" - she's not disabled. She is disfigured. How else would you call it? "Damaged" in a fire? That sounds like talking about a washing machine not a human.

This is a disturbing trend that I hope to see called out more frequently in the future. Several of the latest Call of Duties "play" similarly. Even fantasy isn't immune: imagine my dismay, as a fan of Werewolf: The Apocalypse, when I found that the protagonist of the long-awaited game adaptation unambiguously resembled a paramilitary skinhead type (both in look and language). It's frustrating, with everything going on in the world, to see game devs cynically tapping into that toxic vein.

Call of Duty is even more egregious because they took something which has been called a US war crime (Highway of Death) and used a fictionalized version of it in the game but made the Russians do it instead of the Americans.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-10-28-call-of-duty-m...

> but this game is an entirely intentional attempt to defend _Viking_ colonialism specifically. And they will have been perfectly aware that this played into neo-Nazi tropes.

I think they just optimized for a wide audience. They romanticised the viking age from the perspective of a modern day person in the shoes of a viking. I don't think they had an agenda to defend viking colonialism.

It's not about what their agenda was, it's about what the perceived message is. The article clarifies it in great detail.

Let's compare this to the recent PC brigade efforts of banning "master/slave", or "blacklist/whitelist" terms in software. Whoever introduced "master/slave" terms into e.g. database software certainly did not have an agenda to defend slavery, yet people still got mad.

And if something as minuscule as a simple word can spark so much outrage, then a mainstream, ridiculously popular game doing such blatant and heavy-handed history whitewashing of an entire culture is a veritable powder keg waiting to explode.

("Whitewashing" is also a potentially dangerous word, I hope I did not trigger someone here.)

But you are correct in one thing - Ubisoft, being a greedy corporation, optimized for getting the most money, even at the expense of making the game's "made by diverse team" disclaimer a sad, tone-deaf joke.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com