10 ms·
> but this game is an entirely intentional attempt to defend _Viking_ colonialism specifically. And they will have been perfectly aware that this played into ne
by shusson 6y ago
> 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.
- pferde 6y agoIt'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.