Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I would say however that the historical atmosphere is 10/10 - much research has gone into how the vikings lived, the world around them, their mythology, and also the background of both the picts and northumbrians- the games atmosphere is amazing and the best part of it for me, and very historically realistic. I'd say this game is very historical all in all.
Could you elaborate why you didn't think Conquistador was historically accurate?
but lets be honest i have 150+ in both games... and if you look at the gender of an enemy in battle... then you dont love these games like i do and i wonder if something is wrong with you o.O
these are great games that have some correct history in them.. but they are games that let you decide how history is going to be told...
It might be okay as a game, but calling Silent Storm a historical WW 2 game would be equally wrong. It gets some things right - except the nazi mechs and the laser cannons and...
Plus, like in Conquistador, there are a ton of things here that absolutely aren't historically accurate. In that game, you can meet literal gods, fight a mirror image of your party, and discover that basically all myths are true. In this game, there are a lot of moments you can argue either way about whether supernatural elements are involved, and at least three moments there is no doubt about supernatural involvement. Which itself is non-historical.
Plus the way equipment and skills and characters improving is treated is ahistorical. Really, very little about either game is historical aside from discussing historical expeditions.
If you're more concerned about "historical accuracy" of women being kept in the kitchen than you are about meeting Odinn or Xipe Totec, well, that's something you gotta puzzle out yourself.
I like both games' treatment of women. There's an argument to be made that treating women fairly in a decidedly ahistorical game (Or even a historical game) is strictly a good thing, and it's one I agree with. You don't have to agree, but what you see as a problem, I see as a solution.
I was really impressed with the realism of this game. The setting, the mood, the quality of life, the infrastructure is all 100% bang on. This game definitely gives a perfect portrayal of life in post-brexit England.
The whole woman thing is still present, so if thats a dealbreaker for you its too bad. I don't however, think that the women thing in Viking is as bad as in Conquistador, because not only were genders in Viking society more equal, a lot of the female characters actually have roles that makes sense as females - such as witch apprentice, an old mother, and so forth. And at least no female bishops or kings in Britain.
I will say what I said previously: The game has an amazing historical feeling in it, and if you actually like historical games (which I suspect you don't, you seem more like the type to nitpick at the slightest inaccuricies) then you are really missing out by not buying this game, because you don't get them much more historical than this - it is the most amazing game of the Viking Age that I have ever played at least.
There's a difference between women fighting out of necessity in desperate fight-or-flight situations and women serving as soldiers. For every exception in disguise there are whole divisions of male soldiers, and the percentual representation of women is insignificant.
This goes both ways: if there are gaps in knowledge then why assert the opposite? How can you differentiate what really happened from the sensationalist crap?
I'm hoping this is not a reference to the "half the warriors were females because of grave discoveries". It's on par with the dinosaur DNA in bone marrow -quote mining used when someone tries to shorten the age of the Earth from several billions years to a few thousand. The margin of error is similar in both cases...
Concrete (as in, anything more than superstition) supernatural elements have no place in historical games. I knew about the supernatural elements in Conquistador, but I was hoping things would be different in this game.
Horned helmets? Unfeasible double-bladed great great great axes?
I'm not in favor or against of "keeping women in the kitchen". I'm in favor of "if it happened then let's depict it that way". I'm militantly against historical revisionism (or should I say negationism, because that seems to be the current trend).
I don't care how anything is treated in games not based on the real world, as long as it's not because of tokenism or political bias. History should remain factual.
How about female vikings (as in the profession)? To my understanding there's no historical evidence that it was socially acceptable, let alone common.
After digging some more I found out that the game also has same-sex relationships. The same applies to this: how do we know that same-sex relationships were socially acceptable, or even legal? If there's no credible historical evidence then the whole topic is a can of worms and should remain closed. Plus of course I have to mention the percentual over-representation of same-sex relationships in the game. "Being more inclusive" is the polar opposite of historical accuracy because it's a purposeful distortion of facts.
How come I don't like historical games if I complain when a game isn't historical enough? If I would be complaining that Panzer IV Ausf. G variant is being used during the invasion of Poland in 1939 then you could have a point, but I'm not worried about such little details over here. The level of inaccuracy in this game seems to be somewhere relatively close to the propaganda that Polish cavalry charged German tanks with lances and swords. Emphasis on "propaganda", mind you...
What comes to vikings, I'm having a feeling that Mount & Blade Warband's expansion Viking Conquest managed to depict vikings more accurately (as a side-note, I think Mount & Blade Warband depicted women beautifully! In that game the character's gender doesn't just change the 3D model's polygon-count. The whole gameplay changes dramatically when playing as a woman). It seems that this game has the same "amazing" historical feeling movies like Braveheart have: to most viewers it looks authentic enough, but those who do care think the movies are abominations and insults to history.
So, the summa summarum is that this game is not historical either. Bummer.
Whatever, you're OK with Gods but have a problem with women warriors (despite the fact that it happened historically, unlike godhead). We've all got you bracketed as a gamergate creep, no matter how much you protest.
Oh and [citation needed] for those female warriors. I definitely need popcorn now. in b4 overused Jeanne d'Arc example
Ahahah, aaaa o man.
And yeah, the term shieldmaiden was quite normal back then.
Maybe English chicks were limited to kitchen and bed only, but Viking chicks definitely were not. Besides, someone had to defend the village while boys were across the sea...
Listen, the game has female characters in it to maximise variation. You're welcome to not purchase the game if that bothers you. We understand that many people find it troublesome, and we understand the reasons why, but the game is finished and released and nothing will be gained by complaining about the gender distribution of the characters at this point.
I'm locking the thread.