• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Video Games General

Renko said:
Yeah.

I would really like to see a game in the Templar Order's point-of-view some day.

They seem interesting.

:cool:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Who knows, maybe the twist is the Vikings are the Templars and the resisting saxons are assassins? With your PC either defecting and fighting a doomed battle, or staying and earning a big payday which they enjoy until old age where some assassin comes to murder them in their sleep.
 
So I'm replaying Diablo 3 again and is it me or when you play the male Barbarian do some of Eirena's comments imply she has a thing for him?
 
Did see in the press release that Ubisoft is doubling down on the RPG elements. Namely that for Valhalla's main character Eivor, you can choos not only to play a male or female version, but customize their appearance including hairstyles, tattoos, warpaint on top of the usual gear. And the big element is managing a settlement, which your raiding will be providing for. Speaking of which, according to PC Gamer, there will be the ability to make unique Viking raiders to join your crew and the ability to share them with friends.

Given the hours I have sunk into Odyssey, I plan to catch the gameplay reveal next week and may put this on a wish list. More so if the Xbox version supports Smart Delivery (Microsoft's program of including the license for the Xbox Series X version with the purchase of the current gen version of a game. CD Project Red announced that Cyberpunk: 2077 will be one such title).
 
Renko said:
So no one is going to bother to post the new AC: Valhalla game trailer?

Here.



Seems to me that the Viking invaders are just noble savages who raid villages to the ground but spare women and children and the defending Saxons/Britons who were only responding to the raids are the evil bad guys.

That's what I saw in the trailer though.

:V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What I'm taking away from this is that Ubisoft will go literally anywhere to avoid doing Assassin's Creed: Three Kingdoms or Assassin's Creed: Warring States, no matter how inappropriate it is. Just let me be a fucking ninja already!
 
AllyDoodle said:
So I'm replaying Diablo 3 again and is it me or when you play the male Barbarian do some of Eirena's comments imply she has a thing for him?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think she says basically the same thing to every character but I have no idea. I basically tuned out my followers when I'm a spinning' around.
 
It does, I remember the Wizard getting comments from her about their fellow sisters and whatnot that wouldn't make any sense to other classes.
 
More than likely, just for the stereotype if nothing else. Sheltered lonely mage girl meets savage muscled barbarian is a classic after all.

She probably read numerous bodice ripper books about that very scenario and is likely quite sad he decides he hates demons more than he wants to rip of her clothes and ravage her.

The demons are as attracted to the scent of her thirst as much as they are by her blood.
 
SwiftRosenthal said:
Shay Cormac: "What am I, dirt?"

(I didn't play Rogue either tbh)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Shay was a assassin first, so he doesn't count imo. Watching this trailer I'd rather play as that dude who smacked the viking around at 2:50.
Like goddamn, entire battle stops just so everyone can watch this BAMF smack a bitch, dude took a sword to the fucking leg and didn't give a shit, sweetass cape, holyshitawesome tier helmet with INCREDIBILIS feather-top, armor to go with, and a bitching sword, literally had the viking dead to rights; only lost because plot-fiat. Forget about the virgin viking, gimme me the CHAD Knight to play!
 
Last edited:
Man that knight can bitch slap a grown muscular man around like he's nothing. He reminds me of a warriors character where he he can slaughter the army of mooks around no problem.
 
Renko said:
So no one is going to bother to post the new AC: Valhalla game trailer?

Here.



Seems to me that the Viking invaders are just noble savages who raid villages to the ground but spare women and children and the defending Saxons/Britons who were only responding to the raids are the evil bad guys.

That's what I saw in the trailer though.

:V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What I find most fucked-up about it is the idea that King Aelfred of Wessex is being cast as the villain.

He's literally the guy defending his homeland from Danish invasion.

Yes, the Danes brought settlers with them, who were "innocent" in the sense that they weren't the ones killing the English who lived there, but it's historical revisionism at its worst to cast them as mere victims when their purpose was to replace the English people in the towns and villages that their compatriots had conquered.

And then there's the rape. Let's not forget the rape that Danes who had gone a-viking were famous for.

I've been seeing recently some smooth-brained mouth-breathers claiming that Tolkien meant orcs as an allegory for black people. That insanity aside, it's self-evidently wrong: if they're anything, they're allegory for Danes.
 
WhiteKnightLeo said:
Yes, the Danes brought settlers with them, who were "innocent" in the sense that they weren't the ones killing the English who lived there, but it's historical revisionism at its worst to cast them as mere victims when their purpose was to replace the English people in the towns and villages that their compatriots had conquered.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even when playing up the "good vikings who don't hurt children, women and innocent" thing, it makes no real sense. If you don't want to slaughter, pillage and loot.. why are you invading? What are you going to do with the women and children afterwards? Because either they run for the hills and have to live in poverty because other towns are overflowing with refugees and they can barely feed themselves anymore.. or what they become citizen in the new viking towns? The same towns populated by people who slaughtered their fathers, brothers, uncles and nephews? Or at least their relatives?

Because every single soldier killed has a mother and a father, many have wifes and sisters or brothers, sons and daughters and so on. Many are breadmakers for their families and if they die, these same families will have increased difficulty surviving.
 
Heaven Canceler said:
Even when playing up the "good vikings who don't hurt children, women and innocent" thing, it makes no real sense. If you don't want to slaughter, pillage and loot.. why are you invading? What are you going to do with the women and children afterwards? Because either they run for the hills and have to live in poverty because other towns are overflowing with refugees and they can barely feed themselves anymore.. or what they become citizen in the new viking towns? The same towns populated by people who slaughtered their fathers, brothers, uncles and nephews? Or at least their relatives?

Because every single soldier killed has a mother and a father, many have wifes and sisters or brothers, sons and daughters and so on. Many are breadmakers for their families and if they die, these same families will have increased difficulty surviving.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Assassin Vikings: Ah, yes. A good fitting slow antagonizing death for those useless things.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I read somewhere that's it's a very important thing in Vikings culture to kill all boys in places they raid no matter the age. If it was possible. Because Vikings culture put a big importance on the vengeance upon those who killed members of your family. Kids who survived could one day return and rightfully kill you and your family with any means necessary. And it wouldn't be seen as dishonorable act in the eyes of the gods.

There was even a Viking warlord with a nickname "Child shield" or something like that because he had a habit of sparing kids on his raids and punished his men if they killed any children. If this was something that Vikings thought it deserves a special mention then it should give you an idea how brutal and savage Vikings were.
 
Polite and pedantic reminder that Viking is a profession/activity, not a culture or people.
 
DeathShade said:
Polite and pedantic reminder that Viking is a profession/activity, not a culture or people.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I know.

Settlers from Scandinavia usually were much less of a cunts, preferring to build villages, farm the land, craft stuff, trade, explore, and often became Christian to better integrate with the locals. They had enough recourses to live a peaceful life, and it was much more lucrative and less lethal way of living, so they didn't had need for Vikings. Heck very often such settlement were also raided by Vikings because those bastards didn't really care who they rob, murder and rape. And it wasn't uncommon for Vikings to raid their native villages in Scandinavia. You had to get some practice in the local region before trying somewhere further.
 
Imabot said:
I know.

Settlers from Scandinavia usually were much less of a cunts, preferring to build villages, farm the land, craft stuff, trade, explore, and often became Christian to better integrate with the locals. They had enough recourses to live a peaceful life, and it was much more lucrative and less lethal way of living, so they didn't had need for Vikings. Heck very often such settlement were also raided by Vikings because those bastards didn't really care who they rob, murder and rape. And it wasn't uncommon for Vikings to raid their native villages in Scandinavia. You had to get some practice in the local region before trying somewhere further.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doesn't make them not land-stealing cunts profiting off the deeds of their vikings.
 
Not to mention a big meta plot point of the entire franchise is that history is a carefully constructed lie to obscure the fact that humanity was engineered by the Isu, arose from their ashes and for the last 3000 years every major event was either instigated by or intertwined with the Assassins and Templars' war. So we may see an explanation behind Eivor and King Alefred's personalities and how history was covered up to what we are familiar with in real life.

Though the interesting bit will be the present day storyline. Given the events of Fate of Atlantis, I will be curious to see where Layla goes from there.
 
I wonder if they will have Kassandra make a cameo of some kind considering it is is already canon she lives to the modern day.
 
Smuthunter said:
What I'm taking away from this is that Ubisoft will go literally anywhere to avoid doing Assassin's Creed: Three Kingdoms or Assassin's Creed: Warring States, no matter how inappropriate it is. Just let me be a fucking ninja already!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You know. I think reason why they didn't developed AC set in East Asia is because they didn't want to make it similar to Sekiro, and to lesser extent to Ghosts of Tsushima that about to come out.

Other important reason is that it would be very difficult to put Naval Combat in this one. They really try to have this in any AC game they can justify it. And neither Japan or China were using fast nimble warships that are usually used as protagonist ships. ;)
 
Imabot said:
You know. I think reason why they didn't developed AC set in East Asia is because they didn't want to make it similar to Sekiro, and to lesser extent to Ghosts of Tsushima that about to come out.

Other important reason is that it would be very difficult to put Naval Combat in this one. They really try to have this in any AC game they can justify it. And neither Japan or China were using fast nimble warships that are usually used as protagonist ships. ;)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They've said previously that they don't want to do Japan because ninjas have been done before, as if that's a good excuse. And I know you're mostly being sardonic about naval combat but there's all kinds of ship-to-ship action going on in East Asia that they could use for that. One of the greatest heroes of Korea is Yi Sun-sin, who led a brilliant naval campaign against the Japanese navy when Toyotomi Hideyoshi tried to conquer Korea in the Imjin War. He never lost a battle or even a single ship under his command, and he's often compared to Horatio Nelson as one of the greatest admirals in history. In China, one of the most successful pirates in history was Ching Shih, who pillaged the Chinese coast at the head of an armada of 300+ junks in the early 1800s. And I'm sure there was all kinds of river-based warfare in the Three Kingdoms era, with the Battle of the Red Cliffs being the most famous example.
 
It seems that both Sony and Disobedient Canine can't weather the storm. It's safe to assume that LOU2 will bomb hard.

On the side note, glad to see that people are adapting themselves quite well during zombie apocalypse or post-whatever that is:
*view it at your own risk
0a8aedd119339510930df03e93e4f07103c1c9e2e1fbfd9cc14b1d0cc10da29a.png
 
TheLastNanaya said:
It seems that both Sony and Disobedient Canine can't weather the storm. It's safe to assume that LOU2 will bomb hard.

On the side note, glad to see that people are adapting themselves quite well during zombie apocalypse or post-whatever that is:
*view it at your own risk
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fucking hell, her arms are as thick as her head! And that gym is spotless, with still functioning lamps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 5 more.
    • Total: 58 (members: 7, guests: 51)
    Back
    Top