Because it’s a game, not a history book. Ensemble Studios understood this perfectly.
1 Like
This is what happens when people who got mad/disgusted at AoE3DE devs for wanting to add Denmark-Norway which perfectly fit for AoE3DE’s timeline now realize why having Denmark in AoE4’s medieval timeline would fall for the stereotypical pop-culture vikings 
Having a bit schadenfreude from the Vikings ngl
It’s perfectly possible to use the word “viking” in marketing materials but call the civ something else 
Yeah, just tell them we’re getting the Vikings and then have them play Denmark.
What is clear is that the term “Vikings” is epic, iconic, and instantly recognizable. It evokes images of warriors, ships, and Nordic culture, even if not all the historical details are accurate.
A “Nordic” or “Scandinavian” civilization sounds more neutral and is probably more historically accurate, but it is less appealing to most players, and I would like to think that AoE4 is a game that seeks to attract the attention of players and does not focus on a minority of history scholars.
If what I say is untrue, I encourage you to refute me.
2 Likes
Uhhhh
Imagine any region of people and then distill it to a single identity, or in this case, a single job.
You’re welcome to experiment with this, but it’s universally problematic.
This would be an excellent opportunity to challenge some of the stereotypes people have clearly attached to their worldview.
1 Like
You’re just wrong. Maybe the notion of reducing a peoples to pirates is badass to a five year old, but I can’t see that being AoE4’s target audience.
AoE2 existed in a innovative space in the videogame world and played into pop culture and history, which has helped carve this niche into a real space with plenty of variety and nuance.
AoE4 has taken many, many steps to differentiate itself from AoE2, starting with addressing civilization and cultures closer to what they identified as, and closer to actual historical foundation. We’re not just randomly playing vague entities like Vikings or Huns anymore. In fact, even the bigger criticism of AoE4 (variants) have taken significant steps in later additions to feature existing and and comprehensive historical entities.
Moreover, “Nordic” and “Scandinavian” are utterly meaningless anachronistic terms. I’ve said it before in this thread and I will reiterate it again.
The ONLY valid option is Norse. The second closest is Dane. Anything else and they’ve fucked it. The groups that we identify with Vikings were Norsemen, from Norway, Denmark and on occasion, Sweden. They would intermingle with states near the coast, and have plenty of Mercenaries, new additions from France, England, Scotland and so on.
But, the bulk of these people were from kingdoms whose institution saw itself as being Norwegian or Danish, collectively as Norsemen from either.
To this day, that term (Nordmenn) is still used in Norway. Ever wonder where Normandy got its name from? However, people who like “Vikings” pretty much only learn about Denmark, so they would love for it to simply be called Danes. That’s ignorance for you.
5 Likes
Yeah, which is why I love playing with units called Atgeirmaðr, or Landsknecht. Political correctness is the reason I’m into AoE4. (I am being sarcastic.)
1 Like
This.
I wish people stepped back from the ‘marketing’ perspective of vikings. People aren’t that dense to not be able to associate a Viking unit with a Norse (or Danish) Civ, rather than naming a whole country/state/Region as ‘Vikings’. Surely we’re not catering to children who can only understand medieval Scandinavia as just Vikings.
Just to reiterate - AoEIV has a platform where they can (and have) tried to be more historical with terms, so why end that with just a name for Medieval pirates?
4 Likes
Fortunately, the target audience is not homogeneous, and I can tell you that history experts who want everything to be accurate (but then some of them put up with certain civilizations that don’t make much sense) are not in the majority.
Marketing (as long as it proves effective) in a game should take precedence over historical nuances, because at the end of the day it’s a videogame, and many of us want it to grow beyond terms or mechanics that aren’t super historically accurate.
1 Like
Danish or Danes, in that case.
With Longhouse as special barraks, a Jarl Manor as Unique Landmark that age up, as Golden Horde.
On the other hand, I think the devs were already aware of the historical names even in the Beta, even for the vikings:
- The first English campaign, 2nd level, has viking raiders in his own civ. Do you know its name? “Danish.” This is its flag:
Danes
An their unique unit, the Danish Raider:
4 Likes
2 Likes
Vikings sounds way cooler than Danes, also if you do danes its danes exclusive, no more Norway, which the Civ might have Norway as part of age up option
TV Vikings dont call it norseman or danes u see, its called VIKINGS
1 Like
Scandinavians sucks ass as a name, it wont do well marketing wise
check the TV Show, why its called Vikings and what not you want it to be named
cuz VIKINGS ARE KNOWN AS VIKINGS
English calls them Vikings, they dont call them norseman or Scandinavian
I think if all people acted with dignity and respect this would be true, but it’s a big tent with a lot of people in it.
It’s kind of why I’m glad the devs don’t shop for crowd opinion all the time. Who wants a game designed by the YouTube comment section? (Obviously, some people, but not me 
)
They have a history of sticking with history. We’ll get the fantastical with variants, but base civs have (and will always be) consistent with history.
I’ve seen the entire series, and they don’t call themselves Vikings either.
Since in the series period, the norseman lives in separate towns and there isn´t a nation, people were called by their birthplace or the Jarl they served: “Men of Kattegat,” “Men of Jarl Haraldson,” “Men of Ragna”. Since there was no nation, they referred to things as “our traditions,” "our laws."
Then, when they started invading other peoples, the English and French, began calling them Vikings, barbarians, infidels, and “North pagans”.
And Denmark is mentioned because there is a Jarl of Denmark, and the people under his command are the Danes. Norway exists as a geographical area in the series because there is no kingdom yet. Interestingly, the Kingdom of Norway is founded during the same series, and it’s revealed that the main city of the series, Kattegat, was located in Norway. The Swedes are mentioned as the Vikings of the forest, in the East, and the Varangians also appear, although they are already part of the Rus’.
About Series Titles
In Vikings, the title is fitting because the series follows the adventures of the Norsemen as “pirates,” so the title makes sense.
It’s a series title, not the title of a race or nation.
Naruto isn’t called “Village of the Leaf.” Game of Thrones isn’t called “House of Baratheon” or “House of Lannister,” and the spinoff “House of the Dragon” isn’t called “House Targaryen.” Bleach isn’t called “Soul Society.”
In fact, the series becomes more profound, as in the later seasons it explores the lives of these pirates who want to leave that life behind, and others who continue.
Beyond that, we’re not talking about a TV title, but a civilization for a game, that at least until now, historical names of kindom or abbreviations of those names have been used (Kingdom of France = France, Kingdom of England = England, Eastern Roman Empire = Bizantines).
5 Likes
We still know nothing about the viking civilization
In any case, we know “NOTHING” about the civilization in question. Therefore, we can’t even suggest a name yet.
-
If it’s going to be a fully pagan and barbaric civilization, it could even be called “The Sons of Ragnar,” or Danelaw, or Northtern, or “Pagan Army.”
-
If it’s going to be a “Historical Evolution” civilization, where the Danish Vikings are initially pagan but then create Denmark and become Christian, it would be easy to call them Danes. Even more so if the landmarks they plan to give them are Danish.
-
If it’s going to be like the Golden Horde, which only has one landmark, the Jarl’s house, and there’s no specific description of whether they’re Danish or Norwegian, they could very well be called Norse Northtern, “Pagan Army,” Vikings, whatever.
It’s worth remembering that when Jade Empire and Sultan Army were announced, we knew nothing about the civilizations in question. Some even thought Jade Empire was going to be Mayan.
Then it was leaked that Jade Empire was China 2.0, and people got quite upset.
So it’s just a matter of waiting; in the meantime, we could post our own concept ideas for implementing Norse, Viking, or Danish cultures.
1 Like
If it really seeks to be instantly recognizable with civ names, why isn’t Holy Roman Empire simply Germans or Teutons?
Absolutely nothing prevents the marketing people from spamming “VIKING” in promo materials regardless of the civ’s name.
5 Likes
Identity should be defined from the inside, not the outside.
It doesn’t matter how other people called the Norse pirates and the whole series has been consistently moving on from an Eurocentric or Western vision, take the split of the Indian Civ in AoE2 or just how the naming convention for AoE4 has been since the beginning, with the notable exception of the Byzantine which I contest. So this next Norse Civ shouldn’t be called “Vikings” just because that’s how the English called them, making that term popular.
Also marketing isn’t an excuse. It doesn’t define its success by itself and references to the Vikings can happen anyway, it could also be in the DLC name like “Vikings & Whatever” ! If they chose the Danes they could market them with sentences like “play as the Danes, from their Viking origin to the christian Kingdom of Denmark” or similar.
Let’s not pretend the success of this DLC depends on the name of one Civ, just to appeal to the worst pop culture tropes, because it’s plain silly. Aim for quality, not sales at all costs.
2 Likes