Yeah, I was moderately disappointed they called them that, instead of the Romans or at least the Eastern Roman Empire.
But it was not too bad, because it is at least the name now given to the polity that was at the time known as the Roman Empire or the “Empire of the Greeks”. It’s different from the Vikings, because that’s a term that refers to a specific activity or occupation, not to any polity.
And if it was to be applied to a larger group of people, there’s no real way to apply it to a single specific polity. It fits reasonably well with the aoe2 conception of a “civilisation”, if you take this incorrect definition of “vikings”. It’s a term sometimes used to refer broadly to the whole lot of people in what is today the Nordic Countries.
But you have to take an incorrect definition and apply it in an incorrect way to call an aoe4 civ “vikings”. It’s a step too far. There’s a reason the developers did not add “Indians”, or “Germans”, and instead opted for specific polities within those regions: the Delhi Sultanate and the Holy Roman Empire.
Another reason for naming the civ Vikings is that a lot more people will identify with it than if they’re called “Danes”, which mostly Danes will identify with.
Maybe people shouldn’t be offended by a video game. I mean no one was offended when the Vikings were introduced in AoE2. It’s a game set in Medieval times, why would you be offended by some warrior people who lived back a thousand years ago? Not everything you do in entertainment has to have some grand political motivation or fix some problem, like we’re all a bunch of activists. Some things are just for fun, like having pirates in video games, even though they were a murderous bunch. Kids still love them, and parents don’t bring their hands to their heads in panic that their kids love pretending to be pirates. It’s just fantasy, it’s not real life. Same with the Vikings. They existed, but in the context of a video game, they’re just a fantasy some people like to reenact for their own entertainment. We don’t need to ruin everything for politics.
It’s a thread requesting that the devs represent the culture and create something with accurate representation.
The only reason people are asking for that is because we don’t know their plans for the civ, and there is a significant number of people who play the Age series that want to have accuracy in the names for factions.
It wasn’t political when people wanted name changes for Jade Empire or Sultan’s Army.
Vikings is not on the same level as Sultan’s Army or Jade Empire. It’s a perfectly accurate name for the invaders coming from the North, which a lot of people want to roleplay. They can always add Danes, Swedes etc. as more peaceful variants, using the same architecture and voice lines, but if they decide to scrap Vikings for Danes, I wish them good luck with the sales and bringing new people to the game.
It has nothing to do with politics, it’s about authenticity and historical accuracy. You may be free to not care about it but I do and so do others. I don’t want a generic Civ called the Vikings like I wouldn’t want one called the Italians or the Saracens or the Indians.
AoE2 came out in 1999 and back then attention to cultural and historical representation wasn’t as strong as it is nowadays. Also, Ensemble Studios didn’t have access to all the knowledge we can have now, Sandy Petersen acknowledged that many stereotypes in the game are a consequence of that, not a marketing strategy.
I’m sure people were dying to play as the Macedonian or Tughlaq Dynasties, the Golden Horde or a Sengoku Daimyo, factions everybody know and love! Still Dynasties of the East sold pretty well, according to the Devs.
Seriously, how can you say the DLC won’t sell if this Norse Civ isn’t called Vikings? That’s ridiculous. By that logic DotE shouldn’t have sold at all.
Maybe “everyone” can learn some history by playing the game, as most of us did. We can’t perpetuate ignorance.
I am from “back then”, and I really don’t care about “cultural representation” in a video game. I don’t tend to see games and movies as political vehicles for my views. And I really dislike it when others go against fun because they think they are changing the world or something by broadcasting their views. Games are just for fun. See my pirates example above. And there’s others. Let’s just say no one started breaking into cars from playing GTA back in the day.
I’m British too, and I grew up with AOEII, loved the Vikings and their history and gradually learned outside of the game that Vikings or rather the Norse (or Danish, or whichever Scandinavian country we’re looking at) are far more than just the Vikings. Not sure everyone’ (British? the world? your local area?) only knows them as Vikings. Most British learn that Vikings came from all parts of Scandinavia and the Danish were the dominent bunch - the British know (or should know) about the Danelaw for example.
People can put 2+2 together and work out that a ferocious-looking chap with a (‘spectacle’ helmet - i.e not a horned helmet) Dane axe (Dane!) is probably a Viking even with the Danish above him.
I’m all for fun (and certainly fun > historical accuracy), but if World’s Edge have tried to be more historical with naming (again the English not being called Britons for nostalgia and ‘marketing’ sake) why not continue that?
He meant back when Vikings were added to AoE2, but I appreciate the joke.
And wrt to AoE4 being more historically accurate, I really don’t think it is. If anything they managed to make it more kitsch than AoE2 by juxtaposing historical accuracy with the opposite in many aspects. Adding a civ called Vikings to the game is definitely not one of them.
First sentence from the ingame bio for Vikings in AoE 2:
The vast forests and mountain fjords of Scandinavia were home to unpredictable, adventurous gods and even more daring folk.
It’s almost like… they’ve always had the correct terminology for this faction, but chose a single focus for style reasons? It having been Vikings then doesn’t mean it has to be Vikings now.
I mean, you can even think of it as a difference in timeline. AoE IV goes later than 2 (early rennaissance) so it makes less sense in this game to use Vikings. The Viking age ends in the 11th century, which is late Feudal Age in this game.
But future variants? The perfect place for a civ called Viking.
For me, the main reason not to name them Vikings isn’t its historicity, its political correctness, or potential for marketability… it’s because it places an entire civ within a very short and very specific timeline.
If we’re looking at full civs as something with unique language per age, music, evolving architecture, and space for variants… how can anyone possibly suggest naming it after a single faction within the larger culture? It limits them to 793–1066 CE. A waste of potential for one of the civs that has a lot of appeal within the community.
More than anything else, that’s what boggles my mind about calling them Viking.
Medieval people may not have called all Norsemen “Vikings”, but the term has been used to refer to medieval Scandinavian people in historical scholarship since the 20th century. It’s not incorrect; words change meaning. It’s no more historically inaccurate as referring to the Eastern Roman Empire as the “Byzantines”.
