Talk:Assassin's Creed Valhalla

Name

My edit regarding the name was censored by a user claiming it to be irrelevant. It's a bit hard to assume good faith when information about the name and gender is censored for being "irrelevant" is a paragraph talking about... the name and gender. As this particularly flagrant example of cultural appropriation has gone down very badly with Scandinavians (as we are all aware Eivor is a female name), it is of course relevant. My edit still presents it in neutral language, but censoring it looks bad. Jeppiz (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because, whilst Eivor may well indeed be a predominantly female name, the fact remains that the protagonist of this particular game retains that same name whether they are male or female. The gender-link to the name is irrelevant to the gameplay and, unless you can provide a source citing that "this particularly flagrant example of cultural appropriation has gone down very badly with Scandinavians," it has no place in the article. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, you need to read WP:OWN. You do not decide what is relevant or not. Claiming that half a sentence on the main character's name is irrelevant is downright silly. Jeppiz (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

To further elaborate my point: JascaDucato happily feels entitled to add small details like being able to edit character tattoos - yet deletes as "irrelevant" a sentence on the origin of the character's name and gender. The balance seems rather off there. Still, I have no problem with info about the tattoos being added - but JascaDucato appointing themselves judge of what is relevant and what is not and deleting other's contributions is a textbook case of WP:OWN. Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

We have to go based on what Ubisoft and RSes have said. Ubisoft has discussed the editable tattoos, they have alluded the gender (including why both genders are "canon" within the story" but have said nothing of the gender-basis of the name. We should not be including that just because you can go to another source that's not connected to the game and link that up. --Masem (t) 15:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works; we even have a policy explicitly against that perspective, see WP:IN-UNIVERSE. We will not write this article alongside a Ubisoft narrative. As the policy points out, that's what fan-wikis do, but Wikipedia explicitly does not allow it. So if a name (or any other aspect) has one meaning in the real world, then Ubisoft can of course redefine it as they want for the game - but Wikipedia is written based on real facts, not the Ubisoft universe. Which, again, is exactly what WP:IN-UNIVERSE says. Jeppiz (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not about fan-wiki writing, its about sticking to what has actually been presented and not coat-racking or synthesizing historical inaccuracies or problems that have not be mentioned by Ubisoft or other third-parties. We're writing this article as the video game, not as a historical piece. That means that we are taking the perspective at this point, Ubisoft chose Eivor at the main character's name, and that's all we can say. Maybe they did no research behind this name (this is not Ubi's style though) and just felt that was a good Viking name, then trying to suggest it should only be a female name because that was historically what is was, but without relation to the game, is not appropriate, that's SYNTH. If some third-party came along and went "Hey, Ubi, did you know Eivor was a female name?" or similarly listed all the other historical problems with what they have set up with the game, then maybe we can talk about adding that. Keep in mind though: we know Ubi is being purposely vague on the character at this time due to story spoilers and they've said both gender versions are "canon" so they may have figured out how the female name "Eivor" applies to the male version of the character and will be able to explain that close to the game's release. --Masem (t) 16:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, [1] as you present in the diff, this is fully original research without a source as well as not what our article on the name reflects (that it is a "female-only" name), and even the sources in our article on the name aren't going to be sufficient to support that claim. The little I can find online doesn't given much weight to support anything beyond that it is generally a female name but not exclusively female, and we'd need a stronger sourcing for that claim .--Masem (t) 16:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A quick look at Ubisoft's official forum for Valhalla is enough to confirm that there are a lot of critical comments about using a female name for a male (also) character. As for your second comment, we don't need a source to claim they sky is blue. Eivor is common Swedish and Norwegian name. As a Swede, I have many friends whose mothers and grandmothers are named Eivor. You are of course free to post a link to any male named Eivor you can find - or kindly withdraw your absurd claim that it's original research. Would it be original research to say that Susan is a female name? If not, why would it be so to point out that a very common name, exclusively female, is female? Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"A quick look at Ubisoft's official forum for Valhalla is enough to confirm that there are a lot of critical comments about using a female name for a male (also) character."

But Ubisoft's forums do not qualify as a reliable source.

"As this particularly flagrant example of cultural appropriation has gone down very badly with Scandinavians [...] it is of course relevant."

That's a pretty serious accusation to be making, which means that it definitely needs reliable sources to support it. However, if I Google "assassin's creed valhalla controversy" (or other, similar searches), I cannot find any third-party sources to substantiate your statement.

"Claiming that half a sentence on the main character's name is irrelevant is downright silly."

I thought you just said that it was a "particularly flagrant example of cultural appropriation". How can you expect to cover that in half a sentence? Surely if it's as serious as you make it out to be, it would need to be addressed in a separate "controversy" sub-section.

"censoring it looks bad"

Perhaps you should assume good faith in others. Please don't think that someone disagreeing with you is them trying to censor you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, this is what cultural appropriation is, according to its article (emphasis mine):

"Cultural appropriation, at times also phrased cultural misappropriation, is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of another culture. This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from disadvantaged minority cultures, or especially when one culture adopts element from another culture and tries to make it their own, or use it in a bad, harmful way."

I'm no expert, but in all honesty, I'm not seeing how using a female name to refer to a male character meets this definition. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is truly a notable issue with female Scandinavian people feeling that Ubisoft using Eivor for a male character, then there should be a reliable source to point that out and we can added that to the article. But you have given us a situation that clearly makes this inclusion a coatrack issue and we are definitely not going to include it until there's an RS to tie it to the game. --Masem (t) 20:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that we shouldn't include anything on a name controversy unless covered by RS. Perhaps such sources will come (too early to tell yet), perhaps not. However, my actual edit was quite simply a sentence on the name of the character, nothing more, and in no way controversial. Nobody has yet explained why that would be more irrelevant than anything else in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As it didn't have a source, and our own article on the name doesn't have any source to back the claim that "Eivor" is an exclusively female name.

But let's assume you have that source. Even then, that has no impact to why Ubisoft chose it and thus calling out that the name is exclusively female is coatracking the issue that they're using a female name for a male character. That's not our place to do that. --Masem (t) 21:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: it's worth remembering that just because something happened, that does not mean it's automatically notable enough for inclusion. Here, Ubisoft have apparrently chosen a female game for a character who can be male or female. Why is that important? Some people in Scandinavia got upset about it—how extensive is the uproar and why is so upsetting? How has Ubisoft responded to the apparent controversy? Without answers to these questions, I don't see what pointing out Eivor being a female name adds to the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed contribution. As Masem and myself have both said, if a verifiable citable source is found detailing the alleged uproar over the character's name then I am more than I would be happy to add it to the article myself. See Assassin's Creed III - Allegations of pro-American and anti-British prejudice for an example of a true controversy that was widely reported on, and thus included in the article. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think my apologies are due to everyone above. This was an embarrassing episode, probably the most out of character in my ten years here. I still think the name Eivor, as a common female name, is as strange as it is poor by Ubisoft. Having said that, my argumentation above leaves a lot to be desired. After ten years of general level-headedness, this was a very strange issue to get upset about. It is to the credit of everyone else that the responses remained factual. I of course agree with you all that unless the name controversy receives RS coverage, we shouldn'tinclude it. Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: no apology is necessary. We all want the same thing—to make the article the best that it can be. We just have different ideas on what that might be. For what it's worth, I'd rather work with someone who is passionate about the subject than someone who just rolls over the moment someone questions them. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Isu

In the interests of keeping the article's History tidy, I would like to address @Mclarenfan17: recent edit. Though the wording "[...] are a pre-human terrestrial species responsible for the creation of humanity" may, to some, seem "awkward" (something I disagree with, but each to their own), it is completely correct. The previous wording–that the Isu populated the Earth eons before humanity–might also technically be correct, but the sentence implies that there was a significant gap between the time of the Isu, and that of humanity, and eliminates any reference to the two species' connection. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Calling the Isu "a pre-human terrestrial species responsible for the creation of humanity" is the same as calling bananas "exotic curvy yellow tropical fruit". It's an awkward, clumsy phrasing at best.

I also think that you're over-emphasising the Isu role with this discussion. Their role has only ever been a framing device for the main narrative of each game. As such, the article should provide a little context to who they are, but the main focus should be Eivor's story. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that the wording is awkward, but if you have an alternative that accurately describes the Isu and provides the context necessary for the article, then please feel free to provide one. As it stands, the existing wording is insufficient and, more or less, wrong. I would also disagree that their role has "only ever" been a framing device – more and more in recent games–particularly in Odyssey–they have become an integral part of the plot.

Add: Alternatively, this wording could be used: "an ancient and highly-advanced species of humanoid beings who were active on Earth before humanity". --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"I would also disagree that their role has "only ever" been a framing device – more and more in recent games–particularly in Odyssey–they have become an integral part of the plot."

And if this were the article on Odyssey, I would be inclined to agree with you. But you have no way of knowing what role the Isu will play in Valhalla, especially given that a) Ubisoft have made it clear that mythology will not play as large a role in Valhalla as it has in previous games, and b) Origins and Odyssey made it clear that the Greek and Egyptian gods were the Isu.

"Alternatively, this wording could be used: "an ancient and highly-advanced species of humanoid beings who were active on Earth before humanity"

That's better, but still too wordy. Don't use twenty words when two will do. "An advanced civilisation that pre-dates humanity" is enough. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind: in the Eurogamer source, all that's said is this: One thing Ubisoft is willing to pin down for long-time fans is a continuation of the franchise's overall arc for those engaged in that - meaning more backstory on the First Civilisation, and a third outing for present day character Layla (whose story suddenly got interesting in Odyssey's final expansion). The way I take that for inclusion here at this point is just to indicate to anyone that's played an AC game before that you're going to have that connection with modern times, and you're going to have that connection with the First Civ/Isu as every other game had, and at this point, to leave it at that, outside of explaining those points enough to a person who does not know what those elements are in an AC game. Don't need to speculate roles or details at this point. --Masem (t) 13:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Trailers

I have removed details of the trailers from the articles. Articles generally do not cover trailers and marketing campaigns unless they are notable, but I do not see what makes Valhalla's trailers notable enough for inclusion. Yes, I'm the editor who put them in the article in the first place, but that was largely because I felt there was enough of a connection to the pandemic and that the need for a response to global events would make a marketing section notable.

I have also removed the part about pre-order bonuses. This adds nothing to the article except to tell the reader what content they can get if they pre-order the game, which feels like advertising. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@OceanHok: could you please explain you logic here?

"Partial rv. Pre-order/BossLogic reveal should be included"

What is so notable about the BossLogic livestream that it merits inclusion in the article? Why should the pre-order bonus be included? You will notice that the Odyssey article does not mention the trailer or the "Secrets of Greece" pre-order bonuses. Ubisoft regularly announce pre-order bonuses for games, but the articles for those games don't include those details unless they're somehow notable. The only example I can think of is the "Operation Oracle" free update for Ghost Recon Wildlands that introduced key characters in Ghost Recon Breakpoint. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They are part of the game's marketing. That's good enough. OceanHok (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@OceanHok: consider WP:TRAILER (I am aware that it was written with film trailers in mind, but to the best of my knowledge, no video game equivalent exists). The emphasis in bold is mine:

A film's marketing campaign may be detailed in its Wikipedia article if reliable sources exist. Details may be contained in a "Marketing" section, depending on the amount of coverage available, or within another appropriate section of the article. Since films are treated as commercial products, care must be taken to provide a neutral point of view.

Topics that can be covered include target demographics, test screenings, release dates, scale of release (limited vs. wide), merchandising, marketing controversies, and contending for awards. Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. Instead, use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it. For example, the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield began with an untitled teaser trailer that generated strong hype. For merchandising and other tie-ins, cite reliable sources to demonstrate relevance outside a studio's website(s) or shopping websites. Commentary about product placement, since it is not actual marketing of the film itself, should go elsewhere in the article; for example, it may go in the "Production" section to show how it lowered production costs.

Therefore, I think it is quite clear that while WP:FILMTRAILER allows for the inclusion of marketing campaigns provided that the article does enough to establish the notability of that campaign.

"They are part of the game's marketing. That's good enough."

Your argument amounts to "it exists, and therefore should be included". However, the paragraph in question simply lists the dates that various trailers were released. That is not notable enough for inclusion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That's why it's a partial revert. I removed the part about gameplay trailer, and if you want, the cinematic trailer can be removed as well. Reveal by BossLogic is key to marketing (since it was the game's official reveal date). I have always included pre-order bonuses in other articles since it is a form of DLC. OceanHok (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The game was formally announced on 29 April. How is that information pivotal to the article? It's not like Cyberpunk 2077, which was formally announced in 2013 and spent the next seven years in development. If anything, the date is completely arbitrary because its existence was known for some time.

So let me rephrase the question: how would the article be different if Valhalla was formally announced on 28 April or 30 April?

"I have always included pre-order bonuses in other articles since it is a form of DLC."

Pre-order bonuses are little more than a marketing tactic. They get you to spend your money sooner, which means a sale is recorded sooner. While it is a form of DLC, it also tends to be pretty superfluous compared to the other DLC. Odyssey came with a pre-order bonus called The Blind King, which added one in-game quest that could be completed simply by exploring the game world. On the other hand, Legacy of the First Blade directly tied Odyssey and Origins together, while The Fate of Atlantis expanded the lore of the series and advanced the modern-day storyline. Both added hours of content to the game whereas The Blind King did not. So unless The Way of the Beserker adds significant story content to Valhalla, I think its inclusion is advertising. And from what I've seen, it's an extra quest and some cosmetic items. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What I can say is ignoring both intentionally will ultimately harm the article's comprehensivenes. The subection called "Release and marketing" should include information about how Ubisoft promotes the game and get you to spend money. I don't feel too strongly about their removal, so if you insist, you can have it removed. OceanHok (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles covering previous entries in the series do not mention pre-release bonuses unless they become noteworthy in and of themselves. I see no reason to change practice here. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Gender

I'm fairly certain I know how this arguement will fall, but I would feel remiss not to bring the subject up. I'm also trying to be vague in my wording so as not to spoil the game unnecessarily. So, within the game it is eventually made clear why, exactly, we have the option to pick either a male or female playable character. This, in turn, makes it clear (to me, at least) that Eivor is canonically female. Granted, it is never explicitly stated 'Eivor is a women' but for the plot device to work in the manner the game depicts, Eivor would have to be female. I'm simply wondering if we could consider the game itself a reliable enough source to make this change on the article, or if a third-party source would be required? Or even if the change is even necessary...? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not played it but I would ask, consider if one is a casual player playing through the game, how obvious is it that Eivor is canonically female? Is there is a required cutscene that it is spelled out, for example? or is it some obscure log entry. If it is the former, this is sufficient for "the game itself" to be used for sourcing (and given SPOILER, it is fair game to describe out). If it is more the latter, you can still described it, but now you should try to reference that point in the game as best as possible. --Masem (t) 15:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's more of a "putting two and two together" than being explicitly laid out. I, personally, would think it obvious once the twist is sufficiently revealed (it's a long, drawn out reveal which some might catch onto straight away, whilst others might not until (and perhaps even beyond) the story's climax) but it would require some further explanatory text to shed light on the fact that their is an in-game reason for why we can pick the gender. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 16:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Then that's unfortunately OR to do that, but knowing the game journalist today, you might have luck looking through reviews and articles to see if someone made that connection for you. I haven't read much on the game since release to know if the connection was made but that's where I'd look to see if there's help. --Masem (t) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Damn! A few journalist have come very close to getting it right, but nothing spot on, unfortunately. I'll keep checking back on this one though. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 16:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

After playing the game further, I have now found reference to "Eivor Varinsdottir" in one of the end-game missions. This is a direct reference: "He seems in rather good graces with the two chieftains of this clan, Sigurd Styrbjornsson and Eivor Varinsdottir." ---- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 22:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

For plot section, gender-neutral pronoun is more appropriate for Eivor in this case. The plot section doesn't seem to reflect the plot that many players will experience with the pronoun "she". Male Eivor is a legitimate choice for many playthroughs, and our plot section should reflect that. That best approach is to use gender-neutral pronoun or use the character's' title to replace the pronoun. This seems to be the way most of our articles handle protagonists of selectable gender, even for those who have an canon character. OceanHok (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference here is that, technically speaking, the game does not have a selectable gender for the main protagonist. Regardless of which gender avatar a player chooses, Eivor is female. She is referred to as "Eivor Varinsdottir" in-game irrespective of whether one chooses "male Eivor" (who is actually the physical depicition of a totally seperate character in-game) or "female Eivor". Using a gender-neutral term is thus, simply, inaccurate. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I would still argue that using the character's' title to replace the pronoun would probably be the best way rather than WP:RPP to handle the issue if you want to avoid countless edit warrings that may happen in the future. While I will certainly check the talk page, good-faith IP editors won't. OceanHok (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a perfectly valid arguement to make, but I believe that would be disingenuous. The purpose of Wikipedia, after all, is to provide accurate information as to the subject of its articles. We know the protagonist is female in-game, regardless of whether you choose to play with a male or female avatar. To pretend otherwise, by using gender-neutral terms, seems to me to defeat this purpose. I, for one, am content to correct anon edits deliberately changing the gender – the changes will die down after a month or two. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Summoned by message on WT:VG. Just for posterity's sake so you have something to point to, I agree with Jasca's perspective on this. It's clear that, within the fiction, the character of Eivor is female regardless of the gender of the player's avatar. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Jasca is right, it's canonically female. There's now a fine source on this. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 18:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Award nomination

• 32nd GLAAD Media Awards

---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Virtual Photography from Assassin's Creed Valhalla.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)