Continuing the series’ RPG reboot following Assassin’s Creed Origins and Odyssey, Assassin’s Creed Valhalla whisked players back to 9th century England, an era of sparsely populated forests and farmland, and the odd settlement, a time when Vikings acted as both oppressive invaders and nurturers of community in the game.
You take on the role of Eivor, a warrior who falls into the parentage of clan king Styrbjorn following their parent’s brutal murder. As sibling to the king’s son Sigurd, Eivor and their clan leave their homeland for pastures new, and it’s the historically established duality of Viking motivation which provides game-spanning problems for Valhalla’s narrative. The game’s good for the most part – decent combat, likeable characters, an immersive open world – but the developer clearly had a hard time deciding what kind of story they wanted to tell.
I am no historian and what I am about to say is something I came across when I was searching about the Vikings. There’s reportedly debate amongst historians as to just how bloodthirsty Vikings were. Yes, they ransacked settlements, but there’s also evidence they favoured diplomacy over bloodshed. They co-existed, helped develop language, and established new trade routes.
Regardless of whether this is true or not, you do a lot of killing in command of Eivor in Valhalla, but overall, the Vikings aren’t shown to be exclusively evil in the game. But it’s this alleged historical nebulousness which got Assassin’s Creed Valhalla off to a bad start according to some fans, with criticism levelling the developer’s efforts towards realism before an axe had even been swung.
According to player feedback, Incorrect weaponry, improper armour, inaccurate shields, improper representation of Saxon culture, over-romanticised visions of Viking wanderlust, numerous were the issues raised by those of a historical background following Valhalla’s reveal trailer. Thing is, video games always blur the edges between historical fact and entertaining fiction.
Oversized weapons, for instance, have always been a thing, their larger frame being more readable on screen. Portraying enemies as hyper-violent brutes to justify your own murderous actions another obvious commonplace example. There’s always going to be a point where developers must put entertainment first, but according to some players, the points at which the developer usurped historical realism for gameplay proved divisive amongst gamers.
Another example would be the verdant landscape of England itself. Now, setting is consistently one of Assassin’s Creeds’ most well-realised features, and whilst the environment’s design is as stellar as always in Valhalla the efforts towards historical accuracy do present the question as to whether 9th century England was the right choice for an Assassin’s Creed game. After all, the land is flat. According to my research, Anglo-Saxon settlers didn’t build to height. Colossal medieval castles weren’t constructed yet. Forests had next to nothing in them.
The sparse population centred in settlements meant there wasn’t a lot of interesting happenstances occurring during open world traversal. Thus, the series’ integral parkour and free running is side-lined in favour of traipsing across a vast open world where not a lot tends to occur. Historically accurate to a degree, perhaps, but forgoing much of what makes video games – and Assassin’s Creed games in particular – entertaining. Whether this is appealing depends on the individual; as is the theme of this feature: it’s divisive.
The decision to set one of Assassin’s Creed’s mainline entry within a Viking era means the series’ stealth mechanics have been kept on the side-lines too, albeit with the reintroduction of classic features like social stealth there’s more opportunities for sneaking than in the action-orientated Origins and Odyssey. Still, Eivor is not an assassin, their skills in stealth clunky and sluggish. There are stealth elements here though: Eivor is given a handful of tactics from the ‘Hidden Ones’ (Assassins before they called themselves so). One is how to best utilise the blade which they bestow you with and another is a strategy for camouflaging in plain sight. By donning a hood – a tactic not unique to Valhalla but a staple of the series at large – Eivor can sneak into populated areas where Vikings are not welcome, or simply walk by guards without them noticing.
These mechanics don’t go far enough to make stealth a viable option to use throughout, and a further problem is that performing stealthy actions don’t always work anyway. Silently taking down a guard, making zero noise, keeping out of sight; sometimes this has no effect on whether the rest of the town spots Eivor or not. Stealth here is another example of the developer getting stuck between two mindsets.
They felt they had to reintroduce stealth elements following their notable absence from Valhalla’s two predecessors, but they didn’t go far enough to make them a great option for gameplay. As interesting as the movement of Vikings across Europe and beyond in the Middle Ages was, it hasn’t fostered a game which feels like Assassin’s Creed. A decent open world action adventure sure or may be a great one according to our review back in 2020, but too atypical in a series famed for blending sneaking and parkour.
The gargantuan open world plays host to a huge campaign too, with the story’s length itself another bone of contention amongst gamers. Clocking in at around 60 hours, Eivor’s odyssey through Middle Age England takes a while to get going, and it isn’t all that satisfying to undertake and complete. Worse still, arguably the game’s prologue section in Norway is the most interesting part of Valhalla, with many believing the game goes downhill once the clan lands in England. Assassin’s Creed Valhalla then is too long. In fact, Valhalla was one of numerous AAA titles which kickstarted the widespread debate on whether video games had become too large. Eivor’s story, after a while, just doesn’t feel that unique or interesting, and certainly not worth ticking off the best part of three days to see to the end.
That said, an interesting addition to Valhalla’s narrative was its Kingdoms, sections of the country divided up by their various king, leaders, and various noblemen rulers, with Eivor and their clan deciding how best to forge an alliance with the Kingdom. Either via force or diplomacy, these Kingdoms represent a more thoughtful version of the commonplace structure of acquiring sections of the map, and the choice between hostility and negotiation – mirroring real-life Viking approaches – meant gathering up bits of land for the Viking cause never felt overly grindy or like busywork. There was meaning behind these actions.
Side content however was overabundant. Much of Valhalla’s content away from the main story succumbed to the developer’s penchant for copy-pasting. Repetition was rife, and to see all the content through to completion – much like the main campaign – required willpower which frankly shouldn’t even be the case in video games. Collectibles were streamlined compared to Origins and Odyssey, which was a plus, but you must wonder what the point of it all is if pursuing every activity across the map is a repetitive slog for the sake of acquiring a few bits of gear.
In summary, Assassin’s Creed Valhalla suffered an identity crisis which made it divisive amongst fans. Efforts towards realism simultaneously went too far whilst not going deep enough. It seems as though focus was placed in some areas whilst the developer rested on their laurels for others. Valhalla is a great open world Viking adventure and surely has a lot of fans but fails to be a great Assassin’s Creed game.
Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.
