New Assassins Creed is gonna be vikings, thoughts?

Besides Skyrim, GoW, and some obscure indie shit what other viking shit is there? Even then, it's nowhere near on the level of fucking zombie games that are still being pumped out 2 a week.

looking forward to it

Attached: Assassin's Creed® Odyssey2018-12-26-16-2-36.jpg (1920x1080, 464K)

Kinda cool, but I really wanted a proper Rome game like that one rumor. oh well.

The fuck you talking about

Reminer that litterally any setting would be better then vikings aside from like African shit

hell even west africa has some kingdoms and empires with cities complex then vikings

Attached: cultureregion scandanvia minus africa 2 COMPRESSED.jpg (2000x2928, 3.05M)

I'm ready to kill 1 Captain, 1 Commander, 3 Guards, Burn 2 Supplies, and Loot 4 Chests.

>Assassins Creed: Skyrim
Really exciting.

Attached: 1537567293311.gif (250x277, 1.88M)

How did viking shit become so popular with soibois?

>no modern day AC game
AC3 was supposed to be that game, you still owe me, Ubisoft.

Attached: 1530337475243.png (1357x721, 848K)

Vikings was and is still a fairly popular tv show but it really fell off after they killed off Ragnar.

No viking towns looked like that.

There won't even be a pretense of historical accuracy.

>he actually paid for a skin
lmao

I bought several packs

literally watchdogs

Gonna reply to shit from last thread that I wanted to but it 404'd before it could

>Ah...I mean they did commit mass genocide. There's literal towers of skulls and they have found mass graves with child skulls in Mexico. There's no playing up the truth... I know you like Mesoamerican stuff, I think it's pretty cool but lets not pretend they weren't blood thirsty savages.

Nah, the Aztec's were incredibly hands off, they didn't commit ethnic purges or even force laws on the cities they conquered, as long as you paid tribute (which didn't include sending people to be sacrificed): The sacrifices they did were almost all enemy soldiers captured in battles: In fact, the Aztec captial';s higher rates of human sacrifice compared to other Mesoamericans was explicitly the result of religious propganda emphasizing the god of war and blood, Huitzilopotchli, meant to justify military expansion as to acquire more tributary cities for tribute, since a higher need for enemy soldiers to sacrifce meant more war.

And it's funny you posted that image (reposting here for convience), because the findings that skull rack render is from actually proves the opposite, but people always just look at the image or read the article titles without reading the findings: The findings themselves, based on recent exacvations from Templo Mayor, show that 75% of the skulls found were likely from enemy soldiers who were sacrificed, and that the total amount of skulls the rack contained over even decades was merely "thousands" a far cry from the inflated "tens of thousands sacrificed in single ceremonies" you hear about all the time. In fact, the specific time range current exacavations are going through, 1485 to 1502, would include the alleged 1486 re-consecreation which was said to have killed 80,000 people, so it explicitly proves that number false since the entire rack across it's whole history never even had that many skulls in it

1/2

Attached: 1554514003842.jpg (900x883, 273K)

Jesus, not you again. Off yourself, beaner.

Vikangs raided a ton of lands. You could make the game take place in England, France, Sicily, the Byzantine Empire, hell they could even go to North America if they stretched it a bit.

cont:

Even if you go by Cortes's almost certainly inflated number of 3000 people being sacrificed a year, if you run the math (math here: desuarchive.org/his/thread/6068126/#6081750), even using other inflated assumptions, the Aztec empire across it's entire history probably sacrificed less civillians then even ONE of europe's religious purges, namely the Albigensian purging of the Cathars in Southern France, which killed 250,000 to 1 million people in a 25 year period.

So no, the Aztec captial, and especially other Mesoamerican's sacrifices weren't exceptionally bloodthristy or savage relative to the religion killings going on in Europe and the Middle east at the time. You can absolutely make the arguement that the Aztec empire were warmongering, military expansionists, like the Roman Empire, the Mongols, Alexander's greece, etc, but even compared to them it's imperial adminstration was less restrictive and gave it's conquered cities more freedom, since the lack of horses and other beasts of burden meant sutained direct governance of far off cities wasn't feasible.

As far as savages: They had a public education system, philsophers and poets who taught in elite schools for nobility and had their own academic circles, you had buecractic systems such as a mutlti-tiered municipal and state court with judges and an appereiate court system, litterallyt the most advanced sanitation, medical and bontanical science in the world at the time (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1805201/), some of the most complex hydraluic systems, the 5th largest city in the world and city populations in general comparable to early classical anitquity, etc

nobody wants that shit. most hated part of any of the games

Nah, in the original games it was cool and it was the main drive of the story.
It's been garbage since 3 becuase 3 fucked everything up.

based and redpilled

This, the whole point was to build up towards the modern setting and Desmond and then it fell to shit.

I hope ubisoft do nigger vikings so i can have a good laugh.

Can't wait for black vikings and feminist shield maidens.

came to post about Black vikings, i guess its exactly everyones first thought.

Attached: 1497538994125.png (1102x539, 509K)

What?

Attached: 1546073523383.png (1920x1080, 2.13M)

AC:Origins in the Humble Monthly, should I?

>Assassins Creed
who cares

yes

yea