Bret Devereaux

Loved the write up, Bret. I disagree with quite a few points, but I'm happy to see you digging deep. On our depiction of Christianity, I would wait until the end of the game with King Aelfred before making a final judgement...

Regarding King Oswald, I also think you judge too harshly. There is an ending you did not see in which Finnr is so impressed with Oswald's Christian compassion that he decides to stay with Oswald, and not Eivor.

As for this statement: "This is a game where the Norse ... in possession of a superior culture and unencumbered by effete Christian morality take root in a new, populated land by force and immediately proceed to begin ‘improving’ the locals..." I strongly disagree.

There is nothing in our game that signifies the Norse as a "superior" culture ... and the resolution of the story suggests quite the opposite. That Eivor is already in the process of shedding much of what she believes to integrate into this larger society.

This too just seems wrong: "The game never presents the situation Eivor is in as ‘salvaging the best of a bad situation’ – rather the arrival of the Danes and Norse is repeatedly presented as an unmitigated good to the Saxons"

In many territories, we tried to depict the damage that the Danes wrought -- via Ivarr, via Rued, via Halfdan. And Eivor is indeed trying to "salvage the best of a bad situation" ... still not a forceful condemnation of colonialism, but not a celebration of it either.

As for thralls, and the slave economy -- yes, that was a very difficult subject that we do allude to but found it very difficult to address within the context of the game.

In any case, if the main thrust of your argument is that we "depict the Norse as unapologetically superior" I think that is deeply wrong, and gets more wrong as the story unfolds.