I have no interest in these games, nor do I expect them to have any historical merit. My only observation is that the hard points of this article appear to be that the game aggressively asserts cultural superiority of the Norse over the evil, or, much worse, weak willed Christians who appreciate being shown non-Christian views; as well as as vaguely racist depictions of weak Saxony. Whatever your views on Christian (or Saxons?) this feels like a bad take. They want to make a story about how Vikings were unilaterally the good guys rather than a group of nomads who like all other humans wanted to take prosperity and geopolitical power, but only had a bunch of weapons, boats, and muscles (no need to prove me wrong on many technicalities here).
Yet contrarians here seem to anchor on the inclusion of other races and women as the "bad pc" to be debated.
I think you lost the forest for the trees in the blog post's arguments. The treatment of Christianity and depiction of the Saxons is only part of the bigger problem of a colonizer narrative. Big issues in actual history are just glossed over, like the Viking use of slaves and collateral damage to civilians.
The argument is that pretending that the Vikings were unilaterally the good guys is an irresponsible thing to do when your game claims to be made by a multicultural team (AKA "we're trying to be sensitive about it") and when the game series has always tried to weave the stories into real-world settings.
One of the interesting things the author points out is that they were open about slavery in a previous game set in the Caribbean, but it's almost never mentioned here despite its historical prominence in the setting.
Yet contrarians here seem to anchor on the inclusion of other races and women as the "bad pc" to be debated.