[R&F] Inevitable thread on "Flirtatious" and "Curmudgeon" straights-only traits

[Stringer1313]

I posted this in another thread but I thought I should break this out and hopefully get the developer's attention. So the context is that apparently, the new "Flirtatious" trait means the leader likes leaders of the opposite sex and "Curmudgeon" means they do not like leaders of the opposite sex (because they don't have time for dalliances or whatever).

Ts really, really backwards and disappointing that these traits would automatically assume every leader is straight. (Yes, yes, cue the "politically correct"-police-police.) One thing that makes Civilization VI shine for me is how forward-thinking (relative to the gaming industry, which is still largely driven by the needs of 13-year old straight teenage boys) it has been with its depiction of female leaders: its abundance of female leaders, abundance of female GPs (though I would really like to see a female GP icon for God's sake), and most importantly that none of the female leaders are depicted disrespectfully or as sex objects (except Cleopatra, though she is intentionally using her sex appeal). This is especially absurd given that some leaders, at least Alexander, were known to have same-sex dalliances.

I am not saying that there must be the same # of bi/gay leaders as straight leaders - that would be equally absurd. But if they even tossed in a random 5-10% chance that a leader were bi and gay, to reflect real life, that would not be so hard. (And if this is in fact what has happened I'd love to be told so.) And if they are so afraid of offending anti-gay people then they should remove this silly trait forever.

I actually have no problem with traits based on immutable characteristics, such as Victoria liking you only if you share the same home continent. God knows many civilizations had totally irrational likes and dislikes based on culture, racism, whatever. But to lock a trait down based on gender is just beyond the point of silly.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I don't really like the traits because there is no way you can play around them. I don't care about the real-life politics.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I wish curmudgeon would have been that the leader yelled at you to get off his lawn if you try to talk too much.

But as far as the REAL traits go, yeah, doesn't matter to me that much personally but they could have avoided the whole issue and just not made them.

 

[Scaramanga]

A Flirtatious Cleopatra will go ga-ga over Shaka.

 

[WillowBrook]

I was interpreting "curmudgeon" as a non-controversial euphemism for gay.

Some markets for the game are much more conservative than others; I'm guessing an explicit designation wouldn't get past marketing.

 

[Timodelphia]

I think Gorgo is kind of sexy.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I was interpreting "curmudgeon" as a non-controversial euphemism for gay.

Some markets for the game are much more conservative than others; I'm guessing an explicit designation wouldn't get past marketing.

Wouldn't it then be a better idea to steer clear of the entire issue? Heretofore there were no official orientations for the leaders and it offended no one.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I was interpreting "curmudgeon" as a non-controversial euphemism for gay.

Some markets for the game are much more conservative than others; I'm guessing an explicit designation wouldn't get past marketing.

I was really hoping to see curmudgeonly leaders snap at people and have a special cane-shaking graphic

 

[ChocolateShake]

I think Gorgo is kind of sexy.

She is in her own way. Also kind of scary I think she's the most intimidating leader.

I think they should've avoided this issue like @Eagle Pursuit mentioned, though I like the idea of flirty leaders.

 

[conorbebe]

Indeed. It's incoherent with the progressive position Firaxis has taken recently when it comes to female representation, and it's also just bad from a gameplay perspective. Any agenda that cannot be appealed to under any circumstances should not be in the game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not surprised that we're doing this thread, but that doesn't make this thread any better.

I don't really like the traits because there is no way you can play around them. I don't care about the real-life politics.

This I can agree with though. These are crappy traits because they dictate behavior in a way that has nothing to do with the situation on the game board. From this argumentative angle I will happily dis their legitimacy as competent game agendas. Rolling a dice to see if you're game throwing is not useful for player-agents in a strategy game.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Wouldn't it then be a better idea to steer clear of the entire issue? Heretofore there were no official orientations for the leaders and it offended no one.

To be honest, I think that a tiny but loud section of complainers on the internet should not force game developers to dance around issues, but even so, I still don't like these agendas due for gameplay reasons, as I said before

Now that I think about it, maybe Firaxis put in some extra female leaders in order to balance these traits?

 

[Disgustipated]

A flirtatious Alexander certainly doesn't sound realistic. But it's just a game, and these things don't really bother me on face value. The only thing that bothers me is there will be situations where I can't improve my relations, it's not like I can get a sex change operation in the game.

I was interpreting "curmudgeon" as a non-controversial euphemism for gay

I like in Fallout: New Vegas they call it Confirmed Bachelor. Which was actually a frequently used terms back in the old days.

 

[nitedemon]

Well remember the hidden agenda is random, so Alex might hate you cos you’re Hojo in this game, but all over you cos you’re Hojo the next one. So you can’t really say this is “straight only”.

If you had said those triate basically put all leaders in binary genders then you might have a valid point , but that would be a totally different discussion.

I posted this in another thread but I thought I should break this out and hopefully get the developer's attention. So the context is that apparently, the new "Flirtatious" trait means the leader likes leaders of the opposite sex and "Curmudgeon" means they do not like leaders of the opposite sex (because they don't have time for dalliances or whatever).

Ts really, really backwards and disappointing that these traits would automatically assume every leader is straight. (Yes, yes, cue the "politically correct"-police-police.) One thing that makes Civilization VI shine for me is how forward-thinking (relative to the gaming industry, which is still largely driven by the needs of 13-year old straight teenage boys) it has been with its depiction of female leaders: its abundance of female leaders, abundance of female GPs (though I would really like to see a female GP icon for God's sake), and most importantly that none of the female leaders are depicted disrespectfully or as sex objects (except Cleopatra, though she is intentionally using her sex appeal). This is especially absurd given that some leaders, at least Alexander, were known to have same-sex dalliances.

I am not saying that there must be the same # of bi/gay leaders as straight leaders - that would be equally absurd. But if they even tossed in a random 5-10% chance that a leader were bi and gay, to reflect real life, that would not be so hard. (And if this is in fact what has happened I'd love to be told so.) And if they are so afraid of offending anti-gay people then they should remove this silly trait forever.

I actually have no problem with traits based on immutable characteristics, such as Victoria liking you only if you share the same home continent. God knows many civilizations had totally irrational likes and dislikes based on culture, racism, whatever. But to lock a trait down based on gender is just beyond the point of silly.

 

[Eric Guimarães]

civ fans are hard to satisfy

 

[Scaramanga]

It seems like a random modifier to get AI to dislike/like you, which could actually be interesting.
This could help you predict which other AI they will like. Imagine a pangea with a male curmudgeon and all females.

 

[moysturfurmer]

For the life of me I can’t imagine why this was greenlit. It adds nothing to gameplay since there’s nothing you could do about it.

You could make the argument that yeah, rulers have been sexist throughout history, but take this mechanic to its natural conclusion. Would it sit right with anyone if there was a hidden agenda where leaders didn’t like leaders of different ethnicities? It’s true to life, but it’s just flat out ill advised.

And let’s not forget that these leaders are meant to be non-literal abstractions of their respective countries. Gilgamesh is pretty unlikely to carry out some 6000 year flirtationship with Wilhelmina. For a variety of reasons.

 

[Athmos]

One thousand years from now there'll be no guys, no girls... just wankers.
Sounds great to me !

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

"WE MUST HAVE EQUAL REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN in the player screen because it's 2018 lul"

*also goes out of their way to make heteronormativity relevant to gameplay in a forced, random, historically inaccurate, and strategy-blunting way*

"Civ VI is good guys buy it from us please please"

smfh. One step forward five steps back.

 

[Haggbart]

I do think it might cause some stirr among some people if Saladin turned out to be gay in one game, even if it was random. Should he be excluded from the possible gay-pool? So it's PC vs PC at this point already.

And also, in the historic context, do we have examples of any openly gay leader? I don't doubt for a moment there have been many, but I would find it very artifical and forced in a leader vs leader historic interaction setting.

I think the best argument to be made about this is how this agenda can't be influenced by anything you do, and as such isn't very solid gameplay wise.