Sexist Game or Sandbox?

[AmazonQueen]

I feel it's different when you're reading a book or watching a television show, you're seeing someone else's story unfolding. And in something like The Handmaid's Tale or Twelve Years a Slave, sexist and racist societies are depicted, but you connect emotionally to the protagonist and her or his struggle against those systems (and hopefully victory too!)

But when you're playing a game, you're creating your own story. I feel a more accurate analogy for your fiction idea would be telling an author "You can't write a story about a medieval woman ruler/warrior, because that's not realistic."

More like, " You have to come up with an plausible explanation as to why your character is a medieval woman/warrior, because it was unusual in that setting."

There are personal limits on what I will roleplay as but that's more to do with personal discomfort with some roles. After all an assassin or a vampire is hardly an admirable character and I've roleplayed both of those.

 

[MaryKB]

More like, " You have to come up with an plausible explanation as to why your character is a medieval woman/warrior, because it was unusual in that setting."

But such a requirement only exists for women ... men don't have to justify why they're creating their (male) hero. We have to work harder to get the same thing men get to have by default.

All history is revisionist anyway ... how do we really know how many women had leadership roles and men just took credit for their accomplishments? I feel that a burden placed on women to justify our right to exist equally in fictional stories is incredibly sexist.

 

[Kyriakos]

Paradox games aren't sexist, they are just nazi

Besides, the Byzantine Empire had an empress. It is what the misogynist west europeans used as pretext to take the title of roman empire - the bunch of lowly peasant barbarians

 

[MaryKB]

Isn't sexism a subset of nazism?

 

[Kyriakos]

Isn't sexism a subset of nazism?

I suppose; it is just that it is difficult to look for sexism in a company that is already rather openly nazi.

 

[Zardnaar]

Paradox games aren't sexist, they are just nazi

Besides, the Byzantine Empire had an empress. It is what the misogynist west europeans used as pretext to take the title of roman empire - the bunch of lowly peasant barbarians

CK is generally male preference not no women although that's an option as some house had agnatic succession rules.

Start early enough in the game you can use the Greek provinces to convert toZeus and co.

My Crusader Queen bloodline beelined for Egypt and she went into battle.

Currently Cathar wondering if a Crusade will be called on me and if I can fight it off.

Trying to convert provinces to Cathar, had a leech of a ruler who seduced the female Cathar Bishop's.

Cathars can holy war Byzantium.

So Cathar, convert back to Catholic around crusade time have a Cathar spouse and convert to Cathar in secret. Once Crusade is over convert back to open Cathar.

I suspect my run will end badly, can't change succession laws until next generation then gonna try for female equality in the 14th century 500 years early.

Eastern Orthodox heretics are interesting

 

[Lord Shadow]

We're talking about a sandbox with a historically sexist baseline, with options to create all sorts of equal opportunity.

Even within the default rules, in many circumstances I believe you can push for different inheritance laws, to create equality within a more historical context.

So overall, not a sexist game. A sexist game would make it entirely impossible for women to gain any sort of power or influence.

 

[Zardnaar]

I suppose; it is just that it is difficult to look for sexism in a company that is already rather openly nazi.

More the HoI wereboos.

 

[AmazonQueen]

But such a requirement only exists for women ... men don't have to justify why they're creating their (male) hero. We have to work harder to get the same thing men get to have by default.

All history is revisionist anyway ... how do we really know how many women had leadership roles and men just took credit for their accomplishments? I feel that a burden placed on women to justify our right to exist equally in fictional stories is incredibly sexist.

And gay/non-white/working class characters. In the medieval period 90% of the population were peasants. Most people didn't have equal opportunities. That can be reflected in games and it often makes for a better story to have a character who started off disadvantaged by society.

 

[Zardnaar]

We're talking about a sandbox with a historically sexist baseline, with options to create all sorts of equal opportunity.

Even within the default rules, in many circumstances I believe you can push for different inheritance laws, to create equality within a more historical context.

So overall, not a sexist game. A sexist game would make it entirely impossible for women to gain any sort of power or influence.

This.

Muslims can't have female rulers full stop except maybe very late game.

Merchant Prince also no female Doge's idk if you can reform that (bad@game).

 

[Zardnaar]

And gay/non-white/working class characters. In the medieval period 90% of the population were peasants. Most people didn't have equal opportunities. That can be reflected in games and it often makes for a better story to have a character who started off disadvantaged by society.

Overcoming adversity is a big part of the old hero saga.
Equal rights succession is more powerful than normal succession laws.

 

[MaryKB]

A sexist game would make it entirely impossible for women to gain any sort of power or influence.

If as a woman you have to work harder to get the same thing as what men get by default, it's sexist.

@Kyriakos, in what ways do you find Paradox to be nazis? I'm not really familiar at all with the company (except I generally know I really don't like their games, lol!), and I'm interested in your point of view.

 

[EgonSpengler]

But such a requirement only exists for women ... men don't have to justify why they're creating their (male) hero. We have to work harder to get the same thing men get to have by default.

All history is revisionist anyway ... how do we really know how many women had leadership roles and men just took credit for their accomplishments? I feel that a burden placed on women to justify our right to exist equally in fictional stories is incredibly sexist.

It does seem like gaming has fallen behind the other "motion picture arts" in some ways. As a fan of science fiction, I've been watching action-adventure movies and television shows featuring women for over 30 years (it was a thrill to see so many women so excited about Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman, but those of us who watch sci-fi kind of thought everybody was late to the party - better late than never, eh?). For all these media, though, the genre of 'historical fantasy' is tricky to navigate. Diana Gabaldon used some hand-wavy time travel magic to get a woman with modern values into the 18th Century setting (incidentally, I've always wondered why she chose a woman from the 1940s rather than a contemporary woman, but I haven't looked for any author interviews). Vikings seized on an actual story/legend of the 'shield maiden.' Ken Follet's Jackdaws, Sebastian Faulks' Charlotte Grey, and ITV's The Bletchley Circle all took real-but-atypical historical women for inspiration for their fictional characters. Follet's book went a step further than Faulks' did, combining the historical women with the historical teams of agents to make an ahistorical team of women agents (that I know of, there was never a "Jedburgh Team" made up of women - but my point is it's not a big stretch). So anyway, there's no reason semi-historical games couldn't find more, plausible women from history as inspiration, if they wanted to, without ripping a tear in the fabric of spacetime or anything. That's if historical realism is genuinely their concern. As you say, it's often hard to believe that's their aim.

 

[Kyriakos]

If as a woman you have to work harder to get the same thing as what men get by default, it's sexist.

@Kyriakos, in what ways do you find Paradox to be nazis? I'm not really familiar at all with the company (except I generally know I really don't like their games, lol!), and I'm interested in your point of view.

Zardnaar already mentioned their infamous ww2 game and forums, "Hearts of Iron", which is a nest for nazi fans. But in my experience this is also true for the Europa Universalis series.
It is just that in the latter there is a soothing (for myself, anyway ^_^ ) counter to what, with the Byzantine Empire being likely the most popular side for players/posters.

I never played Crusader Kings or visited their forums for that, but going by the era (crusades) I heavily expect it to have a plethora of fascist posts.

 

[MaryKB]

It does seem like gaming has fallen behind the other "motion picture arts" in some ways. As a fan of science fiction, I've been watching action-adventure movies and television shows featuring women for over 30 years (it was a thrill to see so many women so excited about Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman, but those of us who watch sci-fi kind of thought everybody was late to the party - better late than never, eh?). For all these media, though, the genre of 'historical fantasy' is tricky to navigate. Diana Gabaldon used some hand-wavy time travel magic to get a woman with modern values into the 18th Century setting (incidentally, I've always wondered why she chose a woman from the 1940s rather than a contemporary woman, but I haven't looked for any author interviews). Vikings seized on an actual story/legend of the 'shield maiden.' Ken Follet's Jackdaws, Sebastian Faulks' Charlotte Grey, and ITV's The Bletchley Circle all took real-but-atypical historical women for inspiration for their fictional characters. Follet's book went a step further than Faulks' did, combining the historical women with the historical teams of agents to make an ahistorical team of women agents (that I know of, there was never a "Jedburgh Team" made up of women - but my point is it's not a big stretch). So anyway, there's no reason semi-historical games couldn't find more, plausible women from history as inspiration, if they wanted to, without ripping a tear in the fabric of spacetime or anything. That's if historical realism is genuinely their concern. As you say, it's often hard to believe that's their aim.

Yep, and exceptional men were extremely rare in history too, yet you get to have those in games without having to explain or justify their existence. I feel if it's really about "historical realism," then it wouldn't even be a game, but instead just a documentary video showing what we think really happened. But even that wouldn't be totally accurate, because like I said all history is revisionist, and we have no way of knowing exactly what really happened, and if you're going by history textbooks you've got to remember that women are usually written out of the stories and their deeds credited to men, so there's no point in pretending we're being faithful to real history. Instead, we're being faithful to a patriarchal telling of history at best.

I'm so glad you also find it hard to believe historical realism is their concern, lol! I do feel a lot more women would play these kinds of games if they weren't so sexist, but maybe that's something they actively don't want ...

I much prefer Civilization's approach, with trying to reach a better balance of female representation (though strangely, Civilization 2 was their most equal entry!) They totally don't pretend at all that the game is supposed to be some "historical accuracy," but rather acknowledge it's a game for all types of people to enjoy playing, and make it welcoming for everyone.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It does seem like gaming has fallen behind the other "motion picture arts" in some ways. As a fan of science fiction, I've been watching action-adventure movies and television shows featuring women for over 30 years (it was a thrill to see so many women so excited about Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman, but those of us who watch sci-fi kind of thought everybody was late to the party - better late than never, eh?). For all these media, though, the genre of 'historical fantasy' is tricky to navigate. Diana Gabaldon used some hand-wavy time travel magic to get a woman with modern values into the 18th Century setting (incidentally, I've always wondered why she chose a woman from the 1940s rather than a contemporary woman, but I haven't looked for any author interviews). Vikings seized on an actual story/legend of the 'shield maiden.' Ken Follet's Jackdaws, Sebastian Faulks' Charlotte Grey, and ITV's The Bletchley Circle all took real-but-atypical historical women for inspiration for their fictional characters. Follet's book went a step further than Faulks' did, combining the historical women with the historical teams of agents to make an ahistorical team of women agents (that I know of, there was never a "Jedburgh Team" made up of women - but my point is it's not a big stretch). So anyway, there's no reason semi-historical games couldn't find more, plausible women from history as inspiration, if they wanted to, without ripping a tear in the fabric of spacetime or anything. That's if historical realism is genuinely their concern. As you say, it's often hard to believe that's their aim.

Did they pretend that sexism and prejudice didn't exist though?
Personally I liked the approach Greg Stafford took with Glorantha where there were a variety of societies with contrasting values (matriarchal trolls, female-dominated Esrolians, male-dominated Dara Happans, and societies like the Orlanthi and Praxians which had gender roles which most people followed but ways to escape them as well).

 

[Lexicus]

I feel it's different when you're reading a book or watching a television show, you're seeing someone else's story unfolding. And in something like The Handmaid's Tale or Twelve Years a Slave, sexist and racist societies are depicted, but you connect emotionally to the protagonist and her or his struggle against those systems (and hopefully victory too!)

And why should a video game be any different? If I'm reading a novel set in a medieval setting and the protagonist is a woman and there's gender equality I probably won't even bother to read the book, it will just be silly. Similarly, if there's a video game in a medieval setting and the premise of the game is that you're playing as a feudal dynasty, the game is going to be (imo anyway) diminished if gender is completely unimportant to gameplay.

To me, a scenario where I have to do some heavy lifting to change my society to be more accepting of female leaders (e.g. by having all the men ahead of my female character in the royal succession assassinated or otherwise killed) and then having to deal with every other sexist faction hating me, and succeeding anyway, would be far more rewarding than just being able to have women in charge with no restrictions. Similarly, a novel with a medieval setting where the women aren't fighting against sexism would be insipid and silly.

Idk. I think there is space for player expectation and stuff there, more so than you're indicating in your arguments. I mean, I completely agree with you if your arguments pertain to men's rights activists claiming that there should be no role for women in a game or it's not "historically accurate" but I think claiming accurate depictions of historical sexist societies necessarily make for sexist video games is a heavy lift.

tl;dr "I made a kingdom ruled by women" and "I conquered the world as Poland" to me should both be things you can accomplish through ingenuity and skill at the game.

 

[MaryKB]

And why should a video game be any different? If I'm reading a novel set in a medieval setting and the protagonist is a woman and there's gender equality I probably won't even bother to read the book, it will just be silly. Similarly, if there's a video game in a medieval setting and the premise of the game is that you're playing as a feudal dynasty, the game is going to be (imo anyway) diminished if gender is completely unimportant to gameplay.

To me, a scenario where I have to do some heavy lifting to change my society to be more accepting of female leaders (e.g. by having all the men ahead of my female character in the royal succession assassinated or otherwise killed) and then having to deal with every other sexist faction hating me, and succeeding anyway, would be far more rewarding than just being able to have women in charge with no restrictions. Similarly, a novel with a medieval setting where the women aren't fighting against sexism would be insipid and silly.

Idk. I think there is space for player expectation and stuff there, more so than you're indicating in your arguments. I mean, I completely agree with you if your arguments pertain to men's rights activists claiming that there should be no role for women in a game or it's not "historically accurate" but I think claiming accurate depictions of historical sexist societies necessarily make for sexist video games is a heavy lift.

tl;dr "I made a kingdom ruled by women" and "I conquered the world as Poland" to me should both be things you can accomplish through ingenuity and skill at the game.

As a woman living her life and building her career in a man's world, I couldn't disagree with you more. I deal with gender adversity enough in my real life that I don't need it consuming my fantasy as well, in fact I feel I'd rather just be able to jump in and have as easy a time as my male friends do. Please remember that your fictional male medieval hero is no more "realistic" than my female one.

I've played plenty of games that don't do what you say, such as The Guild 2 like I mentioned above, and I also played The Sims Medieval, where you can make your monarchs/merchants/knights/priests/whatever as either gender freely and without penalty, and I don't feel it "diminishes" those games one bit.

You can explore sexist (and racist, and homophobic, and whatever for that matter) themes in a game without having to limit your player in her or his choices and freedoms. That's where your storytelling comes in, but we're not talking about storytelling here but rather restrictions on what players can be, focused entirely on sexism (but using false rationalizations as "justification" for this)

I feel a book and a game are very different, because in a book you're reading someone else's story, but in a game you're creating your story.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I really like the idea of this game and have meant to play it for a long time, but I only ever got as far as playing the demo version and basically not having the slightest clue what was going on at all and couldn't face diving into the full thing. I tried watching a "Let's Play" on Youtube once, but the first hour of it was just a guy sitting there doing nothing but have a feast and a hunt every year for about a decade with nothing else happening. I presume (hope) that was just him playing a very boring and conservative game though.

But, from what I know about it and have read above, there's nothing sexist or problematic about the game at all.

 

[Gorbles]

While there are examples of sexist games out there (and racist games too), the difference often falls upon intent. The folks at Paradox I do believe (having interacted with a small amount of them over the years) in inclusion and diversity of gameplay. That's my personal bias on the topic. I do believe they're just trying to create games that model the times, rather than enforce that model in negative ways.

However, I completely understand why that'd put off a woman or, a particular minority, if nomatter what they did the game didn't resonate with their choices or preferences. Like Mary even points out, Civilisation gives the player a lot more leeway there. Which leads us onto an interesting set of points:

1. Does the game lose anything from being made more inclusive, presuming these options do not harm existing gameplay for existing players?
2. Does the game already have these options?
3. How well-explained and / or well-surfaced are these options (in terms of UX, ease of activation, and so on)?
4. [optional] How well are these options marketed so that people know about them in the first place (think: colourblind options in video games - becoming a more important thing to shout positively about on social media)?

I don't know CK2 enough to comment. I don't know any Paradox game since EU3, to be honest, but the UX in that was an absolute trashfire.