Sexist Game or Sandbox?

[Manfred Belheim]

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

I don't see how even that would be necessarily sexist if that's just how the world of the game works. The world would be sexist but it doesn't follow that the game itself therefore must be.

 

[MaryKB]

While there are examples of sexist games out there (and racist games too), the difference often falls upon intent.

I feel differently than you do, I feel effect is more important than intent. I believe you could have all the best intentions in the world, but if you do something that's harmful, it's what you did that's more important than what you tried to do, if I'm making sense?

 

[Akka]

I feel any protestations of "realism" are total BS. Poland didn't conquer the world, but in those games you can do so.

That argument makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah, you can do try to conquer the world with Poland. Just like you can to establish a matrilineal law of succession in France.

But when you try to conquer the world with Poland, you start, well, with Poland. With the army that Poland had, the population that Poland had, and whatever stat the game uses is supposed to be close to what Poland had at the time. If the game would give Poland a population of 250 million or an economy comparable to the US, that would be idiotic and would destroy the verisimilitude of the game. I expect the aspects that the game is focused on to be an adequate approximation of what was the actual situation at the time.

Same thing for establishing said matrilineal rule : I expect the starting situation to be historical, even if the game allows mechanics to change it.

Its a form of fiction. You wouldn't stop fiction depicting racist or sexist societies would you?
So long as they don't glory in it (like the Gor series by John Norman) or depict it as right or to be admired, but something to be struggled against, just a different type of difficulty, it isn't a problem for me.

Even if they glory in it, as long as it's in-universe. I don't expect Vikings to be squeamish about pillaging coastal cities from England, and I actually expect them to glorify those who do and end up successful.
I wouldn't like if someone was trying to convey a message through them that in the real world, might makes right/you can slaughter others if you can gain something from it, but I actually appreciate when a creator manages to separate the in-game characters from today's values, and make them act their part from the time and place they are supposed to live in.
Characters having today's values in past eras actually are incredibly cringy most of the time.

 

[Lord Shadow]

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

If the game provides integrated options to ignore those historical obstacles, it's not. You don't even have to resort to modding.

By default, doing a large number of ahistorical things is difficult. It doesn't mean the game is against those things. The baseline makes it so doing certain things is harder than others (i.e. conquer Europe as a minor Italian state compared to France), and that's fine. Otherwise the game breaks down.

CK2 isn't against women but recognizes history wasn't kind to them in its period. Fiction doesn't equal fantasy, yet the game presents options to deal with equality in both contexts: either the hard way, achieving it within the default historical context, or the easy way, fudging the rules from the get-go so it's no trouble at all.

But I'll pose this question: which is demeaning and which is empowering? Recognizing the challenges and allowing women characters to overcome them, or doing away with said challenges and pretend women faced no greater adversity than men in the Middle Ages?

 

[Lexicus]

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 guess at bottom I just don't agree with this. The entire point of racism, sexism, hetero-centrism and so on, the reason we oppose them so strongly, is that they limit people's choices and freedoms in an unjust way. A game that claims to explore sexism but where women can do anything men can do is not exploring sexism honestly or realistically.

As an example, Skyrim, a setting where the player's gender has no effect on gameplay whatever (which is totally fine with me because the setting is totally fantastic anyway) also depicts racism and xenophobia. Except it doesn't really, because despite the game claiming that Dark Elves and Argonians are discriminated against in Windhelm, you can still play as either of those races and do anything a Nord can in Windhelm. This means the depiction of racism in the game lacks any immediacy or realism. You could even argue it trivializes racism by reducing it to a matter of a few rude lines of dialogue rather than something that, as in the real world, shapes people's entire lives in ways that are completely unjust.

As a side point I think The Guild 2 and Sims Medieval are probably very different games from Crusader Kings 2. They share a medieval setting and involve a degree of roleplay, but my sense is that's about where the similarities end.

 

[Gorbles]

I feel differently than you do, I feel effect is more important than intent. I believe you could have all the best intentions in the world, but if you do something that's harmful, it's what you did that's more important than what you tried to do, if I'm making sense?

Sorry, didn't mean to diminish the importance of the effect. The best intentions can still cause frustration or outright harm. But it's important for rectifying the situation in terms of games design. Someone with poor intent simply won't, right? Someone, or some people, that have good intentions, would be open to the nature of ahistorical gameplay just to tilt the scales in a fairer direction (like how Firaxis have done with leader choices and so on, in Civilisation).

All I meant by that is that I think Paradox would be open to such, and that it's more understandable to say "this country has this much of a standing army and no women generals" by default (i.e. without customising or introducing game options to change this) than (to take an intentionally ludicrous example) people defending the lack of minorities in the Witcher because it was a) based on a book (not a reason, video games adapt from source material all the time) and b) because it's medieval (not a reason, it's fantasy. The only medieval concepts used by the author are the ones the author chooses to. Replicating an apparent lack of PoC in medieval times is a conscious choice when writing fantasy). The developers even admit it was a choice, and while it's a defensible choice from the arguments given, it doesn't make them immune to critique.

I will say: not a fan of "recognising the challenges and allowing women characters to overcome them" @Lord Shadow (not just you on this particular tack, either). It's not about recognising the challenges women went through, because they're not any more than notable men present in the game are. Or rather than "it's not about", it's just that's a bad argument. The games do nothing to raise the stature of these unique achievements above any other achievement in the game(s).

It's about historical accuracy and flexibility developers hold themselves to when implementing such.

 

[MaryKB]

But please remember @Lexicus that you're not part of a demographic that's on the receiving end of sexism and racism, and don't you feel it's sort of ironic for you to be telling me how I should feel about how I'd like to see sexism explored? That I feel is what's at the root of most of these kinds of problems, is when white men are going to take it upon themselves to decide how racism and sexism are going to be handled, rather than listening (and especially deferring!) to minorities and women.

And realistically, women can do anything men can do, and it's not at all realistic to suggest we can't. I get frustrated by people constantly saying these barriers should be put up for women only, and men get to just bypass them by default. Men don't have any inherent right to anything they want, regardless of how men might feel about that (that's a total fantasy) As a man, you can't just walk up and become a king, or you can't just barge into a castle and declare yourself a knight, you've got to earn those types of things ... but why do male characters not have to go through all of that? Why is the idea of "earning your place" only forced upon women?

I don't see a fundamental difference between The Guild 2 and The Sims Medieval and Crusader Kings ... my understanding is that all of them are historically-based simulators, the only real difference being that the last one is alone in pandering to male power fantasies.

 

[Lord Shadow]

As a man, you can't just walk up and become a king, or you can't just barge into a castle and declare yourself a knight, you've got to earn those types of things ... but why do male characters not have to go through all of that?

I'm not sure where you got this idea any character is granted anything on a silver platter in CK2 just because they're a man. Sure, you can pick the Holy Roman Emperor or the King of England as your starting character, but that tends to be boring. It's most rewarding to start as a lowly one-province Count and work your way up from there, you know, playing the game and navigating the challenges.

 

[MaryKB]

But you entirely miss the point: that's your choice. Your choices aren't limited.

 

[Gorbles]

You literally just gave examples of things you can pick, Lord Shadow, but that you object to on the personal qualifier that they're boring

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Apparently there are a bunch of female rulers you can choose as your starting character.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Apparently there are a bunch of female rulers you can choose as your starting character.

Clearly this is political

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Usually when playing, I left all the men in the family to be "unemployed scholars" lol!

I know nothing about this game, or what unemployed scholars get up to, but I do wonder how you would react if you saw a man making an equal but inverse statement about how they played the game (or some other similar game). Obviously it's entirely up to you how you play the game and how you derive enjoyment from it, but you seem to be saying the game gives you a free choice over gender and that this has no effect on the gameplay, and you're then choosing to impose your own gender segregation onto that for your own amusement. Again, absolutely fine for you to do that, but I just feel like you would see the reverse as something rather appalling and symptomatic of a more general negative attitude towards women in the player.

 

[MaryKB]

I know nothing about this game, or what unemployed scholars get up to, but I do wonder how you would react if you saw a man making an equal but inverse statement about how they played the game (or some other similar game). Obviously it's entirely up to you how you play the game and how you derive enjoyment from it, but you seem to be saying the game gives you a free choice over gender and that this has no effect on the gameplay, and you're then choosing to impose your own gender segregation onto that for your own amusement. Again, absolutely fine for you to do that, but I just feel like you would see the reverse as something rather appalling and symptomatic of a more general negative attitude towards women in the player.

There's a vast difference between power flipping and suppression. In real life, women don't have the power to keep down men as a group or make them into second class citizens, but this is something real that men have done to women (and still continue to do) I've often seen people say things along the lines of "Punching up vs punching down," and I think that makes a lot of sense to visualize the difference and how you can't compare the two.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There's a vast difference between power flipping and suppression. In real life, women don't have the power to keep down men as a group or make them into second class citizens, but this is something real that men have done to women (and still continue to do) I've often seen people say things along the lines of "Punching up vs punching down," and I think that makes a lot of sense to visualize the difference and how you can't compare the two.

Well things don't have to be the same in order for you to compare them. Indeed isn't that kind of the point of a comparison? But anyway, I'm guessing you are saying you would react negatively to seeing the reverse.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well things don't have to be the same in order for you to compare them. Indeed isn't that kind of the point of a comparison? But anyway, I'm guessing you are saying you would react negatively to seeing the reverse.

Most likely. Just like healthy people react differently to seeing a bully get punched in the nose than they react to seeing a bully rough up a victim.

 

[Kyriakos]

Doesn't CK have any starting scenario where Zoe is empress? (early 11th century)

 

[Akka]

Most likely. Just like healthy people react differently to seeing a bully get punched in the nose than they react to seeing a bully rough up a victim.

The whole difference being : a bully is defined by being someone who, well, bullies others. It's a deliberate immoral action, so seeing a bully punched back is punishment.
Punching someone just because "he's stronger" even if he did nothing wrong is not the same thing at all. There is some heavy mix-up between "power" and "evil/assault/abuse" here.

 

[Synobun]

I think it's important to remember that these games are meant to provide historical scaffolding, but that going your own way on your own terms is the ultimate joy and purpose. They are not meant to simulate history exactly (otherwise it'd just be an interactive documentary), but they are meant to provide a snapshot of a historical period and then they let you loose to change it as you see fit.

So at least on that front, some form of sexism and such is a necessity as that's history. But like I said, this is merely scaffolding. A starting point. "This is what the world was like at that time. But now you can change it." Making it so you can't change this would cement it as having a sexist agenda, IMO, or at least not caring enough to provide an alternative, because as mentioned earlier there's already an aspect of fantasy to these games by being able to create the Holy Roman Empire as a lowly count from Serbia or what-have-you. The very early days of CK2 made it annoyingly difficult to change the status quo, but they've added onto the game with DLCs and it's now fairly easy to change the scaffolding if you don't want to bother with changing it through gameplay (as Zardnaar said, you can change female succession laws and attitudes before starting a game now).

Some people prefer keeping within the confines of social mores of the era, some prefer turning it completely upside down through gradual change and upheaval, and some prefer changing the foundation entirely so they have a more idealistic setting. Historical fantasy has a few ways of being presented, and I actually think CK2 does a fairly okay job at providing the choice to a player for changing that presentation.

I have something like 700 hours in CK2. I was never very interested in keeping within the confines of social mores of the era. I typically play heretics in isolated counties, and I always push for full equality between men and women. I find it more enjoyable that way. But I also have to admit that a lot of history I know is because of playing games like Civilization, Total War, and Paradox series, and I would have never had that motivation to learn more about an era if it weren't for that "snapshot of time" component. I generally know that at a glance, the very first thing I see will be "correct," and I can then go my own way to learn the nuances and context. This wouldn't be possible if they just changed the past in order to cater to a modern identity. If you want historical framing with a modern identity that's completely fine (I would actually like to see this), but that also isn't what CK2 is trying to deliver. You can make it that way, but the boiled-down foundation is essentially as I said above: "This is what the world was like at that time. But now you can change it."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The whole difference being : a bully is defined by being someone who, well, bully others. It's a deliberate immoral action, so seeing a bully punched back is punishment.
Punching someone just because "he's stronger" even if he did nothing wrong is not the same thing at all. There is some heavy mix-up between "power" and "evil/assault/abuse" here.

Maybe. The question is a temporal thing. Historically, misogyny is just "the reality of the times," so it seems reasonable to say that "bullying" doesn't apply. But at some point in history the imbalance and the unfairness thereof becomes a subject of examination. Obviously, there are still a vast majority seeing things as "just the way things are and always have been," so not bullies, but there will be those who investigate and respond with "how can our advantage be maintained?" Eventually, the investigation becomes so commonplace that there is no more room for "well, I don't make the world I just live in it" and people fall either on the side of fairness or they don't.