Sexist Game or Sandbox?

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

If you consider yourself to be a bully merely for existing then that would make sense I guess. But considering who I'm talking to...

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

Like I said, I had a look and there seem to be a fair few female options to choose from. They all appear to be real historical figures though, so the options will necessarily be constrained by that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you consider yourself to be a bully merely for existing then that would make sense I guess. But considering who I'm talking to...

Yeah, we know. I do have a history here of punching bullies in the nose. As I recall you took a fair shot in the snout once yourself. Still stinging, I guess. Bummer for you.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If you consider yourself to be a bully merely for existing then that would make sense I guess. But considering who I'm talking to...

From what i've seen, you are more than happy to enable bullies in fact you go so far as to defend their very "right" to do so.

But it's cool man tell us more about how allowing open bigotry under the guise of "free speech" is not enabling it and tell us how punching down on a group that is marginalized when compared to yourself isn't somehow bullying

 

[EgonSpengler]

Did they pretend that sexism and prejudice didn't exist though?

If you mean the historical fiction I named, for Outlander and The Bletchley Circle the sexism of their day is part of the story. I don't remember it being a big part of Jackdaws or Charlotte Grey. Misogyny isn't a big part of Vikings, and Lagertha is rarely troubled with it. One guy was a real [tool] to her, threatening to pull her shirt off in a room full of people, so she stabbed him through the eye and took his army.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If you mean the historical fiction I named, for Outlander and The Bletchley Circle the sexism of their day as part of the story. I don't remember it being a big part of Jackdaws or Charlotte Grey. Misogyny isn't a big part of Vikings, and Lagertha is rarely troubled with it. One guy was a real [tool] to her, threatening to pull her shirt off in a room full of people, so she stabbed him through the eye and took his army.

Somehow, somewhere, some man is screaming about how this character's inclusion and existence in Vikings is political and therefor wrong

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Somehow, somewhere, some man is screaming about how this character's inclusion and existence in Vikings is political and therefor wrong

Actually, it's a whole group of men, and they have their own subredit.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Somehow, somewhere, some man is screaming about how this character's inclusion and existence in Vikings is political and therefor wrong

I remember folks losing their minds over Katee Sackhoff being cast as Starbuck.

 

[Yeekim]

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

Does this mean that a game where one can roleplay as, say, Jeanne d'Arc would be sexist in your opinion?
I mean, I can get that you might not wish to roleplay as someone who had to deal with such amounts of sexism or adversity as she did. That's fine, you don't have to enjoy every game out there. But I imagine some women would find it rewarding or empowering. You don't think so?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I feel any protestations of "realism" are total BS. Poland didn't conquer the world, but in those games you can do so. None of things you end up doing really happened, it's all make believe, but I still find it so odd that men are more than willing to suspend their disbelief in countless ways to give way to their game play experience, but lose their minds when it comes to any kind of equal opportunity for women in the game.

CK2 literally lets you reform religion to make only women eligible for succession, pass laws giving full equal rights (in game terms) a millennia before it ever actually happened regardless of religion, or alter the rules to allow women's rights instantly in 769. It's a legit sandbox, and women's rights is no exception to that sandbox.

Calling the game "sexist" is flagrantly ignoring what it is.

~~~

On a side note, people often whine about "ahistorical" for a wide variety of things in these games, not just women. It's almost always incoherent and annoying too. As you say, these complaints simply refuse to apply even their own standards consistently.

That "logic" has been used to make the gameplay for western hemisphere natives awful, gutted religious conversion in EU 4, and even completely ruin the UI for battleplan bonuses in HOI 4. It's annoying every time people do it and really annoying when developers actually change the game based on the non-logic.

It's also why I tend to hold stated logic to its own standards here on CFC, I've seen some real damage done by failing that .

 

[Lord Shadow]

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

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

What? The fact you can select powerful male starting characters doesn't mean that any random male character can freely become a king or a knight, as per your claims, MaryKB. They do indeed need to work for it, as can women if the laws permit (and are in effect).

Another fact is that there's a number of historical female rulers you can pick.

Then there's the Ruler Designer, which can be used to customize any character down to the gender, if you so please.

If you don't want to fudge things like that, you can also pick, say, the King of France and tinker with the laws so that his daughter inherits the crown. And then find the quickest way to die or something.

So overall, you have various means to play a powerful female character, with various degrees of historical accuracy, from picking a real one to overwriting a man with a different woman in the same position.

Still not a sexist game.

 

[MaryKB]

Still much more work you have to do than to just play as a powerful man, or have male heirs inherit. Again, my point is "male is default, female requires all sorts of extra steps."

I'll be happy when male isn't the default, and playing how I want as female requires no extra work or exceptions.

 

[AmazonQueen]

If you mean the historical fiction I named, for Outlander and The Bletchley Circle the sexism of their day is part of the story. I don't remember it being a big part of Jackdaws or Charlotte Grey. Misogyny isn't a big part of Vikings, and Lagertha is rarely troubled with it. One guy was a real [tool] to her, threatening to pull her shirt off in a room full of people, so she stabbed him through the eye and took his army.

Mary seems to be arguing that there should be no sexism in games either in the system or on the part of NPCs.
I don't argue with a game being made like that. Most modern RPGs are made that way but if a game is going to take that route I don't feel it should use a historical setting since such a society has never existed in recorded history.
Ofc if sexism is depicted in a game a female PC should be able to do something about it like Lagertha did.

 

[Lexicus]

On a side note, people often whine about "ahistorical" for a wide variety of things in these games, not just women. It's almost always incoherent and annoying too. As you say, these complaints simply refuse to apply even their own standards consistently.

That "logic" has been used to make the gameplay for western hemisphere natives awful, gutted religious conversion in EU 4, and even completely ruin the UI for battleplan bonuses in HOI 4.

Explain this one, I'm curious

 

[MaryKB]

Mary seems to be arguing that there should be no sexism in games either in the system or on the part of NPCs.
I don't argue with a game being made like that. Most modern RPGs are made that way but if a game is going to take that route I don't feel it should use a historical setting since such a society has never existed in recorded history.
Ofc if sexism is depicted in a game a female PC should be able to do something about it like Lagertha did.

I see what you're saying, but I think where you and I disagree is on the whole "historical setting" thing. I believe there's no such thing as a truly historical game, that maybe its setting is real world history, but many liberties are already being taken to make the game modernized in many other ways, except there's this huge backlash when it comes to making women equal to men ... and my problem is that people complaining about "historical accuracy" only care about that so far as it's about keeping women down, and not about anything else that benefits men.

My feeling is the best way to bring about equality is to just completely normalize it. Yes of course people were horrible in the past, but we don't need that in games. We don't need literal rape, we don't need domestic abuse, etc etc, and I feel the message that "a woman can do anything a man can do" is important to make a part of any world, because it's as true in the past as it is now. Just because men fought really hard to prevent women from succeeding, and in many cases refused to give women credit for things, doesn't mean women weren't fully capable of being heroes back then.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Still much more work you have to do than to just play as a powerful man, or have male heirs inherit. Again, my point is "male is default, female requires all sorts of extra steps."

I'll be happy when male isn't the default, and playing how I want as female requires no extra work or exceptions.

By default, the selection is mostly male characters because we're talking about a male-dominated historical setting. If you're expecting the existence of many women on the thrones of the Middle Ages in a game which aims to have some historical accuracy, well, I'm afraid you're being unreasonable.

Now, onto practical matters, creating any sort of custom character requires a little extra effort, which I personally gladly make since I always prefer to start my own dynasty. It's the same effort whether I want my custom character to be a man or a woman. If I want equal (or inverted) succession, it's literally a couple more clicks in the game settings.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Still much more work you have to do than to just play as a powerful man, or have male heirs inherit. Again, my point is "male is default, female requires all sorts of extra steps."

I'll be happy when male isn't the default, and playing how I want as female requires no extra work or exceptions.

You already have that in loads of games though, including ones you've listed. A historically-based dynastic simulator isn't really the best place to look for it though.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Explain this one, I'm curious

If you right click division rather than execute battleplan, the planning bonus decays 8x faster. This was (stealth) added in the patch for waking the tiger, but confirmed WAD by podcat in the bug reports subforum. People did attempt to make realism arguments for it, nevermind that since you can just redo battleplans it is nothing but a strict degradation in UI with no justification whatsoever.

My feeling is the best way to bring about equality is to just completely normalize it. Yes of course people were horrible in the past, but we don't need that in games. We don't need literal rape

This is a game that intentionally lets you give titles to children then plot entire courts to murder them for personal gain, repeatedly. If you follow some religions, it rewards incest (sort of). Raiding and razing are profitable. You can even join the devil worshipers and use the dark power to regrow limbs. But there might need to be some...sacrifices.

There is no pretense of historical accuracy beyond starting bookmarks, but the game fully and intentionally deals in the "horrible". Little kid complains about prison conditions? Time for the oubliette! Brother inherited a title you want? Time to d-d-d-duel! Preferably before he has children who could inherit it. Captured the pope, caliph, or both? Trampled by elephants. Too many prisoners? Enjoy a cacophony of sounds as you mass execute them...with some bloodlines/religions this even gives you tangible rewards! Nice!

Removing these things would remove some of the entertainment value of CK2. There are plenty of games out there for people who prefer playing other things.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I see what you're saying, but I think where you and I disagree is on the whole "historical setting" thing. I believe there's no such thing as a truly historical game, that maybe its setting is real world history, but many liberties are already being taken to make the game modernized in many other ways, except there's this huge backlash when it comes to making women equal to men ... and my problem is that people complaining about "historical accuracy" only care about that so far as it's about keeping women down, and not about anything else that benefits men.

My feeling is the best way to bring about equality is to just completely normalize it. Yes of course people were horrible in the past, but we don't need that in games. We don't need literal rape, we don't need domestic abuse, etc etc, and I feel the message that "a woman can do anything a man can do" is important to make a part of any world, because it's as true in the past as it is now. Just because men fought really hard to prevent women from succeeding, and in many cases refused to give women credit for things, doesn't mean women weren't fully capable of being heroes back then.

I agree there are certain places games shouldn't go at all. Torture is something that's usually only hinted at in games, never depicted. There are gamers who will complain about not being able to kill children in games although when pressed they aren't usually able to come up with a better reason then I should be able to if I wanted to.

On the other hand unpleasant things are part of games. Murder, assassination etc.

I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't be capable of being heroes but sometimes sexism should be one of the obstacles they face, just like racism or other prejudices might be faced by characters.

 

[Lexicus]

If you right click division rather than execute battleplan, the planning bonus decays 8x faster. This was (stealth) added in the patch for waking the tiger, but confirmed WAD by podcat in the bug reports subforum. People did attempt to make realism arguments for it, nevermind that since you can just redo battleplans it is nothing but a strict degradation in UI with no justification whatsoever.

You mean if you micromanage divisions yourself instead of letting the battleplan manage their movement? What does it have to do with historical accuracy?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You mean if you micromanage divisions yourself instead of letting the battleplan manage their movement? What does it have to do with historical accuracy?

Something about the idea of "making a plan then changing it on the spot disrupts the plan". That makes some sense, but doesn't actually bear out in gameplay as a functional justification for the change, because you retain the bonus when creating a new plan.

The reality is that the devs got upset because nobody wanted to use their crappy/lying battleplanner and decided to penalize people for that rather than making it good enough that pure micromanagement becomes a sufficiently unattractive alternative to using it.

Even after the "fixes" to battle plans we get garbage like this:

Spoiler :

Division attacking to the west is part of the battleplan to close the pocket!

Or this:

Spoiler :

Again, troops are attacking directly away from battleplan.

It gets even worse if you try to chain two spearheads. I've had troops go literally 4 provinces in the opposite direction of a spearhead arrow. They were executing the spearhead backwards until I manually stopped them, and then I got penalized for doing so. So advanced players would often not bother with this crap and just micro it because it's faster and better. Nope, can't have that. You remake those spearheads constantly or you lose 40-50% attack.