Sexist Game or Sandbox?

[Akka]

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.

Actually, bickering about the realism of a game happens all the time over all the tiniest details. That you stop noticing it as soon as it isn't relevant to your own pet peeve doesn't mean it ceases to exists for the rest of the world.

And obviously, something unrealistic when it comes to gameplay is not the same thing as something unrealistic when it comes to background. It's unrealistic that a character can take a bullet in an unprotected head during gameplay and still fight, but it's completely different than a cutscene where the evil guy tries to execute the tied victim and shoot them on the temple at point blank range and the person only lose 1/3 or their health. Or that trees are purple and growing upside down or that there are motorbikes in the middle-age.

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.

But having genocide, mass repression or spending half the time killing people is not a problem ? Dunno, if I were trying to shoehorn morality in games, I'd personally would be much more worried about making mass murders fun than sexism being in the background.

Stop projecting. You're the one obsessing about men-women power relationship, and you're assuming everyone is the same and so assign ridiculously nefarious intent to people. Maybe there are misogynists who cackle at the idea of making women subservient in games, but the vast majority who dislike alteration to the background do so just because it breaks verisimilitude, period.

 

[Zardnaar]

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

Probably

I'm fine with it it's plausible, fits into the stories of the era and Lagertha rocks.

Scandinavia has also always been more liberal than most of Europe going back centuries.

 

[Gorbles]

"shoehorn morality"

"stop projecting"

"you're the one obsessing"

Segue to:

"maybe there are misogynists"

Mm-hm. Maybe!

I mean, fair enough, you're like this to everyone, @Akka. No harm, no foul. But it truly is amazing that you still don't understand the entire point behind Mary's posts, which is that which breaks verisimilitude is different for every person. You fail to understand that someone elses' dislike of "the background" is as important as your own. You're against alterations to it because you perceive it as something that shouldn't be changed (in a video game, hah). That's just, like, your opinion, man. I recommend being less uppity to people who have different opinions, because otherwise you come across as "assuming" as people you like to dress down.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

Even the final fantasy series depicts torture. Not particularly graphically, but it happens. Other games allow it to varying degrees, depending.

There is no internally consistent reason children should be immune to death in video games when adults are not. The only way you can get to that point is if you don't have standards. Though some video games do allow children to die, even if you don't want them to.

Where games "shouldn't go" is up to the people playing them. If it crosses too many lines, people aren't going to buy/play it. I will make exceptions for things that cause actual harm, like epilepsy-inducing effects or other features with similar causal links to harm (you can make a case for gambling and fraud against real consumers also for example).

And obviously, something unrealistic when it comes to gameplay is not the same thing as something unrealistic when it comes to background. It's unrealistic that a character can take a bullet in an unprotected head during gameplay and still fight, but it's completely different than a cutscene where the evil guy tries to execute the tied victim and shoot them on the temple at point blank range and the person only lose 1/3 or their health. Or that trees are purple and growing upside down or that there are motorbikes in the middle-age.

Usually deviations from reality are fine, but I *do* dislike when games establish rules then break their own rules/are internally inconsistent. If I can face tank bullets from a particular gun all game long, I should not expect an identical gun to 1-shot me later because reasons. The game needs to do something to constrain anticipation that the outcome will be different (IE remove a power suit or SOMETHING).

But having genocide, mass repression or spending half the time killing people is not a problem ? Dunno, if I were trying to shoehorn morality in games, I'd personally would be much more worried about making mass murders fun than sexism being in the background.

If we had any evidence for worry we might have basis to worry. But we instead have the opposite. Not that mainstream media cares about inconveniences like burden of evidence.

 

[Zardnaar]

CKII is also fairly unique and has more or less gone mainstream over the other grand strategy games. It might even count as an RPG.

Outlanders kind of interesting idk if MaryJB has watched it but it has fantasy elements.

It's basically a love story though of two people who will die for each other or travel through time.

 

[Akka]

But it truly is amazing that you still don't understand the entire point behind Mary's posts, which is that which breaks verisimilitude is different for every person.

Except what she actually said and I was taking a shot at is :

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.

Usually deviations from reality are fine, but I *do* dislike when games establish rules then break their own rules/are internally inconsistent. If I can face tank bullets from a particular gun all game long, I should not expect an identical gun to 1-shot me later because reasons. The game needs to do something to constrain anticipation that the outcome will be different (IE remove a power suit or SOMETHING).

You're preaching to the choir here. Self-consistency is one of the thing I value the most, and I actually VASTLY prefer games when they manage to includes realism in the gameplay rather than make exceptions for it. I was just pointing it's just not the same to have realism inconsistency in gameplay than in story. No inconsistency at all is the best, but it's something that is often one of the first casualty of design - for some reason, it seems that some overall design narrative is that "realism" and "fun" are opposite.

If we had any evidence for worry we might have basis to worry. But we instead have the opposite. Not that mainstream media cares about inconveniences like burden of evidence.

I'm afraid I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Functionally, what is the difference? Even if their intent isn't too keep women down, the end result is the same; female representation is bad, jarring and should either be reduced or non existent.

 

[Zardnaar]

Functionally, what is the difference? Even if their intent isn't too keep women down, the end result is the same; female representation is bad, jarring and should either be reduced or non existent.

I think you can do both.

CK2 is fairly unique there's no other game like it. And it's a sandbox using the backdrop of the time period.

Civilization is pure sandbox doesn't have any back drop. Civ III was the last one I paid attention to and not long after Civ IV landed I discovered EUIII and HoI2.

Never could get into HoI3 and HoI4.

The GoT mod is also looking good bowight have to try that again.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm afraid I don't get what you're trying to say.

There's no clear reason to worry about making things fun in video games regardless of what they are, unless there is evidence of a causal relationship with harm to people in real life.

So worrying about making mass shooting fun in a game is silly. It is silly when news outlets talk about it in the past ten years. It is silly when Trump talks about it. I think less of both sides for doing it while ignoring previous evidence.

Functionally, what is the difference? Even if their intent isn't too keep women down, the end result is the same; female representation is bad, jarring and should either be reduced or non existent.

What games "should" be is up to the people who make, purchase, and play them.

 

[Gorbles]

Except what she actually said and I was taking a shot at is :

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.

You're preaching to the choir here. Self-consistency is one of the thing I value the most, and I actually VASTLY prefer games when they manage to includes realism in the gameplay rather than make exceptions for it. I was just pointing it's just not the same to have realism inconsistency in gameplay than in story. No inconsistency at all is the best, but it's something that is often one of the first casualty of design - for some reason, it seems that some overall design narrative is that "realism" and "fun" are opposite.

And there are a huge amount of people online who do care about because the setting keeps women and minorities down. The Nazi angle has been alluded to by other posters - they've periodically been an actual, real problem for Paradox moderators. There's a known overlap with actual white supremacists and various Paradox game communities. Is this Paradox's fault? No, of course not, folks like this typically flock to any historical simulator that touches anywhere between the Crusades and WWII. Sometimes maybe the more ancient periods, too (Rome obviously being an easy angle there). I'm talking simple, straightforward, unapologetic white supremacists here. I've encountered several myself in my time with Company of Heroes (tangentially) and Dawn of War. Particularly with Paradox games, it's a very Google-able thing. Because of the reliance on historical accuracy and how easy it is to simulate horrific events.

Also, 99% of the time, realism isn't fun! Like, at all! There are always exceptions, and I'm not doing you a disservice by saying I believe you. I completely believe that's what you're into in games, and that's fine. But so much of games design is tweaking things in unrealistic ways so that they feel better to the player. Here's a non-controversial example. Sure, it's a fantastical example in a game that doesn't adhere to reality (axes don't work like boomerangs and likely never will), but it's an example of balancing something by "feel" rather than actual physics.

Contrast Paradox to Civilisation. You can still play Earth in Civilisation. You can still play as Caesar, and take over the Roman Empire. You can play to a tee a historical timeline, assuming the game doesn't completely mess you up with RNG. But the kicker here is that it's no more difficult than any other specific historical re-enactment. It's still historical, it's based on factual names, characters, places, buildings, and so on. It still roots itself in history. But it doesn't decide to screw you on historical reasons just because you picked a French women with a penchant for spying. Unless the game balance is off.

Like I said in one of my earlier posts: nothing gets taken away if in a theoretical world Paradox revise CK2 (or create CK3) to include a bunch of diverse and inclusive game rules that make the worlds MaryKB and other people want more possible. You don't lose out on your game - it still exists. It is a developer's choice how much they take from reality, and how much they tweak for enjoyment. And that choice is what can be criticised, or held to higher standards.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Like I said in one of my earlier posts: nothing gets taken away if in a theoretical world Paradox revise CK2 (or create CK3) to include a bunch of diverse and inclusive game rules that make the worlds MaryKB and other people want more possible.

CK2 already did this though. You can already set this in game rules and design any leader in any territory as desired. The pre-game rules are pretty flexible.

What exactly is the proposal for CK2 to change? Mary already said she didn't like it in spite of these options.

 

[Zardnaar]

A previous game said Paradox were Nazis but I think WW2 games tend to attract the wereboos.

They have made efforts to get away from it with games like Stellaris but I suspect CK2 and EUIV are their bread and butter.

Paradox used to be an indie developer but they're turning into amid sized publisher now.

It's probably safer for them with EU IV and CK2 with various events than say HoI (no holocaust events).

 

[Zardnaar]

Just discovered Cathars can appoint female commanders.

Lots of potential Joan of Arcs.

After playing patriarchal Venice where you can have female succession nor matrilineal marriages from a power pov female succession and commanders is a lot better.

My daughter is a genius my son isn't but I can't change the laws until my ruler dies.

My ex rulers wife had a lesbian affair with one of my lovers. If I wasn't cheating on both if them with 9 other women I would be offended. My current ruler is one of 17 children and has cancer. Hoping he can survive long enough for kids to reach 16.

Hey cured cancer. Lost the love spuds in the process

 

[Lord Shadow]

Hey cured cancer. Lost the love spuds in the process

Gross, mannn.

 

[Zardnaar]

Gross, mannn.

All good he got depressed, jumped off a large building and his genius daughter inherited.

With female succession her daughter is a genius plus strong.

 

[cardgame]

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

Gay men also face challenges and maluses in the game, but that doesn't make it homophobic. The deep setting, including its unpleasantries, is what makes the game interesting. Challenge, struggle, overcome. Without that, it is an emptier game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Gross, mannn.

Its all good he got depressed after that and murdering his heir.

 

[Akka]

Functionally, what is the difference? Even if their intent isn't too keep women down, the end result is the same; female representation is bad, jarring and should either be reduced or non existent.

I'd say there is a pretty COLOSSAL difference between collateral consequence and main intent. I mean, if you're speaking of morality, you'd think that "intent" would be paramount, considering it's the, you know, entire cornerstone of the whole concept.
Also, this idea that having an actually realistic of the society of a time past being somehow detrimental to women in today's society is just an idiotic idea. Let's also pretend that the Romans or the US Confederacy didn't have slavery because it would somehow magically make it look like acceptable again ? This wish to sanitize history is just nonsensical.

Also, 99% of the time, realism isn't fun!

That's, like, your opinion man.

Like I said in one of my earlier posts: nothing gets taken away if in a theoretical world Paradox revise CK2 (or create CK3) to include a bunch of diverse and inclusive game rules that make the worlds MaryKB and other people want more possible.

Verisimilitude and immersion, which was the whole point to begin with.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

I got CK II for free on Steam, but I actually never played because the graphics look weird, and I am just not an RPG person anyway. I do play EU IV extensively, however.

Although I was going to make an argument that perhaps historical games should be more historically accurate and therefore should not feature many women, I realized that I wouldn't even believe in my own argument. Games are inherently fantasy, and all games allow us to transcend the reality and imagine a different world. I mean, Civilization is considered a "historical" game, yet it is just an idealized version on the supposedly linear progress of human history, where every civilization follows a standard path of development, researching the same technologies and building the same wonders. It's not historical—it's inspired by "history" (whatever THAT means).

A game like EU IV is complete and utter fantasy once you unpause the game on November 11, 1444. Everything that happens afterwards is just a messy clown fiesta between the AI and the human player (or multiple players). There is nothing historical about it whatsoever other than the map set up (and even that is up for a debate). And one thing that bothers me in that game is that you can only hire female generals when you fill out Innovative ideas or through special events. Mind you, the game starts a few years after Joan of Arc was killed by the English, and wasn't she a general? There were also influential women in the Ottoman court and Indian princedoms, but the government forms for these tags never allow you to have women as rulers. Russia, France, England do give you queens, but you also have issues when having a female rulers when you are the Holy Roman Emperor, and you can't turn your female ruler into a general (Kristina of Sweden, anyone?) or claim the title of Defender of the Faith, which I find simply annoying. And when you are playing as a republic, you also can't elect a woman president, which is, yes, historically accurate, but what's the point? I like playing republics precisely because I can pick a ruler every four years instead of getting stuck with an inept monarch. Also, most women-related events are behind a special pack "women in history". But if women were in history, and EU IV is a "historical" game, then why aren't they there in the first place?

Goddamn Paradox, just let me make the queen a general when I am low on military points ffs

 

[Zardnaar]

Joan of Arc is an event in CK2.

Events can circumnavigate the normal rules.

EuIV apparently does allow feme generals if you take the right ideas. Kinda like CK2 if you put points into tolerance.

Stellaris doesn't care either way but it's set 2200+.

Personally I favor a toggle switch at game start. If you pick the historical route though there should still be some ways to allow it.