Sexist Game or Sandbox?

[MaryKB]

Ah so it sounds like it's not a real historical simulator then, but rather a game with mechanics-driven objectives.

 

[Lexicus]

p.s. I had another thought: How many men do armies lose to disease and desertion before they ever reach the battlefield in wargames, such as the Total War series? A line of female samurai would be a lot less strange than the miraculous health and fitness of the soldiers in these games, which we tend to take for granted. James Stavridis was on the radio yesterday, and said something like, "amateurs talk strategy while professionals talk logistics." Has there ever been a wargame where the soldiers' footwear and access to clean water were a concern?

There are a lot of wargames that incorporate the concepts of attrition and supply, including many entries in the Total War series.

I don't have any problem with a game like CK2 including a setting to have gender equality for everyone, but I would find it somewhat immersion-breaking to play a historical simulator game where there is a female Ottoman Sultan in the year 1350 (just as an example) and I don't think it's because I secretly hate women and want to exclude them from video games completely.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Ah so it sounds like it's not a real historical simulator then, but rather a game with mechanics-driven objectives.

Abdication because it suits the player isn't realistic though. Many bad kings hung on to the bitter end.

 

[Akka]

I find it really sad, yet also funny in a pathetic sort of way, how people like Akka and Zardnaar keep trying to rationalize this stuff ...

Well, I find pretty pathetic and sad how rationality is something so foreign to you. Not funny, though.

at least just admit it's sexism and you don't want women playing/enjoying these games.

Can't even caricature you, you're doing it yourself.
=>

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.

 

[EgonSpengler]

There are a lot of wargames that incorporate the concepts of attrition and supply, including many entries in the Total War series.

I don't have any problem with a game like CK2 including a setting to have gender equality for everyone, but I would find it somewhat immersion-breaking to play a historical simulator game where there is a female Ottoman Sultan in the year 1350 (just as an example) and I don't think it's because I secretly hate women and want to exclude them from video games completely.

I think a common problem in discussions about "-isms" is that a single behavior or a mistaken word is frequently taken as an indication of a deeply-ingrained character flaw. We should (be able to) allow ourselves and each other to accidentally step on someone's foot and say "oh, sorry" without being hanged as an unrepentant serial foot-stomper*. In this instance, the fact that a female Sultan would be immersion-breaking, but other ridiculous things are not, is sexism, but it doesn't have to mean that you secretly hate women and want to exclude them from video games completely**. The fact that you need to be on guard against that might be part of the problem. The other day, Gina Rodriguez posted a video of herself singing along with The Fugees; in the song, Lauryn Hill drops an N-word, and Rodriguez didn't edit herself. Oops. Then she posted an apology and was criticized for being half-hearted. I'm only guessing, but I imagine she was trying to be super-careful in how she worded her apology, because she was afraid as being labeled a member of the Klan. (She's stuck her foot in her mouth before, and got a lot of grief for it, so it'd be little wonder if she's skittish now.)

* At the same time, when someone says "hey, dude, you're stepping on my foot", we have to move our foot and not say "sorry, snowflake" with a roll of the eyes. It's one thing to step on someone's foot by mistake, and another thing to be a [tool] about it.

** In fact, it probably means that you've grown up in the same misogynist societies that most of us have grown up in. Among the 'casualties' of sexism are the men who love women, and the women who accidentally perpetuate sexism.

 

[MaryKB]

I think a common problem in discussions about "-isms" is that a single behavior or a mistaken word is frequently taken as an indication of a deeply-ingrained character flaw. We should (be able to) allow ourselves and each other to accidentally step on someone's foot and say "oh, sorry" without being hanged as an unrepentant serial foot-stomper*. In this instance, the fact that a female Sultan would be immersion-breaking, but other ridiculous things are not, is sexism, but it doesn't have to mean that you secretly hate women and want to exclude them from video games completely**. The fact that you need to be on guard against that might be part of the problem. The other day, Gina Rodriguez posted a video of herself singing along with The Fugees; in the song, Lauryn Hill drops an N-word, and Rodriguez didn't edit herself. Oops. Then she posted an apology and was criticized for being half-hearted. I'm only guessing, but I imagine she was trying to be super-careful in how she worded her apology, because she was afraid as being labeled a member of the Klan. (She's stuck her foot in her mouth before, and got a lot of grief for it, so it'd be little wonder if she's skittish now.)

* At the same time, when someone says "hey, dude, you're stepping on my foot", we have to move our foot and not say "sorry, snowflake" with a roll of the eyes. It's one thing to step on someone's foot by mistake, and another thing to be a [tool] about it.

** In fact, it probably means that you've grown up in the same misogynist societies that most of us have grown up in. Among the 'casualties' of sexism are the men who love women, and the women who accidentally perpetuate sexism.

Thank you, your post is absolutely perfect.

 

[red_elk]

In this instance, the fact that a female Sultan would be immersion-breaking, but other ridiculous things are not, is sexism

Existence of "other ridiculous immersion breaking things" in the game doesn't cancel the fact that female Sultan would be immersion breaking too.
Ridiculous things are usually unintentional results of bugs and imbalances.

 

[MaryKB]

In a game of history what ifs?", "what if the Ottoman Empire conquered Russia?" is cool, but "what if the Ottoman Empire had a female sultan?" is not.

 

[Akka]

Wow.
You manage to post back-to-back :

I find it really sad, yet also funny in a pathetic sort of way, how people like Akka and Zardnaar keep trying to rationalize this stuff ... at least just admit it's sexism and you don't want women playing/enjoying these games.

and :

I think a common problem in discussions about "-isms" is that a single behavior or a mistaken word is frequently taken as an indication of a deeply-ingrained character flaw.
[...]In this instance, the fact that a female Sultan would be immersion-breaking, but other ridiculous things are not, is sexism, but it doesn't have to mean that you secretly hate women and want to exclude them from video games completely.

Thank you, your post is absolutely perfect.

So you post first "you say you want immersion but you actually just hate women and want to exclude them from video games", and then praise a post that is basically dedicated to explain that you shouldn't make such shortcuts ?

Make up your mind ?

 

[Yeekim]

In a game of history what ifs?", "what if the Ottoman Empire conquered Russia?" is cool, but "what if the Ottoman Empire had a female sultan?" is not.

A historical simulation game where it does not take centuries of efforts for 1350AD Ottoman Empire to conquer Russia is a poor historical simulation.

 

[Lexicus]

In this instance, the fact that a female Sultan would be immersion-breaking, but other ridiculous things are not, is sexism,

I suppose I should clarify: a female Sultan just handed to me by the game by default would be immersion-breaking. It would not be immersion-breaking, as I've already said, if the player made the right choices, which are apparently already made available by the game, to make a female Sultan happen.
And what other "ridiculous things" do you suppose are not immersion-breaking for me, anyway?

The other day, Gina Rodriguez posted a video of herself singing along with The Fugees; in the song, Lauryn Hill drops an N-word, and Rodriguez didn't edit herself. Oops. Then she posted an apology and was criticized for being half-hearted. I'm only guessing, but I imagine she was trying to be super-careful in how she worded her apology, because she was afraid as being labeled a member of the Klan. (She's stuck her foot in her mouth before, and got a lot of grief for it, so it'd be little wonder if she's skittish now.)

So you think what I just said is as bad as saying the N-word, or am I misunderstanding you?

In a game of history what ifs?", "what if the Ottoman Empire conquered Russia?" is cool, but "what if the Ottoman Empire had a female sultan?" is not.

Yeah, but the entire point of the game is that realizing the "what ifs" should require player input. If the Ottoman Empire can conquer Russia without the player putting in any real work to see that outcome, it is not fun. Similarly, if the game just hands us female Ottoman Sultans without the player putting in any work it's not fun (for me anyway).

I mean, I even say I'm fine with the game including an option to allow female rulers by default without the player having to transform these medieval societies at all (the Paradox historical simulator I'm familiar with, Hearts of Iron IV, includes a bunch of options when you start a game to create ahistorical AI behavior and so on which is fine, but I mostly don't play with those options checked because they often lead to immersion-breaking outcomes).

and the women who accidentally perpetuate sexism.

Nice, so we now have the spectacle of you, as a man, in effect telling the women who agree with me that they are "accidentally perpetuating sexism." Very interesting.

edit: this^ was a bad joke, apologies to all.

 

[red_elk]

That depends, if according to the game scenario, you are in charge of Ottoman empire and conquer Russia (or bring female Sultan to power), that's part of a game. If Ottoman Empire conquering Russia is a historical background of a game, then its alt-history.

Edit: crosspost

 

[Gorbles]

Nice, so we now have the spectacle of you, as a man, in effect telling the women who agree with me that they are "accidentally perpetuating sexism." Very interesting.

Lexicus, c'mon, you're better than this. Men can call out sexism (against women). Men can even occasionally accurately diagnose the notion of women perpetrating sexism (against women) as well. Doesn't mean we're always going to be right, but let's not invoke "you're a man inferring women can be sexist" as a negative. That's a poor argument.

 

[Yeekim]

Nice, so we now have the spectacle of you, as a man, in effect telling the women who agree with me that they are "accidentally perpetuating sexism." Very interesting.

While I totally agree with the rest of your posts here, this part is a needless ad hominem.
It is possible for a woman to be sexist and it is possible for a man to recognize it.
Edit: x-post with Gorbles

 

[AmazonQueen]

That depends, if according to the game scenario, you are in charge of Ottoman empire and conquer Russia (or bring female Sultan to power), that's part of a game. If Ottoman Empire conquering Russia is a historical background of a game, then its alt-history.

Edit: crosspost

Games tend to be alt-history as soon as you start playing.
The narrower the scope of a game the less noticeable the differences your decisions make might be but there will still be differences between the results of your game and history.

 

[Akka]

Games tend to be alt-history as soon as you start playing.
The narrower the scope of a game the less noticeable the differences your decisions make might be but there will still be differences between the results of your game and history.

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it ?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it ?

Yes, but judging by the post I was replying to Red Elk didn't get it.

 

[Lexicus]

While I totally agree with the rest of your posts here, this part is a needless ad hominem.

Lexicus, c'mon, you're better than this. Men can call out sexism (against women). Men can even occasionally accurately diagnose the notion of women perpetrating sexism (against women) as well. Doesn't mean we're always going to be right, but let's not invoke "you're a man inferring women can be sexist" as a negative. That's a poor argument.

It's not an ad hominem. It is an ironic warning that going down the identity-fundamentalist rathole (e.g, the argument is right or wrong based on the identity of the person making it) is not a good idea.

 

[red_elk]

Games tend to be alt-history as soon as you start playing.
The narrower the scope of a game the less noticeable the differences your decisions make might be but there will still be differences between the results of your game and history.

Right, that's the whole point I'm making. It will become alt-history as soon as I start playing, but preferably not before that.

 

[Akka]

Yes, but judging by the post I was replying to Red Elk didn't get it.

I think he meant that the game where Ottoman had conquered Russia was already alt-history before the starting point, rather than becoming alt-history only once when you started playing.