Total War devs are being beset by controversy and sadly its about "SJW" politics.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Jamcie Kerbizz:

You DO NOW though ._.
Totally not blatantly constructed, fake controversy.

It is not that I don't appreciate the time or energy you put into this explanation. However, Occam's Razor suggest that the theory that goes:
1. A vocal minority react with intense hostility towards anything they feel "panders to SJWs"
2. They caught wind of the changes in Rome 2
3. They got outraged because this fits their idea of "pandering to SJWs"
is much more likely as a reason then theory that goes:
1. CA wants some spotlight for Rome 2
2. CA realizes Rome 2 is tanking and doesn't want to use marketing budget for this
3. CA gets an employee to create an account on Stormfront
4. Said employee then doctors a screenshot from Rome 2 and pretends to be upset
5. CA then, somehow (infiltration?) gets all the usual suspects that rage against "pander to SJWs" to react negatively
6. CA then review bombs their own game
7. CA profits from this

As for your actual question. I played Rome 2 some 2 months ago, though I admittedly haven't gotten any of the new DLCs. However, judging by the fact that CA resumed support for Rome 2 and that it remains fairly high in the list of most played Steam games (as of this writing it is the second most played Total War game with 4,000 players, surpassed by Warhammer 2 with 6,500) I think we can also assume that CA is making some sort of profit off of Rome 2.

KingsGambit:

The fact that authenticity is sacrificed in the name of pushing an insidious political agenda makes it worse, but the "historical accuracy" argument is weak, irrelevant and not the issue. Sacrificing storytelling, setting and the otherwise carefully crafted illusion of a good fiction is ruinous and to do it for social justice is tragic.

Women in videogames: An insidious political agenda.

Let's all call it a day folks, you cant top this level of comedy.

Gethsemani:

It is not that I don't appreciate the time or energy you put into this explanation. However, Occam's Razor suggest that the theory that goes:
1. A vocal minority react with intense hostility towards anything they feel "panders to SJWs"
2. They caught wind of the changes in Rome 2
3. They got outraged because this fits their idea of "pandering to SJWs"
is much more likely as a reason then theory that goes:
1. CA wants some spotlight for Rome 2
2. CA realizes Rome 2 is tanking and doesn't want to use marketing budget for this
3. CA gets an employee to create an account on Stormfront
4. Said employee then doctors a screenshot from Rome 2 and pretends to be upset
5. CA then, somehow (infiltration?) gets all the usual suspects that rage against "pander to SJWs" to react negatively
6. CA then review bombs their own game
7. CA profits from this

How does CA profit from review bombing though? I don't think the phrase "any publicity is good publicity" is actually true.

I think the most simple explanation is that CA adds girls, SQWs gets upset, review bomb the game, done.

Hawki:

How does CA profit from review bombing though? I don't think the phrase "any publicity is good publicity" is actually true.

I think the most simple explanation is that CA adds girls, SQWs gets upset, review bomb the game, done.

What were the old user review scores like?

Because I know I will skim the user reviews of a product for an overall feel of things. But I also know that if those reviews are negative due to something like 'women in our game' or 'evil corporationz!!' or any other obvious review bombing, I ignore those reviews.

So, if a game had mixed reviews...(which, while I dont know how it was recently, I know Rome II had some issues in the past), and my skim was a bunch of review bombs, with real reviews being overshadowed....well, I might buy something of a quality I would normally skip, because of those reviews drowning out legitimate negative feedback.

So, there's a theoretical way that stirring up a review bombing could earn a profit. Combinations of people purchasing to back 'the right side of history' and muddying the waters on the actual quality of the game by perverting the user review tools.

Gethsemani:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

You DO NOW though ._.
Totally not blatantly constructed, fake controversy.

It is not that I don't appreciate the time or energy you put into this explanation. However, Occam's Razor suggest that the theory that goes:
1. A vocal minority react with intense hostility towards anything they feel "panders to SJWs"
2. They caught wind of the changes in Rome 2
3. They got outraged because this fits their idea of "pandering to SJWs"
is much more likely as a reason then theory that goes:
1. CA wants some spotlight for Rome 2
2. CA realizes Rome 2 is tanking and doesn't want to use marketing budget for this
3. CA gets an employee to create an account on Stormfront
4. Said employee then doctors a screenshot from Rome 2 and pretends to be upset
5. CA then, somehow (infiltration?) gets all the usual suspects that rage against "pander to SJWs" to react negatively
6. CA then review bombs their own game
7. CA profits from this

As for your actual question. I played Rome 2 some 2 months ago, though I admittedly haven't gotten any of the new DLCs. However, judging by the fact that CA resumed support for Rome 2 and that it remains fairly high in the list of most played Steam games (as of this writing it is the second most played Total War game with 4,000 players, surpassed by Warhammer 2 with 6,500) I think we can also assume that CA is making some sort of profit off of Rome 2.

I appreciate your view on this and shared plight to make things simple and not overthink it. However I disagree with proposed initial causation (not to mention snarky points 3-6). Admittedly, we can bring this down to what was first, egg or chicken dispute. But I argue that more likely it is a case of being able to toss a single snowball to cause immediate avalanche environment in place and CA not seeing a problem to do this. To yes, creating a buzz around failing product they invested resources into.

I'd ask if you agree that both CA's relations with its modder community as well as internal relationship within gaming community on cultural issues aren't something that requires just a gentle prod to instantly ignite and spiral out of control?

How hard would be for CA to refrain from any antagonizing comments and just shut down initial stink instantly. Answer is not at all. They do it constantly with people accusing them of everything under the sun, when it turns out that they will nickel and dime yet again for dlc-s/expansions (imho CA practise in this matter is fine), ninja changes post launch (these aren't fine) or that they got a name, attire or 'tit' armor or whatever wrong from history/lore point of view and modders now 'need' to correct it.

I don't read/visit/care for actual ethno-nationalist ideologues content and I will not rely on accounts of 3rd parties, that 'play' with them.
The name you brought up, I clearly recall from first giving loud endorsement to most popular Youtuber, than shortly after switching and giving loud attention craving endorsement to 2 journalists who smeared that person in the first place. They were VERY happy to be utilized by both sides as feces to throw at one another. To me, they look like people who will pull ANY stunt and tack onto ANY shitstorm to redirect some attention to their content in hopes to find people sufficiently morally bankrupt to share their ideology. Not a place or source I would bet anything on.

That's why I prefaced with plea to not go giving attention to the garbage mill already created around this but focus on the only party that can have any stake in this.

Look at the data from full year or 5 years, not just recent month. I stand by what I argue, I simply don't buy the story that CA suddenly got 'under fire' by 'evildoers' and lost their ability to navigate such situations. That given circumstance and outcome of this situation for CA.

I also would like people to stop buying into such narratives. The sooner 'gamers' stop falling for this sort of marketing ploys the better. Simply, if you stop reacting to these provocations they will be rendered useless and cease to be used.
It will be better for developers and publishers too. Maybe they would concentrate more on quality and their customers requests rather than using underhanded marketing tactics. IMO CA hurt their brand (TW) even though they clearly won out short term on this. Time will tell.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

How hard would be for CA to refrain from any antagonizing comments and just shut down initial stink instantly. Answer is not at all. They do it constantly with people accusing them of everything under the sun, when it turns out that they will nickel and dime yet again for dlc-s/expansions (imho CA practise in this matter is fine), ninja changes post launch (these aren't fine) or that they got a name, attire or 'tit' armor or whatever wrong from history/lore point of view and modders now 'need' to correct it.

It wouldn't be hard, but CA seems to be among the increasing number of companies (that weirdly includes EA) that have decided to no longer silently endorse the vocal minority that loudly and aggressively calls for the exclusion of women and minorities in games. As you say, CA has a fine history of spin doctoring. This is actually a point against your theory, since CA's PR department has been good enough, historically, that they don't need to manufacture outrage, they are plenty good at driving hype anyway.

Jamcie Kerbizz:
That's why I prefaced with plea to not go giving attention to the garbage mill already created around this but focus on the only party that can have any stake in this.

See, I disagree with the idea that only one party can have any stake in this. The minority that has been protesting the inclusion of women in games has used the last year to show that they will absolutely protest any game they perceive as 'pandering to SJWs'. The BFV teaser trailer was just the last in a long line of outrages that women are present in a game. That the same people would feel the need to loudly and aggressively proclaim how bad CA is for including women as generals in Rome 2 isn't a long stretch, it follows quite naturally. And these guys obviously feel that they have a stake in keeping portrayals of women out of games, for whatever reason.

Jamcie Kerbizz:
Look at the data from full year or 5 years, not just recent month. I stand by what I argue, I simply don't buy the story that CA suddenly got 'under fire' by 'evildoers' and lost their ability to navigate such situations. That given circumstance and outcome of this situation for CA.

Which, once again, requires the assumption that CA isn't actually doing what several other game developers and producers have been doing lately and denouncing the silly outrage over the inclusion of women. Whether they do it out of some moral conviction or because they think it will help drive sales to other customers is another question.

Jamcie Kerbizz:
I also would like people to stop buying into such narratives. The sooner 'gamers' stop falling for this sort of marketing ploys the better. Simply, if you stop reacting to these provocations they will be rendered useless and cease to be used.
It will be better for developers and publishers too. Maybe they would concentrate more on quality and their customers requests rather than using underhanded marketing tactics. IMO CA hurt their brand (TW) even though they clearly won out short term on this. Time will tell.

You know, I still remember when 'Fake Gamer Girls' were a thing people bought into. I remember when Anita Sarkeesian rose to prominence as the 'New Jack Thompson' and when a female game developer got a hate train after her because her ex boyfriend accused her of sleeping around for good reviews of her free game. As a woman who plays games, I find it much easier to believe that a vocal minority of gamers are misogynistic ass hats who absolutely can't stand the idea of women getting representation in their precious games and will kick up a shitstorm any time they can to try and stop it, then I find it to believe that a game developer with a reputation for excellent PR would manufacture a controversy around their own half decade old game to drive sales.

I am not seeing any narrative here, all I am seeing is the same pattern of entitled manbabies who can't handle women being in their games or in their hobby that I've seen for the last 20 years as a gaming woman.

Gethsemani:
The BFV teaser trailer was just the last in a long line of outrages that women are present in a game.

To be fair, many said (and I agree) that the initial trailer was pretty crummy regardless of the presence of the girl.

Course the whole female thing got blown out of proportion afterwards, but if someone said the initial teaser was crap in of itself, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Gethsemani:
(snip)

I should have been more precise, stake = money. Everything else is irrelevant to companies. Even when they claim otherwise, in the end it always just comes down to immediate or perceived source of money.
I will not further divulge into dissecting what side has what stake understood as calling the other side 'names' and feeling good about themselves. Because both do and both are equally irrelevant.

I agree with direction Elijin refered to when you look for actual stakes in this. I'd add to that purely speculative argument of why CA decided to go back to Rome 2 . My bet is that due to very poor launch and need for immediate focus on fixing broken game post launch, they missed project's launch window for a lot of usual, planned game assets (typical CA style).
They went with finishing the job now and pushing them out this year but majority of their TW audience already switched to their newer titles.
To me it's just a lot of good willed 'lets not let this good work go to waste', not going the way planned and marketing hotshot promising that 'they can fix this no problems, no costs'.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

It's sad to see that you let a couple of vocal people dictate what you identify as

I didn't say that thousands of gamers were like shireking banshees. I said I had personally SEEN thousands of them. In fact, a good portion of the gamers I've had the displeasure of interacting with were gamers that I wish I hadn't. Around half. Too many for me to feel that the title of gamer is worth it. There's no pride to be had in the title. It's been dragged through the mud by people who are too proud of the idea of angry gamers.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

You can identify however you like, I don't care if you don't identify as a gamer, I don't.

You have an odd way of showing it.

Specifics according to the developers:

tl;dr: 10% - 15% chance of female characters being recruitable generals; except for Greek States, Rome, Carthage and some Eastern Factions (those have 0%) and Kush (that last one has 50%)

erttheking:

I didn't say that thousands of gamers were like shireking banshees. I said I had personally SEEN thousands of them. In fact, a good portion of the gamers I've had the displeasure of interacting with were gamers that I wish I hadn't. Around half. Too many for me to feel that the title of gamer is worth it. There's no pride to be had in the title. It's been dragged through the mud by people who are too proud of the idea of angry gamers.

Sure, you've seen thousands of them (And how many of them considers themselves to be gamers?) and then you've seen millions of people who aren't like them. I just think you're putting everything under one roof.

erttheking:

You have an odd way of showing it.

Not calling yourself a gamer because you are ashamed of gamers is a dumb reason though, that is all.

Gethsemani:
The BFV teaser trailer was just the last in a long line of outrages that women are present in a game.

People aren't unhappy just because there are women in a game, there are plenty of shooter games where you can play as women, no one cares that there are women in lets say Black Ops 3 or 4.

-Flaming pigs.
-Daughters of Mars.
-Bee throwing catapults.
-Berserkers that can throw 5 people around like they are ragdolls at the same time.

Why is this an issue again?

Also this update was release a month ago and yet nobody said anything, its like.. the people that actually played the game didnt care.

And we have archwarhammer (which speaks by itself seriously check his political videos) and mister "i dont play anymore total war games im jumping to paradox games o wait that didnt get me many views im back to tw games" legendoftotalwar

and i think arch actually backtracked his statement later.

Total war has never been all that historically accurate, often leaning into historical myths and stereotypes just to cater to the image of a period in the common imagination to make it more entertaining. There have also been female troops in the game for years, as well as in Rome 1. And there were female commanders in this era,notably Boudica, but also many others. It wasn't the norm, but neither was it non-existent

sonofliber:
-Flaming pigs.
-Daughters of Mars.
-Bee throwing catapults.
-Berserkers that can throw 5 people around like they are ragdolls at the same time.

Why is this an issue again?

Also this update was release a month ago and yet nobody said anything, its like.. the people that actually played the game didnt care.

And we have archwarhammer (which speaks by itself seriously check his political videos) and mister "i dont play anymore total war games im jumping to paradox games o wait that didnt get me many views im back to tw games" legendoftotalwar

and i think arch actually backtracked his statement later.

Also the dual-wielding Roman ninjas from Rome 1 and the screaming women unit, and almost every nation having access to siege weapons they should not have had at all. There's a reason actual historical sticklers tend to like to make realism mods for the various games, Total war has always practiced the "hollywood" school of history at best.

As for why this is a thing? I always chalk it up to hypervigilance developed over time due to people getting into constant political arguments over the topic. Some people become so emotionally invested in the topic that their perception becomes skewed and what was once overlooked in the past now gets picked apart because they've turned fighting it into a core political or personal belief.

Where before, the topic would have largely been overlooked or relegated to small discussions, you now have some people on constant guard for what they perceive as attacks on their core beliefs or interests, so something that might have been overlooked as an innocuous developer decision is now seen as potentially politically or agenda motivated.

Then you get something like a Backfire Effect, when people start to perceive things like this as challenging a strongly held belief, rather than just accept the new information, you now have a motivated group that wants to hold on to the belief that these types of changes are outside the norm, or emotionally effect the "authenticity" of the product.

So the Internet threw a hissy fit over something without first checking its authenticity? Why am I not surprised by this?

EDIT: And another thing, since when did these people care so much about historical accuracy? I don't recall anyone except Yahtzee complaining about how historically inaccurate Battlefield-1 was. I guess people only care when it involves women or some perceived SJW agenda?

Canadamus Prime:
So the Internet threw a hissy fit over something without first checking its authenticity? Why am I not surprised by this?

EDIT: And another thing, since when did these people care so much about historical accuracy? I don't recall anyone except Yahtzee complaining about how historically inaccurate Battlefield-1 was. I guess people only care when it involves women or some perceived SJW agenda?

Fearmongering, man. If they ran out of strawmen, what would they threw fits over?

CaitSeith:

Canadamus Prime:
So the Internet threw a hissy fit over something without first checking its authenticity? Why am I not surprised by this?

EDIT: And another thing, since when did these people care so much about historical accuracy? I don't recall anyone except Yahtzee complaining about how historically inaccurate Battlefield-1 was. I guess people only care when it involves women or some perceived SJW agenda?

Fearmongering, man. If they ran out of strawmen, what would they threw fits over?

I don't know. Spilled milk maybe.

This whole event was enough for me to drop the Total War subreddit, what a shock to learn it was the same few suspects riling people up about a single image of dubious legitimacy. I don't see the big deal with it personally, I've been breaking history since I've conquered the ancient world as Carthage multiple times. At the most all Creative Assembly should is make an option, but if they don't want to mods are always an option.

Elfgore:
This whole event was enough for me to drop the Total War subreddit, what a shock to learn it was the same few suspects riling people up about a single image of dubious legitimacy. I don't see the big deal with it personally, I've been breaking history since I've conquered the ancient world as Carthage multiple times. At the most all Creative Assembly should is make an option, but if they don't want to mods are always an option.

To be fair to r/totalwar it seemed to me as if most of the regulars responded with "get your filthy politics out of my gaming discussion!" when people tried to start the controversy there. They were heavily brigaded for a few days, but the mods did an admirable job keeping the worst of the trolling under control. Considering it was a gaming subreddit and their usual crankiness, I think r/totalwar handled the entire thing well. The general sentiment seems to have been along your lines, that the game never was very realistic and who cares if some of your general choices are women, just pick another general.

A developer giving players more options and variety in their game is never a bad thing. Honestly I don't give a shit how historically accurate or inaccurate the content is. I don't play the Total War series for historical accuracy I play them to have fun and I don't see how adding female generals will make the game unfun for me.

Bat Vader:
A developer giving players more options and variety in their game is never a bad thing. Honestly I don't give a shit how historically accurate or inaccurate the content is. I don't play the Total War series for historical accuracy I play them to have fun and I don't see how adding female generals will make the game unfun for me.

Hah I take you've never seen invasion of morbidly obese albino wookies accompanied by phat hawt pink pants wearing mon calamari onto happy community of role players :P Developers should think of what they make available in their games to players, because one thing that they can be sure of, is that tools and options they provide will be tested and taken into extremes.

However here it doesn't even matter.
This whole 'problem' is just artificial controversy and irresponsible guerilla marketing.

LoL - but, but "The Historical Accuracy of Total War Games!" "The storytelling of Total War Games!"

1) Do you have any idea how many major global conflicts had results predicated on one side having access to technology or an idea that the other did not? A Total War game as unevenly balanced as history would be either a cake walk or nearly impossible. Total War Kingdoms, where the Aztecs aren't being ravaged by disease and have a decent chance to take over Europe? Really? More plausible than a Polly Oliver or a Boudica having a command position? Uh-huh.

2) The idea that it damages the storytelling is even more absurd. How does the existence of a female ruin a story?

Belaam:
2) The idea that it damages the storytelling is even more absurd. How does the existence of a female ruin a story?

It ruins immersion because it's inauthentic. Inserting a woman into a place where a woman wouldn't be is as jarring as putting an F-18 Hornet into a WW2 game. Assuming it was like BF5, inserted for the sake of social justice, it runs counter to the setting, sacrificing authenticity for leftist social justice agenda. That is the issue. Why don't they give the army a UFO or submarine unit in addition to a female general? It's equally absurd.

They could make a game in a modern or sci fi setting and it would be fine. Star Wars shows Mon Mothma and Leia Organa as leaders and generals and it fits the setting fine. The issue is one of context and authenticity and the ongoing battle of the arts vs leftist SJWs.

KingsGambit:

Belaam:
2) The idea that it damages the storytelling is even more absurd. How does the existence of a female ruin a story?

Inserting a woman into a place where a woman wouldn't be

You'd first have to convince yourself that's the kind of place we are talking about. But that's not the setting they chose (they chose one that went beyond "History 101 for Dummies").

KingsGambit:
the ongoing battle of the arts vs leftist SJWs.

You just described an imaginary battle.

CaitSeith:
You just described an imaginary battle.

It's not imaginary. It's happening right now in this thread. Social justice vs those who don't care for political agendas ruining games, particularly a far-left ideology. I answered a question, that *is* the reason gamers have an issue. You don't have to like the reason, you can accept that others feel that way. It's called empathy, understanding what someone other than you thinks and feels about an issue.

There's a controversy because of social justice, that's the title of this thread. I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand.

KingsGambit:

CaitSeith:
You just described an imaginary battle.

It's not imaginary. It's happening right now in this thread. Social justice vs those who don't care for political agendas ruining games, particularly a far-left ideology. I answered a question, that *is* the reason gamers have an issue. You don't have to like the reason, you can accept that others feel that way. It's called empathy, understanding what someone other than you thinks and feels about an issue.

There's a controversy because of social justice, that's the title of this thread. I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand.

I have my limits when trying to understand paranoids and conspiracy theorist before my empathy becomes insincere, sorry. I'm a gamer, but I also search for the truth in gaming (be it past or present). I have seen gaming changing without stop since before Mario was born. I have seen countless studios rise and fall through decades. I have seeing genres that seemed once perpetual and immutable becoming all but abandoned or changed to a former shadow of themselves, and witnessed the forces behind it.

Believe me when I say, I have empathy when games get ruined; driven away from the artists' control into something unenjoyable for anyone. And I rarely have seen political agendas (left, right or center) be the cause of it; that's where my empathy stops and my skepticism begins.

KingsGambit:
It ruins immersion because it's inauthentic.

While everything else that's inauthentic is fine, right?

Inserting a woman into a place where a woman wouldn't be is as jarring as putting an F-18 Hornet into a WW2 game.

No, it really isn't, and I suspect even you're aware of that.

The F-18 was first deployed in 1995. It's literally impossible for them to be there. Women have existed in their current form for at least a million years, and did exist in the 1940s. As unlikely as it is for them to be on the battlefield, unlike a 1990s fighter jet, it's at least technically possible.

Also, UFOs? Seriously?

https://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Jetpack

I'm going to leave this here. Because apparently that's the kind of historical licence that's fine.

Assuming it was like BF5, inserted for the sake of social justice, it runs counter to the setting, sacrificing authenticity for leftist social justice agenda. That is the issue. Why don't they give the army a UFO or submarine unit in addition to a female general? It's equally absurd.

Okay, seriously, are you Agent Mulder? Because you seem obsessed with UFOs.

Then again, Mulder never had problems working alongside a woman, so maybe not...

But no, UFOs and submarines are more rediculous than female generals, because the former is sci-fi, and the latter didn't exist until the 20th century. These are absolutely absurd, strawman examples.

The issue is one of context and authenticity and the ongoing battle of the arts vs leftist SJWs.

And yet "authenticity" only became an issue when "dem women" were involved.

Can't comment on Total War much (only that I once played Rome: Total War, and once used an army entirely made of catapaults, because, "authentic," but BF5 is a similar example of hypocrisy on "authenticity."

KingsGambit:
It's not imaginary. It's happening right now in this thread.

...

...

...you mean the battle where on one side, there's you, screaming "SJWs," and on the other side, everyone else going "da fuq?"

That isn't a battle. That's Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling.

Social justice vs those who don't care for political agendas ruining games, particularly a far-left ideology. I answered a question, that *is* the reason gamers have an issue. You don't have to like the reason, you can accept that others feel that way. It's called empathy, understanding what someone other than you thinks and feels about an issue.

This just in folks, women in games is far left, and women in WWII and the ancient world is just as absurd as submarines, UFOs, and strike fighters. 0_0

Find it curious that no-one ever complains about genuinely political games (e.g. Metal Gear or Call of Duty - they're drastically different in their approach to the subject matter).

Also, my empathy runs short when the point of contention is so absurd.

There's a controversy because of social justice, that's the title of this thread. I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand.

No, the title of this thread is "Total War devs are being beset by controversy and sadly its about "SJW" politics." Emphasis on "SJW," as a point of mockery.

But yeah, sure.

Y'know, this used to be fun in a kind of perverse way, but now it's just sad.

Angry panda made me sad. :(

KingsGambit:
It ruins immersion because it's inauthentic.

See Point 1. A female general is far less authentic than the idea that the Aztecs could have shrugged off European plagues, developed military technology on par with the best in the world at the time, and successfully invaded Europe, claiming its cities as their own.

That you personally find the former to be more upsetting is ... odd.

as is the claim that this is

Social justice vs those who don't care for political agendas ruining games

You've yet to give any credible reason why a female character "ruins" a game. The historical rant is clearly false given all the other ahistorical stuff in TW games (I mean, it's not like they're Crusader Kings 2"; if realism was what you liked in a game, you'd more likely be there instead), yet nothing else has been offered.

Hawki:

KingsGambit:
It ruins immersion because it's inauthentic.

While everything else that's inauthentic is fine, right?

Maybe. Maybe not. No video game is going to be perfectly historically accurate. But it's about the ability to suspend disbelief, which is going to vary from person to person for different things.

I think most people can tune out minor historical inaccuracies. But for some people it's more difficult to tune out a huge blaring, angry sign that says THIS IMPOSSIBLE THING IS HERE BECAUSE WE'RE PUSHING A HEAVY-HANDED IDENTITY POLITICS AGENDA AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU ARE A MISOGYNIST PIG AND A TERRIBLE HUMAN BEING!!! AHHHHHHHH!!!!!

You try to play the game and ignore it, but damnit, there it is, glaring at you in the face. Yelling at you. It's really annoying.

Some people just hate identity politics. And so they're not going to like it in their games. Identity politics is a dead end. It leads to tribalism, divisiveness, and endless, fruitless, pointless bickering, and if it ever succeeds in taking over a government, it has always led to the enslavement, torture, and murder of millions historically. That's its track record. It's a bad track record.

All that said, it looks like the women generals can be modded out. So if was playing the game, and it bugged me, I would just mod it out. Problem fixed.

Kerg3927:
Some people just hate identity politics. And so they're not going to like it in their games. Identity politics is a dead end. It leads to tribalism, divisiveness, and endless, fruitless, pointless bickering, and if it ever succeeds in taking over a government, it has always led to the enslavement, torture, and murder of millions historically. That's its track record. It's a bad track record.

Better get a helmet on because I'm about to blow your mind..

You being angry about women being in your video games and reading political meaning into the presence of women in games is identity politics. It's just bad identity politics.

I get that identity politics has become a right wing internet buzzword for thum libruls! but before then it did actually have a meaning, it referred to the historically evidenced phenomena that many of the political conflicts of the late 19th century onward centred on identity, and what forms of human being could or should be tolerated in different areas of society. Suffragettes felt that women should have votes because women were a part of the human race, anti-suffragettes felt that giving women votes would destroy society. These are both forms of identity politics. The civil rights movement believed that people of different races should have the same basic rights, while their opponents believed (and continued to believe) in a natural racial order in which whites were superior to other races and should have a privileged position within society. These are both forms of identity politics. When Trump talks about cutting taxes for the "middle class", identity politics. When the American right rallies around the labels like "deplorable", that's identity politics. When gamergate talked about "gamers", identity politics.

The ironic thing is that the thing you're attacking as identity politics, that is to say progressive identity politics, is not "tribal" or "divisive" at all, because it's based on the idea of universal equality, interchangeability and inclusion. What you're arguing is that we all need to care passionately and deeply and get weirdly angry for some reason because the developers of a video game chose to depict women in positions of leadership which were historically uncommon for women in those societies, presumably for commercial reasons. Which of those positions do you think is actually divisive?

KingsGambit:
It ruins immersion because it's inauthentic. Inserting a woman into a place where a woman wouldn't be is as jarring as putting an F-18 Hornet into a WW2 game

You mean like Gladiators being present on battlefields, fighting in the Legions? You mean like the disparate tribes of people all over Europe being collectively labelled as "Gallic", despite the fact that even the traditional "Gauls" did not see themselves as a unified people or culture? You mean like poor, isolated and sparsely populated desert kingdoms somehow working up the military prowess to conquer all of Europe? You mean like Ptolemaic Egypt somehow having a culture and aesthetic that draws more heavily on the Old Dynasties than the Hellenic culture that it actually was? You mean like Rome somehow being able to create chain mail prior to meeting the Gallic tribes they traditionally learned it from?

Look, I get the authenticity argument and I would be right behind it if Total War was a game that strictly adhered to authenticity. But as I think my few (there are many more from Rome 2 alone) examples show, Total War isn't terribly bothered with being authentic if authenticity clashes with coolness factor or fun gameplay. The fact that some people draw the line at women being generals tells us more about those people then it does about Total War, CA or some nebulous ongoing culture war.

KingsGambit:

Belaam:
2) The idea that it damages the storytelling is even more absurd. How does the existence of a female ruin a story?

It ruins immersion because it's inauthentic. Inserting a woman into a place where a woman wouldn't be is as jarring as putting an F-18 Hornet into a WW2 game. Assuming it was like BF5, inserted for the sake of social justice, it runs counter to the setting, sacrificing authenticity for leftist social justice agenda. That is the issue. Why don't they give the army a UFO or submarine unit in addition to a female general? It's equally absurd.

They could make a game in a modern or sci fi setting and it would be fine. Star Wars shows Mon Mothma and Leia Organa as leaders and generals and it fits the setting fine. The issue is one of context and authenticity and the ongoing battle of the arts vs leftist SJWs.

Except there's no battle of the arts here because SJWs didn't force Creative Assembly to put female generals in their game. Creative Assembly created the content themselves and added it to their game themselves because they wanted to not because they were forced to.

From what I've played of it and what I have read about it all it seems to do is make females recruitable to be generals, it doesn't just make them generals out of the blue. Players that don't want female generals don't have to recruit them where as players that want female generals can recruit them.

KingsGambit:

Belaam:
2) The idea that it damages the storytelling is even more absurd. How does the existence of a female ruin a story?

It ruins immersion because it's inauthentic. Inserting a woman into a place where a woman wouldn't be is as jarring as putting an F-18 Hornet into a WW2 game. Assuming it was like BF5, inserted for the sake of social justice, it runs counter to the setting, sacrificing authenticity for leftist social justice agenda. That is the issue. Why don't they give the army a UFO or submarine unit in addition to a female general? It's equally absurd.

Women leading armies in the classical era is something that actually happened, albeit less often than men leading armies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare

Now it is fair to say that the proportion of female generals should be lower than 10-15%, but it shouldn't be 0% either. We can fix the excess of female generals quite easily by modding the percentages. If there were no female generals, the proportion would also be incorrect but modding them in would require the creation of extra content.

I'm not seeing a big issue here. There have always been much greater inaccuracies. What about burning down iron gates by throwing torches at them?

KingsGambit:
It ruins immersion because it's inauthentic.

But 8 headed mythical dragons and Japanese sengoku era figures in your game supposedly based on the 3 Kingdoms era of China isn't?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here