I Just Want to Have Fun

[Falkeep]

I sort of wrote on this is an earlier post (that no one seems to have read) but, the reason I play CKIII, and the reason I played CKII is because I started playing CKI seriously but eventually found little fun in playing it straight. I am not here to be an Ironman, or to prove anything to anyone else... or to myself. I just like the idea of a medieval Europe that I can mess around in. As I said earlier I just want a sandbox to waste a LOT of time in... and I mean hundreds of hours.

I customize the traits of my characters and my people, in kind of the same way as people who will intricately paint miniatures or models for tabletop gaming. I generally play a custom Welsh character and I like to wipe the Anglo-Saxons and the Irish into extinction (although the game seems to insist that, even if I kill all of them, more will pop up.

I like to seduce the wives of other kings and nobles and put my progeny in place to inherit their realms and titles. But, the last week or so I have been trying to do this and the game seems determined to prevent it. I have a feast or tournament but only once have I used the seduce intent and had the game allow me targets that meet that goal. Usually, my targets are unmarried courtiers of my own court. Also, when trying to use the regular seduce function IT TAKES A YEAR!!! Even for lowborn courtiers in my own court. At the very least, give us the options of high, middle, and low-level seductions based on rank and distance from our own characters. And, if the person you are trying to seduce go to an event with you, allow that seduction to continue, rather than stop it for most of a year while to do the ridiculously long events. I would also like to see a console option (like being able to have another character develop a crush one me) where I can have another character try to seduce me? Also, in CKII, you could make two other characters into lovers, even if those relationships aren't appropriate. I loved discovering who were disciples of the Devil and REALLY screwing with them. Causing chaos is another way that I like to have fun.

As for invitations, why am I limited to who I can invite? Why can't I go around the map and invite anyone (male or females, noble or wife) who is within diplomatic range? They don't have to accept, and the numbers (and distance) who do accept and show up are a very real indication of the prestige and importance of your character.

And, please, explain to me why if someone pops up and wants a duel while I am travelling it costs me 30 days? And events are another thing that will take up most of an entire year to hold or attend. And, yet, we are stuck there for all of that time and can't even visit the limited number of locations at the event more than once every 20 days... so, why are we stuck there with nothing to do for most of that time while it interrupts our day-to-day business, even if we are in our own realm.

Why is there a 5-year cool down before you can hold another Court? Every titled and landed lord should HAVE to have at least one court a year or their own nobles and people would see it as a sign of weakness.

Why do I keep seeing female characters who end "come home" beat up and bloody" (deep cuts on their faces) without even an explanation of what happened to them, or a change for me to avenge whoever it was that attacked them? Why are women, who are not combatants showing up with more injuries, especially to their faces, than warriors? What the hell is the in-game purpose and excuse for that?

I have already written posts about creating religions and a couple of other things, so I won't also go into them here. My basic argument, however, is for the designers to not try to make us all deadly serious about playing their game. Allow some of us who just want to have fun, have fun. Allowing us to have fun in no way harms or limits those who want to play seriously. Unfortunately, the opposite is not true.

P.S. -- Why can't I just easily designate who will be my Regent?

[The Former]

You can designate your regent. The regent tutorial should tell you how.

[Falkeep]

Originally posted by Lockfågel, Paradoxriddaren:

You can designate your regent. The regent tutorial should tell you how.

Ah, so it's ANOTHER non-intuitive thing in the design? Good to know. In CKII, it was a court position that you assigned just like the Court Physician or the Master of the Hunt.

[The Former]

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Originally posted by Lockfågel, Paradoxriddaren:

You can designate your regent. The regent tutorial should tell you how.

Ah, so it's ANOTHER non-intuitive thing in the design? Good to know. In CKII, it was a court position that you assigned just like the Court Physician or the Master of the Hunt.

I wouldn't call it non-intuitive, more... In CK2, it was a superficial thing. Basically just a name next to your underage ruler. In CK3, it's a complex mechanic in its own right where there's a power struggle tied to it and a bunch of other stuff, so they gave it its own window.

[Dizzy Ladybug]

CK3 is a lot more fun when you try to play within its rule-set and stop questioning everything. I'm sure the "war games" you played back in school had their own rules and limitations :)

[Razorblade]

So what exactly do you want, more game options to disable things like cooldowns and travel times? There's a lot of "woe-is-me, the casual" in your post, but not a clear indication of what you actually want. A bulleted list of what you want, and maybe why you want it, would be a lot more effective discussion material than the stream of consciousness about "anti-casual bias" you provided.

Side note, CK3 isn't a particularly difficult game. It's mechanically dense, sure, but a bit of experience with those mechanics makes the game pretty much a cakewalk. Moreover, there are myriad options to make the game easier for "casuals," whereas there are no options to make the game more difficult for "hardcore" players. Your "hardcore-bias" narrative is complete fiction.

[Falkeep]

Originally posted by dizzy ladybug:

CK3 is a lot more fun when you try to play within its rule-set and stop questioning everything. I'm sure the "war games" you played back in school had their own rules and limitations :)

Please, do NOT tell me "what is more fun" to me. And, yes... as I said, I did my time as a serious war gamer... even to a stab at creating my own... kind of a cross between 'Diplomacy' and 'Axis & Allies.' It was very serious. I even included prisoners of war and war crimes into it. Maybe one day I'll did it out and work on it some more. But, THIS is not serious war gaming to me, and I stopped playing war games seriously when they stopped being fun.

I collect board games (I have, for example, 12 different variations of 'Axis & Allies,' but I don't play them because I don't have any actual friends I can let loose with anymore. I also have been collecting Steam games. I don't know off-hand just how many I have. Dozens of them. Most of them I will never get around to playing but I have them because it I enjoy collecting games (and books, and other things) but I long ago stopped making any of it about fitting in with any other people or any kind of a group.

I am playing this because I find it fun to work around things, to problem solve and, yes, to create chaos in my world. I've never played any game of any edition of CK more than a few generations because it stops being fun, and I start a new game. Doing it like this, however, DOES give me a chance to kind of analyze the game design because I push things.

Some of the aspects are, again, fun to discover and try to work around. Others are simply annoying because they make no sense and detract from game play. For example, if I want to seduce one of my courtiers, it should not waste a year of my game time. If I want to seduce a queen from another kingdom, okay, I understand that. Having a feast in my own Realm should NOT take most of a year AND prevent me from doing other things, like seducing a courtier. Also, *I* should be allowed to chose who I want to invite, without the game limiting me because of... whatever. In fact, one of the things that is frustrating me is that the game purposely puts up roadblocks to controlling my own player character from the unrealistic choices and artificial rules. I also used to like coloring outside the line when I was in kindergarten. AND, screwing around with the game like I do makes these things come up with much greater frequency, so I encounter them sooner and see them build up over time more than some other players might.

But, in short (too late), I know what I find fun and enjoyable. You don't know me or much of anything about me so, how why would you thing you can tell me what I do and don't find to be fun.

[Harris]

Originally posted by Falkeep:

I like to wipe the Anglo-Saxons and the Irish into extinction (although the game seems to insist that, even if I kill all of them, more will pop up.

Just assimilate them? Will take time you are not using to develop your capital, but on the bright side you'll end with a monoculture and it's always easier to manage the realm/vassals like that.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Also, when trying to use the regular seduce function IT TAKES A YEAR!!!

There was no Tinder during the time period, to deliver your every message a courier had to get on a horse and travel thousands of kilometers every time. So one year is generous I'd say.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Also, in CKII, you could make two other characters into lovers, even if those relationships aren't appropriate.

I honestly struggle to see any practical application. You make your two vassals lovers and now they're jointly in a faction against you and are dedicated to bring you down, nice.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

As for invitations, why am I limited to who I can invite? Why can't I go around the map and invite anyone (male or females, noble or wife) who is within diplomatic range?

That's a good question. A way to get good characters for your court outside of a high intrugue abduction would be very much welcome.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

And, please, explain to me why if someone pops up and wants a duel while I am travelling it costs me 30 days?

Just the game's way to "punish" you for travelling through high danger territory.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Why is there a 5-year cool down before you can hold another Court? Every titled and landed lord should HAVE to have at least one court a year or their own nobles and people would see it as a sign of weakness.

There are a lot of beneficial events you can get from Court, so it's a balance thing.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Why do I keep seeing female characters who end "come home" beat up and bloody" (deep cuts on their faces) without even an explanation of what happened to them

Domestic abuse of course, but since they are basically property of their husbands during the time period, they can't really tell you about it.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

My basic argument, however, is for the designers to not try to make us all deadly serious about playing their game.

Sister-daughter-concubine-lover-friend-archbishop goes brrrr

[Falkeep]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

So what exactly do you want, more game options to disable things like cooldowns and travel times? There's a lot of "woe-is-me, the casual" in your post, but not a clear indication of what you actually want. A bulleted list of what you want, and maybe why you want it, would be a lot more effective discussion material than the stream of consciousness about "anti-casual bias" you provided.

Side note, CK3 isn't a particularly difficult game. It's mechanically dense, sure, but a bit of experience with those mechanics makes the game pretty much a cakewalk. Moreover, there are myriad options to make the game easier for "casuals," whereas there are no options to make the game more difficult for "hardcore" players. Your "hardcore-bias" narrative is complete fiction.

Well... FRAK! I had a whole answer written out before my cat jumped on my keyboard and I lost the whole thing. Note to Steam, maybe you could include a feature to save drafts are they are being written. This isn't the first time I've had this happen.

Now, no... those are not the things I want. Honestly, I'm not why it is so difficult to figure out what I want. The reasons my posts are long is because I make the effort to be clear and precise. I am autistic, I am a natural analyzer, and I am very precise with my language. Brevity is NOT something I let be a limiting factor.

You want a bulleted list of what I want? Well, I've written several posts in the last week that have come out of me playing the game for 325 hours in the last 3 or 4 weeks since I started playing so, I will give a few examples, including a couple from other posts.

1.) Having to go 5 years between holding a Royal Court is not only ridiculous but also unrealistic. A ruler who only held a court once every 5 years would be telling the world that he is weak and afraid of his job. Courts should be able to be held at least once a year.

2.) I don't have a problem with travel times, the travel times seem fine. What I DO have a problem with is that time being wasted. You are expected to leave for a feast or tourney (even ones of your own) months ahead of time. Along the way you might run into an idiot who wants a duel that will waste 30 days of your travelling time. At a tourney you have a few limited options of places you can go while you experience interminable months waiting for the tourney to happen. You can only visit one location ever 20 - 30 days and the actual combat will take days from start to finish. Have the time frames be more realistic. Be able to visit one location a day for maybe, say, a week while you wait for the actual event. A tournament should take no more than a month from start to finish, not most of a year. A feast should take no more than a week. Cool down times between events? Sure, especially a tournament, but what is the rational for no more than one feast every 5 years? Like a Royal Court, you should be able to hold at least one feast a year.

3.) What is the real world rational for a simple seduction, even of a lowborn courtier in your own court, take a year? The time it takes to complete a seduction should be determined by rank and distance. Sure, if you want to seduce a queen in Germany while you are in England, it is going to take a lot of time and effort. If are in Wales and want to seduce the Duchess or any courtiers in Mercia, it should take a LOT less time and the effort should be dependent on your own rank and how she views you. Seducing someone in your own court, should be much quicker and easier, although more difficult for one of your noble's wives than of an unmarried courtier of your own. There could be high, medium, and low seductions and you should be able to have one of each going on at a time.

4.) If you give your kids (especially infants) titles and lands, that doesn't mean that you wouldn't keep control of them, or that you wouldn't pick their court officers, especially their regents if you have to have them. Henry II might not have been the best father in history, but he is a great role model for a medieval king.

5.) For events, why can't I control for myself who I want to be invited (including spouses of nobles), at least within my diplomatic range? Whether or not they will accept my invitation would be an indicator of how important I am or how prestigious my Court is in the eyes of the world outside my realm. AND, I should get to chose to interact with whoever I want to (including attempted seductions) of those people who do attend the event.

6.) In debug mode, there is a button you can use to determine if someone will be a friend, a rival, a lover, etc. There is even one where you can make yourself the object of another character's crush. There should be one where I can make myself the object of an NPC's seduction.

7.) If I found my own religion, why can't I have a temporal Head of Faith with a theocratic clergy? Good old CoE, folks. Also, why can't I decide for myself what my foundational sins and virtues are (up to 5 year) and have adjustments made based on the tenets and doctrines I choose? If my original religion is Christianity, for example, I start with chastity being a virtue and lust being a sin. Why? Also, if I don't want chastity to be a virtue, that doesn't mean that I want lust to be also. Everything doesn't have to be polar opposites between sins and virtues. A neutral state also exist. And, why, when so many other things in the game use 5 choices or slots or whatever, can I only chose 3 tenets, especially if I have to use those to try to shape the sins and virtues of my religion?

8.) Why isn't there a simple and intuitive way to raise a local level or garrison to deal with raiders in one of my counties. I should have to raise my entire military and then try to cut that based on who gets raised before they leave for a rally point instead of just having my garrison or a local levy just being available to deal with local problems?

9.) The whole "accolade" system seems rather complicated and bothersome. Rather than me having to chose someone to give an accolade and then having an entire order using traits from that character, why can't I create an order, and what it stands for from scratch and then being able to elevate those who meet the criteria. Also, why can't I just knight someone and make them Sir (or Dame or whatever) with having to go through that whole mess.

10.) I leave on this note... all of the time and effort that goes into flavor packs, and animation, and all kinds of other stuff that has absolutely NO impact on game play is given the wrong priority. Game play and game mechanics should be the most important things to work on while costumes and hairdos are the secondary considerations. When I play 'Axis & Allies', I don't really care what uniform a general in one of the armies should be wearing, I worry about what start-up I use, or what game / rule variants will be used. I don't care about game music... in fact, in ANY game I play, I turn the music completely off. I don't care what clothes or armor an African low noble will be wearing. Focus on the actual game, not the arts and crafts.

There, is that better? I can give a lot more. AND, I don't think that these things are unreasonable or, that having them as options would damage the enjoyability of more serious players.

[Falkeep]

Originally posted by Harris:

Originally posted by Falkeep:

I like to wipe the Anglo-Saxons and the Irish into extinction (although the game seems to insist that, even if I kill all of them, more will pop up.

Just assimilate them? Will take time you are not using to develop your capital, but on the bright side you'll end with a monoculture and it's always easier to manage the realm/vassals like that.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Also, when trying to use the regular seduce function IT TAKES A YEAR!!!

There was no Tinder during the time period, to deliver your every message a courier had to get on a horse and travel thousands of kilometers every time. So one year is generous I'd say.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Also, in CKII, you could make two other characters into lovers, even if those relationships aren't appropriate.

I honestly struggle to see any practical application. You make your two vassals lovers and now they're jointly in a faction against you and are dedicated to bring you down, nice.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

As for invitations, why am I limited to who I can invite? Why can't I go around the map and invite anyone (male or females, noble or wife) who is within diplomatic range?

That's a good question. A way to get good characters for your court outside of a high intrugue abduction would be very much welcome.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

And, please, explain to me why if someone pops up and wants a duel while I am travelling it costs me 30 days?

Just the game's way to "punish" you for travelling through high danger territory.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Why is there a 5-year cool down before you can hold another Court? Every titled and landed lord should HAVE to have at least one court a year or their own nobles and people would see it as a sign of weakness.

There are a lot of beneficial events you can get from Court, so it's a balance thing.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Why do I keep seeing female characters who end "come home" beat up and bloody" (deep cuts on their faces) without even an explanation of what happened to them

Domestic abuse of course, but since they are basically property of their husbands during the time period, they can't really tell you about it.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

My basic argument, however, is for the designers to not try to make us all deadly serious about playing their game.

Sister-daughter-concubine-lover-friend-archbishop goes brrrr

I don't know how to break up the various points to address. I don't spend that much time on message boards. The comments I have made in this (and my other) threads are my way of processing what I have seen and experienced in my time playing this so, please, forgive me for not being able to do this as neatly (and well-done) as you did.

Some of what I have written about has to do with practical game play and some is about getting to putz around in a fantasy world having fun in ways that don't affect anyone else. I don't try to get other people to play with me and, visually, the game is really boring. You can't turn off the FoW and to get close enough to see the terrain features, etc. puts you too close to watch the whole board. So, I come up with ways to distract myself and to have fun. The seduction features are part of that. How does it change game play to have more or less flexibility to the seduction features, but it can be kind of fun to play around with them.

I also don't get judgmental about what other players enjoy. When I played D&D back in the early / mid 70s, I never understood how some players could chose to play evil characters because it was fun to them and increased how they had to immerse themselves in the role playing aspects of the game. Me? I never understood how people could have fun imagining themselves being evil. Eventually, I stopped playing. When computer games started showing up, I started playing around with RPG again, but never as part of any groups. Me, I play chaotic-good because that is my real personality. I am never tempted to play evil characters because I don't want to have to make evil choices.

I never involve anyone else in my games. I play by myself when I have time and get bored with TV. Games are what I use as palate cleanser when I need a break. And, part of my nature being chaotic and VERY anti-authoritarian, I do find it enjoyable to create some meaningless chaos in a simulated reality. A few weeks ago, I played around with a character from the Persian area because I wanted to play around with Zoroastrian character in a part of the map I never played in. It was interesting to really play around with different religions and no preconceived ideas about the way I wanted things to go. It's like I said earlier about trying to wipe-out the Anglo-Saxons and the Irish, with that character I had none of those pre-formed biases.

In that game, when I found evil characters who beat up others around them, I would jump into their shoes and makes their son's wives their own mistresses and other such things (I did a whole thing between a man and his two sons where they were all sleeping with each other wives, etc.). I enjoyed waiting for the secrets to come out and watch them tear their realm apart with internecine warfare. That was fun. However, when the most recent patch come along that wasn't compatible with those saved games, I started over again back in my usual Wales. I still like to sow chaos around me.

I'm back. I forgot about your Tinder comment. No, you are absolutely correct that there was no Tender in the middle ages. Instead, people actually interacted with each other. If they were in the same castle, they could make their interest known easily and it was frequently successful because they didn't have distractions like the internet and social media. If people were farther away they would write or travel because, again, what else was there for them to do between wars. And, going to events and trying to get laid was very common BECAUSE it might be an opportunity with a particular individual they might never see again... meaning "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." In those days, if they wanted to sleep with someone, like the milkmaid, and she required a full year to get through to her they would have long ago just moved on. There was plenty of sex. So, unless it was a VERY special case, seductions would not take that long.

As for your domestic abuse quip, well, aside from the fact that my Queen is NO ONE else's property, and if she came home looking like that, I would damn well find out what happened, and someone would probably end up dead after a LOT of pain and misery. You make light of domestic abuse but, something I have NEVER said I want to see is "rape" or being able to beat up other people who are weaker than me. If you think that is all okay without even finding out what happened, then you fit into the "misogyny and sadism" model I was referring to. THAT kind of abuse is also something that I want to play a game to distract me from in the real world. Sorry, that is the kind of evil thinking "role-playing" that I don't understand and a reason why I don't play games with other people anymore. Chaos is one think, cruelty and abuse is another thing altogether.

[grgazzels]

There are mods that will achieve some of things you may like. I'm sure some modders would consider doing some work that would change the different game mechanics you desire.

I also have a Switzerland play thru where I tweaked my character and every knight and there spouse so they were compatible and there was never cheating. I played tall and focused on development. Got the tech faster and best troops. Poked at the bigger realms to get attacked and wipe them out Game is heavily modded close to what you wanted.

Also have a lightly modded game playing as Roman, minor tweaks.

Also have a no mod run thru.

I play the the one I feel like playing at the time. Either my controlled realm, a role-play as a Roman or the crazy stuff only CK3 can give raw.

Just changing the tone of this conversation.

Cheers

[Kimlin]

Originally posted by grgazzels:

There are mods that will achieve some of things you may like. I'm sure some modders would consider doing some work that would change the different game mechanics you desire.

I also have a Switzerland play thru where I tweaked my character and every knight and there spouse so they were compatible and there was never cheating. I played tall and focused on development. Got the tech faster and best troops. Poked at the bigger realms to get attacked and wipe them out Game is heavily modded close to what you wanted.

Also have a lightly modded game playing as Roman, minor tweaks.

Also have a no mod run thru.

I play the the one I feel like playing at the time. Either my controlled realm, a role-play as a Roman or the crazy stuff only CK3 can give raw.

Just changing the tone of this conversation.

Cheers

Mods are really how you can tailor the game to whatever play style you prefer. Harder, easier, pop mechanics, knight mechanics. There’s a lot available with mods.

[Harris]

Originally posted by Falkeep:

"misogyny and sadism" model

With all due respect, ck3 takes places during the Middle Ages, and for the most part women's rights were nonexistent during the time period. Even noblewomen were very limited in what they could do. As a viking in 867, you can raid Paris, capture and take both princesses of France as your concubines - they will have to have sex with you even though you're a pagan and they hate your guts. That's literally legalized, culturally acceptable rape right there. But let's forget poor princesses of France for a moment and look at your queen. Have you ever wondered why are there options for you to befriend, seduce and romance her? Because by default, she doesn't know you, doesn't like you and doesn't want you. And yet, she still has to sleep with you because it's literally in her job description to give you heirs.

So are vikings the practitioners of "misogyny model"? Nope, it's rather you, Falkeep, are committing what Lucien Febvre called "a sin of anachronism" by applying today's standards to a time period when they made no sense.

[Falkeep]

Originally posted by Harris:

Originally posted by Falkeep:

"misogyny and sadism" model

With all due respect, ck3 takes places during the Middle Ages, and for the most part women's rights were nonexistent during the time period. Even noblewomen were very limited in what they could do. As a viking in 867, you can raid Paris, capture and take both princesses of France as your concubines - they will have to have sex with you even though you're a pagan and they hate your guts. That's literally legalized, culturally acceptable rape right there. But let's forget poor princesses of France for a moment and look at your queen. Have you ever wondered why are there options for you to befriend, seduce and romance her? Because by default, she doesn't know you, doesn't like you and doesn't want you. And yet, she still has to sleep with you because it's literally in her job description to give you heirs.

So are vikings the practitioners of "misogyny model"? Nope, it's rather you, Falkeep, are committing what Lucien Febvre called "a sin of anachronism" by applying today's standards to a time period when they made no sense.

Yes, yes, I know all about the idea of a "sin of anachronism." As a historian, I frequently tell people that you can't judge the past by the present. This, however, is a game, not rl.

That said, I am NOT... ANYWHERE saying the idea of "misogyny" was a concept or concern in the middle ages... I am just saying that behaviors were, by definition, misogynistic. Historians spend their whole careers identifying things that no one knew or thought about. In fact, let me give you an example from my own life...

I am autistic. I also have two sleep disorders, and lifelong major depression. Now, when I was growing up in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, no one knew about such things or about identifying a persons needs for medical and other treatments and medication. Now all of that was only 60 or fewer years ago. So, just because no one recognized those things (which weren't identified for me between the ages of 39 - 44) it doesn't change the fact that I was autistic, etc. I didn't "become" autistic only when it was diagnosed and, just because people didn't understand the terms and their meanings does not change the fact I had those issues.

I'm not saying that women weren't abused in the middle ages, they were, but IF that is what is represented by women... including my queens and other spouses (i.e. -- women "belonging" to no other men) then THAT is something that I have no interest in being part of any game I play, and it seems to have no effect for game play other than they occasionally dies from their wounds.

Now, ignoring your deflection of my actual issue / concern by getting pissy about semantics, why is it wrong to not want to see that in my recreation. I wouldn't want to watch a snuff film or animal cruelty as it happens. In fact, one of the reasons I wanted to create my own religion is to start the ball rolling towards female equality, at least in my realm... and maybe it will eventually spread to other realms. Why? because that is what I want in my game... P.E.R.I.O.D! Not because it is realistic of how society behaved and treated other people (women, slaves, serfs, whatever) but because having the opposite an established part of a game I'm playing makes me enjoy it more. And, I can feel dine by playing a guy / dynasty that is better rather the justifying horrific behaviors simply to attack the guy who has done nothing but express how he wishes the game could be make to work to satisfy different styles of play.

And, again, I really wonder what the OP of this post wanted to accomplish with their comment? Was just to get joy out of trying to belittle me rather than trying to discuss my actual ideas.

[PDX-Trinexx]

This might be the highest ratio of deleted comments in a thread I've seen to date.

As a reminder to, well, basically everybody in this disasterpiece of a thread: Keep it civil and respectful. If you feel that someone has crossed the line, report them and don't continue engaging.

[Harris]

Originally posted by Falkeep:

I really wonder what the OP of this post wanted to accomplish with their comment? It was just to get joy out of trying to belittle me rather than trying to discuss my actual ideas.

Well, I struggle to pinpoint any "actual ideas" behind your thread other than the general dissatisfaction with the game's mechanics. So you would have to forgive people for engaging with it in a manner they do. Especially when you throw around terms like "mysoginistic" in regards to the game about the time period when women's rights were mostly unheard of.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

As a historian, I frequently tell people that you can't judge the past by the present. This, however, is a game, not rl.

We have that one in common. Matter of fact, this kind of games tend to attract a learned audience and not just "snobby kids". Anyway, as a historian I assume you realize the impact mass culture has over the general public when it comes to historical knowledge. This days most people get their idea of history from Civilization, Assassin's Creed and Netflix shows rather than reading 300-pages theses in a library.

As such, I hardly need to explain how important it is to strive to present history "as is" EVEN THOUGH the medium is a videogame. Depicting women as having equal rights to men is at best a fundamental misrepresentation which denies women their role and fails to acknowledge their struggle during the period; at worst - an attempt at revisionism, or even propaganda.

Originally posted by Falkeep:

Now, when I was growing up in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, no one knew about such things or about identifying a persons needs for medical and other treatments and medication. Now all of that was only 60 or fewer years ago. So, just because no one recognized those things (which weren't identified for me between the ages of 39 - 44) it doesn't change the fact that I was autistic, etc. I didn't "become" autistic only when it was diagnosed and, just because people didn't understand the terms and their meanings does not change the fact I had those issues.

This is an interesting one. By arguing those vikings were always "mysoginistic" you are pretty much claiming that women having equal rights is the only possible "universal truth". However - and I'll be echoing your argument here - merely 200 or fewer years ago women did not have the right to vote. Their opportunities for employment were very limited. They were not accepted into universities. Public restrooms for women did not exist.

As a historian, you obviously realize how small chunk of time it is for the humankind, and how therefore premature it is to champion those beliefs, since we don't know what equality and feminism will ultimately bring us to as species, what the long term impact over the traditional institutes such as family will be, and whether those changes were positive or perhaps not so.

That is not to say I don't understand your desire as a gamer to have a game reflect your beliefs as individual. I just feel The Sims would be a more fitting medium for that.