Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[CuckMasher]

Buying this propagandistic piece of trash means condoning this insane agenda that's being forced fed everywhere.

I agree and am sad. Also did the codex always have so many sjws? Will my block list eventually include everyone?

 

[Hace El Oso]

Setting all that aside, do you think when these Swedish meatballs say things like 'polyamory' and 'non-monogamy' they understand even for a moment the naked truth of Islamic marriage and sexual customs they so eagerly bring under their umbrella? Ever set foot in an Islamic country? That's crazy.

"Medieval Islam at a court level was exactly the same as modern Islam, nevermind the deprivations of European colonialism or the literal millenium that has passed since."

That's a "no", then. I'll go ahead and add in a "no" for reading the quran and your studies including the Islamic golden age, as well.

 

[Grim Monk]

At best it feels like you can't fathom that games aren't just designed for you anymore.

Don't worry.

We "fathom" it perfectly...

Also:

The deprivations of European colonialism.

Never quite understood how it is unique or worse then all the preceding WARS OF CONQUEST commited since the literal days of UR back in Ancient Sumeria...

 

[Haba]

So... medieval trannies when?

...

Truly a spectacular suicide.

 

[Fedora Master]

After Stellaris and Imperator now this, the hits just. Keep. Coming.

 

[Theodora]

After Stellaris and Imperator now this, the hits just. Keep. Coming.

Paradox haven't changed; they were never aiming for the louts that whine about ~the end of western civilisation~.

What do you get out of being such a shill for culture wars bs?

 

[mondblut]

Paradox haven't changed; they were never aiming for the louts that whine about ~the end of western civilisation~.

There was a time, once, when they were aiming for historicity.

What do you get out of being such a shill for culture wars bs?

 

[Theodora]

There was a time, once, when they were aiming for historicity.

That is not the same as aiming for you larpers as an audience.

 

[Fedora Master]

After Stellaris and Imperator now this, the hits just. Keep. Coming.

Paradox haven't changed; they were never aiming for the louts that whine about ~the end of western civilisation~.

True, it looks like Johan is mainly aiming to please Johan.

 

[mondblut]

There was a time, once, when they were aiming for historicity.

That is not the same as aiming for you larpers as an audience.

If they expect their map-painting screensavers will sell better among the alphabet soup crowd on twatter, they are in for a nasty surprise.

 

[Theodora]

If they expect their map-painting screensavers will sell better among the alphabet soup crowd on twatter, they are in for a nasty surprise.

if only you knew, lmao.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

the alphabet soup crowd on twatter

if only you knew, lmao.

You certainly seem to do.

 

[Theodora]

You certainly seem to do.

For whatever reason I vaguely know a lot of trans ppl who play HoI4 religiously.

 

[mondblut]

You certainly seem to do.

For whatever reason I vaguely know a lot of trans ppl who play HoI4 religiously.

Ah, yes, the Gay Communist Furrycracy of America mods. If that's the bed PDX wants to sleep in, I'll be glad to be off their train.

HoI4 is trash either way.

 

[gerey]

For whatever reason I vaguely know a lot of trans ppl

Ready to confess yet?

 

[Axioms]

I don't care about non-hetero characters. W/e, people can do what they want. What is annoying is they could have been doing something mechanically interesting instead.

In a game that is arguably primarily about the interpersonal drama of medieval dynasts, differing sexualities just aren't something you can make irrelevant except in the most tropified versions of history.

It may yet be mechanically interesting. Boo gays isn't a real argument against it.

It isn't interesting now. They should have added the framework first.

 

[Grim Monk]

Paradox haven't changed; they were never aiming for the louts that whine about ~the end of western civilisation~.

Who they where "aiming for" is of no consequence.
The reality so far is that their products have appealed to a broader audience then only obnoxious First World Leftists.

If they want to expel everybody deemed "problematic" and make "progressive statement" games let them.

And they can reap the criticism of other people, like what is happening in this thread.

You smugly proclaiming people "undesirable reactionary filth" and then that those same people don't give you applause.

What do you get out of being such a shill for culture wars bs?

A person goes to a restaurant and raises objection that ingredients in a dish they like have been changed.

When you adulterated your product people have a right to react negatively.

 

[Theodora]

How is it that you feel so attacked, Grim Monk? Because I'm not a part of your obsessive little cabal blowing every little thing out of proportion? This is about on par with the 'Baldurs Gate III is a cuck simulator' thread. You can try to act like you're better than others but the reality is no matter how softly one disagrees with you, you'll find a way to intentionally mis-or-over-interpret what's said. What's the point of humouring you? You'll be an asshole about it all the same.

Frankly it's fucking ridiculous, getting upset like bisexual people are some bloody unicorn out of place in medieval europe. People were still people, regardless of what the limited literates within the church wrote down. Hell, prior to the late medieval period, homosexual behaviour didn't even warrant the same degree of outrage because they didn't have the same imperative to categorise people and through that cast sentence upon them. C'mon dude, "adulterated your product"? No one said you can't react negatively but I don't see why you expect to be excluded from any criticism when you would never offer the same space?

Anyway, you can call me a leftist if it helps you sleep better at night, but at least I'm not so self-absorbed as to think a video game should cater to my fringe points of view.

 

[Grim Monk]

The reality is no matter how softly one disagrees with you, you'll find a way to intentionally mis-or-over-interpret what's said.

Immediately followed by:

Frankly it's fucking ridiculous, getting upset like bisexual people are some bloody unicorn out of place in medieval europe.

When that is not what the majority people where criticizing.

People where pointing out PDX's arguement is silly becouse 90% to 97% of something is can be stated to be DEFAULT BY DE FACTO.

REALITY being 90+% "heteronormative" or 99+% "cisnormative" doesn't change because existing as a literal "Minority" makes activists uncomfortable.

That was the argument not your strawman rubbish about "there where no bisexuals in medieval Europe".

Deal with "Demographics is Destiny" just like you demand of others.

 

[kris]

There was a time, once, when they were aiming for historicity.

That is not the same as aiming for you larpers as an audience.

If they expect their map-painting screensavers will sell better among the alphabet soup crowd on twatter, they are in for a nasty surprise.

While you are clearly correct that the SJW crowd have little to no interest in this game I don't see the general effect from this anyway.

Basically I don't see how these changes would be enough to lose/win sales with the major part of their customer base, so basically they just do it to confirm their own bias. If anything one could say that Paradox already lost a part of their customer base due to their current direction.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

How is it that you feel so attacked, Grim Monk? Because I'm not a part of your obsessive little cabal blowing every little thing out of proportion? This is about on par with the 'Baldurs Gate III is a cuck simulator' thread. You can try to act like you're better than others but the reality is no matter how softly one disagrees with you, you'll find a way to intentionally mis-or-over-interpret what's said. What's the point of humouring you? You'll be an asshole about it all the same.

Frankly it's fucking ridiculous, getting upset like bisexual people are some bloody unicorn out of place in medieval europe. People were still people, regardless of what the limited literates within the church wrote down. Hell, prior to the late medieval period, homosexual behaviour didn't even warrant the same degree of outrage because they didn't have the same imperative to categorise people and through that cast sentence upon them. C'mon dude, "adulterated your product"? No one said you can't react negatively but I don't see why you expect to be excluded from any criticism when you would never offer the same space?

Anyway, you can call me a leftist if it helps you sleep better at night, but at least I'm not so self-absorbed as to think a video game should cater to my fringe points of view.

Elagabalus was a weirdo queer Roman Emperor, and damn near caused a civil war when he rose to power. Got shanked by the guard not long after putting on the crown as well. Fact is, there have been gay and bi leaders throughout history - I don't think that's argument that's being made here. Problem is it's typical Paradox. They'll feel good about themselves virtue signaling this shit into the game, but without context or merit. It will just be a feature, as if middle age queer kings or queens wouldn't make a headline or two. Shit, Prince Charles can order the wrong brand of milk and it gets front page news on the Daily Mail. Having a fag king in an age of religious upheaval and not making it an in-game controversy is borking gameplay and offering up a 21st century spin on a game that (should) at least be trying to be historical.

Hell, take the sexual aspect away and I can still make the point. You can build giant landmarks and epic buildings in CK2, only cost is in time and money. In reality, if you were a 13th century king and wanted a giant cathedral in your province, you don't think that the other provinces wouldn't shit a brick trying to get it built in their home territory? But Paradox puts them in the game without nary a mention of secondary costs or blows to stability. Paradox either doesn't understand or care about social/religious/economic impacts one could make during that period. Hell, in the middle ages you could practically gets accused of witchcraft for just making the wrong kind of porridge. Everyone was nuts back then, and yet Paradox has turned the entire era into a safe and casual larping experience for Renaissance Fair cosplayers.

With every patch and every new game, Paradox is getting further and further away from even attempting a look back at history, and is instead imprinting on the games their own take on social issues, economics, religion, and war. Rather than saying, 'hey we know this is controversial from a modern standpoint, but that's what happened in the Medieval period, they're saying, 'wouldn't it be progressive of us if we put a gay rave club in the king's foyer?' Fuck that. If they want to make revisionist games, just abandon history and make future-what-if games like CDPR with Cyberpunk. At this point I'd much rather see a bonked and broken future (because it probably will be anyway) rather than a tilted and ignorant view of the past.

As a good contrast, look at the EB mod for Rome Total War. The devs of that mod put in historical units for AOR, historical descriptions of said units, and even made authentic Latin and Greek speech for units. EB's main criticism from players was that it was TOO HISTORICAL and limited game options. Paradox could take a lesson or two there - if for no other reason than to move the crazy back a nudge or two. Playing as a cucked, cross-dressing unicorn Lombard princess in 14th century isn't what most of us signed up for to play Crusader Kings. Main hint being CRUSADER and KINGS.

 

[Theodora]

First of all, I appreciate you actually making this about the game, so kudos to you for that.

Elagabalus was a weirdo queer Roman Emperor, and damn near caused a civil war when he rose to power. Got shanked by the guard not long after putting on the crown as well. Fact is, there have been gay and bi leaders throughout history - I don't think that's argument that's being made here.

Some people are ignorant of this stuff, because their sense of history is based entirely on tropes; it comes with the territory of certain politics, based on an image of an idealised past that never existed. I don't mean to put everyone that disagrees with me in that same box though.

Problem is it's typical Paradox. They'll feel good about themselves virtue signaling this shit into the game, but without context or merit. It will just be a feature, as if middle age queer kings or queens wouldn't make a headline or two. Shit, Prince Charles can order the wrong brand of milk and it gets front page news on the Daily Mail. Having a fag king in an age of religious upheaval and not making it an in-game controversy is borking gameplay and offering up a 21st century spin on a game that (should) at least be trying to be historical.

To be honest, I'm not sure they're doing it for virtue signalling so much as it likely being a reflection of the wide cross section of people making the game (including marketers, concept artists, etc.), as inevitably they know that they're going to get more backlash over their forums, reddit, twitter, etc. every time they touch on a #culturewars topic — as happened with the whole "deus vult" thing; they're uncomfortable that something popularised via their work became a dogwhistle for fascism. I think that says a lot about what you should expect from them irregardless of 'impressing' anyone else.

Modern media culture isn't exactly the same as the medieveal period, and to be honest, sexuality itself in modern terms doesn't really make sense back then, especially in the 'late dark ages'. The idea of the individual just wasn't developed far enough for sexuality to take the form of an identity, and therefore you don't really get the idea of a 'gay king' even if he was privately known to have a harem of guys. Evidently still being something that was best excluded from public notice, it is an underreported fact. Paradox aren't pretending it was perfectly socially acceptible, and they are taking some liberty using words like bisexual at all. But there's nothing particularly surprising or interesting in the idea that there were privately gay, bisexual, or sexually disinterested counts, dukes, kings, or whatever.

Paradox puts them in the game without nary a mention of secondary costs or blows to stability. Paradox either doesn't understand or care about social/religious/economic impacts one could make during that period.

This is the kind of issue I think you'd do better to focus on if you want the game to have more truth to form. No amount of collectively insulting the developers, for whom I really don't think these issues are mere performance, is going to have a positive impact. Actually giving constructive feedback on mechanics from CK2 that need improved that haven't been addressed would be a better use of everyone's time.

Hell, in the middle ages you could practically gets accused of witchcraft for just making the wrong kind of porridge. Everyone was nuts back then, and yet Paradox has turned the entire era into a safe and casual larping experience for Renaissance Fair cosplayers.

Not quite. It wasn't until the early modern period, into the 15th cenutry and Europa Universalis' territory, that the whole witchcraft hysteria began. If you don't believe me look into Pope Alexander IV's Quod super nonnullis (1258); it specifically prohibited inquisition into witchcraft and sorcery unless it was tied to heresy. 'Wisewomen' were the source of working class medicine in Europe and a pillar of village life, until being violently removed in the professionalisation of medical work during capitalism's early formation period. Maybe it's no coincidence that the last bastion of Pagan Europe fell in the 14th century, though.

The church's role in medieval europe, both on witches and sexuality, is one oft misunderstood; it's much more the final days of the medieval period — maybe 100 years or so before Shakespeare — that things really came to full force as pop culture remembers them.

With every patch and every new game, Paradox is getting further and further away from even attempting a look back at history, and is instead imprinting on the games their own take on social issues, economics, religion, and war. Rather than saying, 'hey we know this is controversial from a modern standpoint, but that's what happened in the Medieval period, they're saying, 'wouldn't it be progressive of us if we put a gay rave club in the king's foyer?' Fuck that. If they want to make revisionist games, just abandon history and make future-what-if games like CDPR with Cyberpunk. At this point I'd much rather see a bonked and broken future (because it probably will be anyway) rather than a tilted and ignorant view of the past.

This is more generally a problem though. You can not make politically neutral work. Any attempt to do so will just be a cowardly expression of the same thing, in deference to whatever the status quo of the day is. I would rather developers wear their colours openly than have the usual case where AAA devs leap over each other to scream that their work isn't political when it self-evidently is.

There aren't any gay raves coming, but it's inevitable that as they lean further into Crusader Kings as being more about the Kings than simply the Crusades, that the RPG lifesim element will necessarily start having to reflect a wider scope of human experience. Why do people keep saying you can't be a crusader? They only just recently got into the topic of religion, so why is it assumed that a feature is removed as opposed to simply still being ironed out. Knowing how Paradox's development works, their dev diaries don't come in any order of importance; if I were one of the people who cared about crusading the most I'd be relieved it was getting more attention and not simply being rushed out the exact same form as last time.

Honestly though, I find it difficult to listen to the reams of criticism that you see for CDP-R or Larian or Paradox over their (key word here) unreleased work. I'm not accusing you of this, but what always happens in these threads thusfar as I've seen, is that most of the people commenting don't even bother to read what the company in question has said, and simply run with the hysterical interpretations until they sound, well, deranged? I'm not even trying to say they'll release a finished product, but there's really not enough information in these diaries for the kind of criticism levelled at them to be anything more than conjecture.

As a good contrast, look at the EB mod for Rome Total War. The devs of that mod put in historical units for AOR, historical descriptions of said units, and even made authentic Latin and Greek speech for units. EB's main criticism from players was that it was TOO HISTORICAL and limited game options. Paradox could take a lesson or two there - if for no other reason than to move the crazy back a nudge or two. Playing as a cucked, cross-dressing unicorn Lombard princess in 14th century isn't what most of us signed up for to play Crusader Kings. Main hint being CRUSADER and KINGS.

I mean, I adore Europa Barbarorum (though they really need some better recording equipment!). As a classicist it makes me sad that developers rarely ever hire actual academics to flesh out their games. But as much as I love what they've done, it still feels a bit soulless at times. I think what I'm trying to say is that cricitism on purely negative terms — which is like 90% of what is expressed here — does nothing to help improve a piece of work.

If you truly hate what they come out with, maybe you can start a modding project in the same vein as EB/2 — I believe EB had some influence at least on CA's later work — though I'm really not sure you need to worry about unicorn rave gear. I just find every time that these premature criticisms spin into culture wars irrelevance.

I care a lot about this game too, and wouldn't want a completely revisionist expression of sexuality simply because I'm bisexual myself, nor can I picture anyone vaguely queer I know into these games wanting the same. That's why I have some faith that the people behind this honestly quite minor change aren't going to overstep in the way everyone's so worked up about.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

It's a shame that even your pro-thesis argument wouldn't even be allowed on the Paradox forum. You should at least make a personal pitch to Paradox HR for a media relations position.

And the Emperor's clothes are striking, aren't they?

 

[Theodora]

It's a shame that even your pro-thesis argument wouldn't even be allowed on the Paradox forum. You should at least make a personal pitch to Paradox HR for a media relations position.

Lol, thank you? I think? I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed on their forums though.

And the Emperor's clothes are striking, aren't they?

They might be, but they're still being stitched together.

 

[Grim Monk]

As happened with the whole "deus vult" thing; they're uncomfortable that something popularised via their work became a dogwhistle for fascism.

That was a peak of obvious disingenuous cowardly posery.

In their other bestselling series you can literally play as the "Fuhrer" and try for world conquest as Nazi Germany!

But its not sanitizing the term "Deus Vult" being used in the middle ages that they fear as too risky of "enabling fascists".