This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What is the dog that didn’t bark here?
They inserted a black character into a Japanese story why? Could they not find a black story tell and have the setting in black civilization.
A fun game would be to get the woke upset that Ubisoft thinks so little of black civilization that they insert black characters into other civs instead of doing a game based on black history.
The anti woke shouldn’t be attacking the cultural appropriation of Japanese culture by inserting Hollywood’s preferred racial balance they should be autistically demanding a black story and accusing Ubisoft of racism for refusing to do that.
I genuinely want more content in an Ethiopian setting. They had a really interesting civilization, with good aesthetics, that's underrepresented in media. On the other hand, I don't play this kind of game, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
More options
Context Copy link
The slightly humorous explanation for that is it would entail a black character running around incessantly killing other exclusively black characters.
Maybe they could get away with setting it during the "Scramble for Africa" colonialism period. But they'd have to pull some explanation out of their butt for why Africa was so fundamentally undeveloped BEFORE the Europeans arrived, i.e. why did the magical illuminati people ignore it until then?
Imagine if they added in some reverse diversity and allowed you to play as a white dude running around killing exclusively black people. The volume of seethe generated would probably be considered by engineers as a novel energy source for electricity production.
Especially if he were aided by a slim black female love interest with a pretty face and long, straight hair. The collective seethe might just blast a hole through the fabric of the universe.
More options
Context Copy link
I'll grant you it's been a while, but this game does exist: https://store.steampowered.com/app/19900/Far_Cry_2/
Resident Evil 5, too. That one got criticized even at the time, but these were before Obama's second term when things really escalated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You could have the protagonist kill Dahomeys and their trade partners from France, England and the Netherlands. Except this would entail a black character running around incessantly killing strong black women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Unironically, it seems to me that Mansa Musa would fit well with the other "power and political intrigue" settings in the AC series, although I've only played a couple of the early titles.
Not terribly relevant, but Mansa Musa has some of the most interesting game mechanics in Civ 6. Come to think of it Civ 6 does racially diverse leaders in a fun way that I don't remember anyone really bitching about.
People do occasionally bitch about the leader selection, but I don't think there's ever been a point where a given leader was race or gender-swapped. Easy to avoid critiques from either side about 'inclusion' when the whole point is to represent the entire gamut of global civilizations and to faithfully represent each one as its own unique racial, social, and technological mix of traits.
Leaving aside the running gag about Ghandi being a nuclear-armed terror.
Some complaints about picking lesser-known leaders from a given nation's history in order to prevent a complete sausage-fest.
Hell, STALIN was a playable leader back in Civ 4 (also my favorite to play as incidentally), I dunno if they'd be able to get away with that today, even though he is probably the one leader most Americans could name from Russian history (okay, they COULD name Putin but lol that's not getting included) Note they also completely removed reference to "slavery" as a mechanic post Civ 4.
Probably also a reason that South Africa has never and will never be implemented in the base game.
A half-example: the female Zulu leader in Civ 2 was a gender-swapped Shaka.
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Zulu_(Civ2)
INTERESTING.
Never played the first two games, and I pretty much started with IV.
Civ 1 is very primitive and silly, but I really like the balance of simplicity and immersion in Civ 2. For me, it was the best balance of those two in the series (and in strategy games in general) though I never had time to properly learn Civ III onwards, because by that time I was a postgraduate student and I had very little time to learn new games that I might not enjoy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Zulu were a faction in 3.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link