Kingdom Come: Deliverance - Pure medievalism!

[Wiper]

30 minutes ago, Stanley said:

So you're judging the game without playing it or seeing how the story progresses etc Wiper? 

 

It's a shame the director has behaved the way he did. He needs to clarify his position, but I think the work should speak for itself and to me not having any black characters doesn't make it inherently racist. 

 

Well yes, it's hard to push myself to play through a game that has, through its director during the development process, and through its opening, worked so hard to put me off it. Less 'judging a book by its cover', more 'an extended series of first impressions count'.

 

24 minutes ago, Talk Show Host said:

 

It is fair to take an issue with the above. But going from that to "the Persona creators are sexist" or "the 300 is a racist movie" is a huge leap that make little sense without the appropriate information, knowledge and proof.

 

The same applies to this game as well. Calling it a racist game is way too much in my opinion. Saying that you won't buy it because the creator seems to have ideas that offend you, yes, I can understand that.

 

Well, I can quite comfortably state that 300 is a racist comic (I was thinking of that rather than the film, though I would largely decry the movie as being gross too), from a knowledge of the ancient history [such as it is] and how it chooses to interpret and alter it; the general characterisation, politics and art throughout the work; and the author.

 

But yes, outside of that I would struggle to make such sweeping statements - and I'm not saying that Kingdom Come is "a racist game"; I'm saying that it has elements that, thanks to the creator, I can't do anything but find suspect. In the same way that I can't help but suspect the design processes behind a game with an ungenerous time-based progression structure and optional DLC to speed that up, so I suspect the design process that led to a lack of black people and the treatment of the Cumans in a game directed by an outspoken 'anti-SJW'.

 

(and I would avoid buying the game, if I hadn't paid for it back in 2014. So in lieu of being able to speak with my wallet, I speak with my, er, words)

[Talk Show Host]

53 minutes ago, Wiper said:

 

Well yes, it's hard to push myself to play through a game that has, through its director during the development process, and through its opening, worked so hard to put me off it. Less 'judging a book by its cover', more 'an extended series of first impressions count'.

 

 

Well, I can quite comfortably state that 300 is a racist comic (I was thinking of that rather than the film, though I would largely decry the movie as being gross too), from a knowledge of the ancient history [such as it is] and how it chooses to interpret and alter it; the general characterisation, politics and art throughout the work; and the author.

 

But yes, outside of that I would struggle to make such sweeping statements - and I'm not saying that Kingdom Come is "a racist game"; I'm saying that it has elements that, thanks to the creator, I can't do anything but find suspect. In the same way that I can't help but suspect the design processes behind a game with an ungenerous time-based progression structure and optional DLC to speed that up, so I suspect the design process that led to a lack of black people and the treatment of the Cumans in a game directed by an outspoken 'anti-SJW'.

 

(and I would avoid buying the game, if I hadn't paid for it back in 2014. So in lieu of being able to speak with my wallet, I speak with my, er, words)

 

I can understand what you are saying and I can't say that I disagree much. But most media change history for dramatic purposes and you have to accept that without calling every historical mistake as part of an agenda. In this case, yes, you are right to be suspicious based on Vavra's expressed views. But this is more about the creator than the game.

 

Videogames have plenty of racism and they are practicaly full of sexism. We should be talking about it and we should be trying to bring a change. Not every choice like that though -generally speaking- stems from a racist or a sexism source. Social structure and culture, the shifting mainstream taste and, simply, the need for money dictate a lot of these choices (in movies and TV shows as well).

 

Out of curiosity, what do you think about GTAV? You can't easily find a more racist and stereotypical game that is full of sexism. Should we be boycotting that as well?

 

Also, what on earth do you mean by "suspecting the design processes behind a game with an ungenerous time-based progression structure and optional DLC to speed that up"?

 

[Stanley]

Out of interest how are the Cumans being inaccurately depicted in this game @Wiper ?

[mdn2]

Robbed wholesale off Era, but shows just how scummy Vavra is.  I couldn't bring myself to support a product from such a person, regardless of how good the game looks. 

[Talk Show Host]

What an asshole. Thanks @mdn2.

[Opinionated Ham Scarecrow]

2 hours ago, Benny said:

 

People often make this sort of argument but it's extremely reductive. You have to pick your battles. Otherwise by that logic you shouldn't bother picking any battles at all and just allow any toxic ideology to go unchallenged because you can't avoid every purchase.

 

I just hope that people who take these stands are consistent, and not just making a cheap point online from the back seat of an Uber or something. 

[Wiper]

2 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

Out of curiosity, what do you think about GTAV? You can't easily find a more racist and stereotypical game that is full of sexism. Should we be boycotting that as well?

 

Also, what on earth do you mean by "suspecting the design processes behind a game with an ungenerous time-based progression structure and optional DLC to speed that up"?

 

 

Well, I avoided buying GTA V because I really can't stand the writing of the Housers, so I suppose that was sort of a one-person boycott. As I didn't play it or read much about it there's nothing I can say about it, though - I just found all of the 3D GTAs to be unpleasantly written, and with IV the trend had clearly moved to even more of a story focus and so I had no desire to play another story-led GTA.

 

And yeah, that line was poorly written - I mean that when I see a game which has a lot of grinding in it, but also has a way to pay your way past it (e.g. Battlefront 2), I get a niggling suspicion that the grind was intentionally designed to be frustrating and unenjoyable in an attempt to get people to spend more money. Similarly here, things that I might assume to be oversights in other games (e.g. Witcher 3's super-white population, despite the novels it's based on being somewhat racially diverse), I wonder at the motives of thanks to Vávra's involvement.

 

2 hours ago, Stanley said:

Out of interest how are the Cumans being inaccurately depicted in this game @Wiper ?

 

It's the individual presentation of them that feels off. In a world ostensibly made up of moral grey areas, they are effectively treated like the bandits in Fallout 4; they are positioned as generic enemies, constantly hostile and only good for killing (and/or torturing); literally indecipherable so you can't communicate with them (explained away in game as they speak Hungarian and you don't... though oddly you can understand their leader, who is the primary antagonist of the game); any you manage to talk through via translator turn out to be untrostworthy; and they're all set up as the game's villains by the opening events of the game.

 

I understand how helpful it is from a design perspective to have something that you can shorthand as villains in a game, but it is something I never enjoy when it's applied to an entire group of humans (see my criticism of Fallout 4 for exactly the same reasons), and becomes more unfortunate when said characters are the only notably 'foreign' characters in the game. You could argue that obviously they are going to be the villains, given the time period and historical events that surround the game, but then the designers got to pick what historical events they were going to focus on and chose the one in which these would be the villains of the piece, and of course they get to choose whether to characterise every Cuman the same way.

[Wiper]

4 minutes ago, Gizamaluke said:

 

I just hope that people who take these stands are consistent, and not just making a cheap point online from the back seat of an Uber or something. 

 

I've never used Uber and refuse to because I think they're a blight. I'm afraid that I am at least moderately consistent in my tedious moralising.

[Talk Show Host]

12 minutes ago, Wiper said:

 

Well, I avoided buying GTA V because I really can't stand the writing of the Housers, so I suppose that was sort of a one-person boycott. As I didn't play it or read much about it there's nothing I can say about it, though - I just found all of the 3D GTAs to be unpleasantly written, and with IV the trend had clearly moved to even more of a story focus and so I had no desire to play another story-led GTA.

 

And yeah, that line was poorly written - I mean that when I see a game which has a lot of grinding in it, but also has a way to pay your way past it (e.g. Battlefront 2), I get a niggling suspicion that the grind was intentionally designed to be frustrating and unenjoyable in an attempt to get people to spend more money. Similarly here, things that I might assume to be oversights in other games (e.g. Witcher 3's super-white population, despite the novels it's based on being somewhat racially diverse), I wonder at the motives of thanks to Vávra's involvement.

 

Fair enough. I think you are being a tad oversensitive about a kickstarter game's somewhat grindy moments in order to make a bit more money, especially when it seems to be a quality game (I haven't seen any complaints in the reviews on that matter to be frank). If you consider what we get from AAA publishers -and the end product we get- I wouldn't mind if what you say was true, based on a new developer and how difficult it is to produce a quality open world game. The problem is that it involves Vavra, so it doesn't feel right at all.

[Uncle Mike]

15 minutes ago, Gizamaluke said:

 

I just hope that people who take these stands are consistent, and not just making a cheap point online from the back seat of an Uber or something. 

 

This is nonsense though. This is the whole "I see you live in society" cartoon.

 

It's perfectly valid to suggest that, given the face and brain behind this game has a documented history of holding views that are quite awful, it makes one less inclined to purchase his game. It doesn't somehow make that less valid if I use Amazon to buy a different game instead. 

[Opinionated Ham Scarecrow]

21 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

This is nonsense though. This is the whole "I see you live in society" cartoon.

 

It's perfectly valid to suggest that, given the face and brain behind this game has a documented history of holding views that are quite awful, it makes one less inclined to purchase his game. It doesn't somehow make that less valid if I use Amazon to buy a different game instead. 

 

This place is hilarious at the moment. It's almost parody. 

 

Anyway it's a really good game. Maybe you guys can pick it up pre-owned or something and really stick it to the man.

[MK-1601]

4 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

 

Can we please not mix general gameplay design ideas with arguments about a realistic world? All games who offer a "realistic world" make game design choices to allow gameplay to work. And, yes, many of those choices tend to be bad. If we went full realism we would never have a game, as a son of a blacksmith would need two lifetimes to afford a brand new set of amor in the middle ages and he would almost never rise to the level of nobility and knighthood in order to influence events.

 

Vavra is an asshole and it has been talked in this thread, his posts have been mentioned and his general stance is dubious to say the least. But there are many more people who worked on this game and, as I have said before, not all of them are assholes. I haven't bought the game yet and Vavra's revelations is one of the reasons that have stayed my hand (nice mediavalism there :p) . But claiming with any kind of certainty that this game is racist -and thus labeling the entire development team- is way too harsh.

 

We shouldn't turn the thread into another Cage hatefest.

I think you're right to say that not everyone working at Warhorse should be assumed to agree with or be aware of Vavra's views, but I would be surprised if the studio culture was that healthy.

 

If people sympathetic to Vavra's views are in charge of hiring, are they going to make diverse hires? In general there's a bias for studios hiring people similar to themselves, I would be surprised if the problem isn't quite a bit worse at a studio with White Power Bill acting as their public figurehead.

[Uncle Mike]

@Gizamaluke Sure. Or I can just play something else! It's not like there's a shortage.

 

I'm not particularly trying to stick anything to any man. I'm just not interested in seeking out the works of someone that seems to be pretty unpleasant.

[Talk Show Host]

1 minute ago, MK-1601 said:

I think you're right to say that not everyone working at Warhorse should be assumed to agree with or be aware of Vavra's views, but I would be surprised if the studio culture was that healthy.

 

If people sympathetic to Vavra's views are in charge of hiring, are they going to make diverse hires? In general there's a bias for studios hiring people similar to themselves, I would be surprised if the problem isn't quite a bit worse at a studio with White Power Bill acting as their public figurehead.

 

I'm not rulling out anything. That is possible, yes. But we have no proof or knowledge of what is the situation in the studio, so I am not comfortable of labeling an entire group of people based on a couple of assholes without having some facts. 

[Benny]

5 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

@Gizamaluke Sure. Or I can just play something else! It's not like there's a shortage.

 

I'm not particularly trying to stick anything to any man. I'm just not interested in seeking out the works of someone that seems to be pretty unpleasant.

 

His was the usual dismissive response when someone knows you have a point and wants to belittle your argument instead of engaging with it. It only serves to prove they were arguing in bad faith with whataboutism from the start and have no intention of listening to your reasoning or arguments.

[Stanley]

So it is wrong that I really want to play this apparently not racist game because it looks really original and seems like a breath of fresh air compared to the usual AAA output? 

 

I mean if there is proof that it propagates racism as a piece of art or entertainment I'd think again, but it doesn't appear to. 

[Uncle Mike]

I don't think anyone's said you shouldn't play it, or that doing so makes you a bad person. Do what you like!

[Cosmic_Guru]

19 minutes ago, Stanley said:

So it is wrong that I really want to play this apparently not racist game because it looks really original and seems like a breath of fresh air compared to the usual AAA output? 

 

No.  

[matt0]

40 minutes ago, Stanley said:

So it is wrong that I really want to play this apparently not racist game because it looks really original and seems like a breath of fresh air compared to the usual AAA output? 

 

I mean if there is proof that it propagates racism as a piece of art or entertainment I'd think again, but it doesn't appear to. 

 

I think it's near impossible to be consistent with this kind of thing and you should go with your personal gut instinct in each case. Usually any support for or involvement with Gamergate is enough for me to pass over a game. Kingdom Come, Ethan Carter, even Off World Trading company where the developers themselves I had no issue with but was published by Stardock.

 

This principle is going completely out of the window for Last Night purely because of how amazing the visuals are. I suspect the plot and subtext of that game will be rank but I have to play it

[Stanley]

I understand people have different principles but I also like to focus on how I'm being treated as a customer. To that end I find it more troubling buying an EA game than an indie studio like this. EA are more hateful than this guy could ever be. He has at least apologised for the things he said.

[sbrandon111]

It's an entertainment medium, not a history simulator. Do you not watch a movie because it sexualises women? Did you not watch Django unchained because of some of the unsavoury moments in it. Or do you not watch any movie that had Weinstein's involvement in it? Obviously racism, sexism, homophobia and generally all forms of discrimination are bad....but i reckon you could pick almost any game or movie and someone could find something to get offended about in it. I just like playing games as they were intended, and not have to think about any potential ulterior motives behind it. 

[earlymodernsteve]

1 hour ago, Stanley said:

I understand people have different principles but I also like to focus on how I'm being treated as a customer. To that end I find it more troubling buying an EA game than an indie studio like this. EA are more hateful than this guy could ever be. He has at least apologised for the things he said.

 

This smacks of a certain kind of consumer privilege though. Do you genuinely believe that the excessive monetisation that EA are guilty of (but generally clearly upfront about) is more 'hateful' than the straight out racism that Vavra has clearly been peddling for years and only apologises for when it could potentially affect sales of his game? EA are a bad gaming publisher but their effect can only extend within the realms of the industry. The kind of ideologies that Vavra espouses are far more wide-reaching and handwaving them away is another step towards normalising such hatred.

[Stanley]

Perhaps we should boycott all retailers too, seeing as they treat their staff like slaves. 

 

And yes it is consumer privilege.

[Piccolomini]

6 hours ago, Stanley said:

Out of interest how are the Cumans being inaccurately depicted in this game @Wiper ?

 

In addition to what Wiper pointed out, the Cumans are a particularly important example because of how they're treated in Eastern European (especially Hungarian) historiography - they were a nomadic people who settled in the Carpathian basin during the Mongol invasions in the early 13th century, which pushed them west, and they were allowed to settle there by the Hungarians in return for military service. By the time of this game, they'd already become largely integrated - they were no longer nomadic, and their soldiers in the Hungarian army no longer necessarily fought on horseback. Their traditional dress was being phased out, their religion replaced with Christianity. But the game depicts them exclusively as dangerous, Turkic-looking people, who it is apparently impossible to interact with through any means other than combat or torture. This reminded me of discussions I've had with Hungarians about their country's history. Now, I'm a medieval historian, and I'm very well aware of Hungary's medieval history. But I've had more than one Hungarian deny to me that the Cumans ever were allowed to settle Hungary (which is a basic fact) - they were still detested as foreigners, even so many centuries later, when in reality they had clearly begun to be accepted fairly quickly and their integration was fairly unproblematic. It's - frankly - a sign of the very racist way in which these people are viewed to this day.

 

The combination with Sigismund as the leading antagonist is an interesting one. Sigismund ended up ruling a huge realm that including the Holy Roman Empire (of which Bohemia was a part) and Hungary. He spoke many languages fluently and travelled all over Europe. The consequence of this is that none of those countries view him as their own. In fact, he is widely loathed in Hungary and Bohemia (I've similarly been in a discussion trying to convince a Hungarian that Sigismund could speak Hungarian, which is an uncontroversial historical fact but something this particular person refused to accept), while he's pretty much forgotten in Germany, and portrayed as a villain in Hungarian folklore, even though without his military reforms Hungary would probably have fallen to the Ottomans much sooner than it did. The combination of the least popular king of Hungary with the - among Eastern Europeans - least popular Eastern European warriors made this just about the safest bet for it to be an Eastern European financial success, and nothing seems to indicate the developers have done anything but follow the basest interpretations of the Cumans, where historians have long provided a far more nuanced and humane picture of their fascinating culture. That's a particularly sore point considering the way Hungary, Poland and Czechia have been heading recently, and I have no intention of supporting developers who try to profit from the anti-immigration campaigns that have been going on there.

[SweatyTravolta]

Seeing the excuses people use to hand wave away any criticism of this, A Hat in Time or the upcoming Last Night is quite sad. I guess it's just indicative of how we got to where we are in 2018. The creators awful? Oh I'm separating the game from the art. The art is awful and actually pushes their message? Oh well I just play games to have fun, I don't expect them to be historically accurate.

 

People can play what they want but just be honest with yourself. I enjoyed Shadow Complex despite the problematic views of Orson Scott Card, some of which filtered down into the games premise. I always think about that when this sort of stuff comes up. I think the increased presence of terrible people around the periphery of games has made me take a harder stance on these things.

 

Gamergate is one of the most toxic things to happen in video gaming but some folks just want to Make Video Games Great Again!

[Talk Show Host]

36 minutes ago, SweatyTravolta said:

Seeing the excuses people use to hand wave away any criticism of this, A Hat in Time or the upcoming Last Night is quite sad. I guess it's just indicative of how we got to where we are in 2018. The creators awful? Oh I'm separating the game from the art. The art is awful and actually pushes their message? Oh well I just play games to have fun, I don't expect them to be historically accurate. People can play what they want but just be honest with yourself.

 

Gamergate is one of the most toxic things to happen in video gaming but we just want to Make Video Games Great Again!

 

I will never understand the need to come here and take the high moral ground, which is bullshit, and essentially accuse people while we are having a great conversation trying to figure this out. Ffs man, get a grip.

 

8 hours ago, Piccolomini said:

 

In addition to what Wiper pointed out, the Cumans are a particularly important example because of how they're treated in Eastern European (especially Hungarian) historiography - they were a nomadic people who settled in the Carpathian basin during the Mongol invasions in the early 13th century, which pushed them west, and they were allowed to settle there by the Hungarians in return for military service. By the time of this game, they'd already become largely integrated - they were no longer nomadic, and their soldiers in the Hungarian army no longer necessarily fought on horseback. Their traditional dress was being phased out, their religion replaced with Christianity. But the game depicts them exclusively as dangerous, Turkic-looking people, who it is apparently impossible to interact with through any means other than combat or torture. This reminded me of discussions I've had with Hungarians about their country's history. Now, I'm a medieval historian, and I'm very well aware of Hungary's medieval history. But I've had more than one Hungarian deny to me that the Cumans ever were allowed to settle Hungary (which is a basic fact) - they were still detested as foreigners, even so many centuries later, when in reality they had clearly begun to be accepted fairly quickly and their integration was fairly unproblematic. It's - frankly - a sign of the very racist way in which these people are viewed to this day.

 

The combination with Sigismund as the leading antagonist is an interesting one. Sigismund ended up ruling a huge realm that including the Holy Roman Empire (of which Bohemia was a part) and Hungary. He spoke many languages fluently and travelled all over Europe. The consequence of this is that none of those countries view him as their own. In fact, he is widely loathed in Hungary and Bohemia (I've similarly been in a discussion trying to convince a Hungarian that Sigismund could speak Hungarian, which is an uncontroversial historical fact but something this particular person refused to accept), while he's pretty much forgotten in Germany, and portrayed as a villain in Hungarian folklore, even though without his military reforms Hungary would probably have fallen to the Ottomans much sooner than it did. The combination of the least popular king of Hungary with the - among Eastern Europeans - least popular Eastern European warriors made this just about the safest bet for it to be an Eastern European financial success, and nothing seems to indicate the developers have done anything but follow the basest interpretations of the Cumans, where historians have long provided a far more nuanced and humane picture of their fascinating culture. That's a particularly sore point considering the way Hungary, Poland and Czechia have been heading recently, and I have no intention of supporting developers who try to profit from the anti-immigration campaigns that have been going on there.

 

My history is good but not that good to tackle this post in its details, but what you are essentially saying is that they took liberty with history in order to drive sales up, which is what most do anyway in movies or TV shows, but, in this case, because it's Vavra, the historic approach taken was born out of racist intent?

[Luseth]

Well i'm going to go back to the game (which is what this thread is about isn't it? Not the views of the maker of the game....)

 

I fought in my first big battle last night. I scouted the base out on behalf of my lord and even managed to get in and undertake some sabotage (this was an optional objective), my lord told me not to take too much of a risk though so I didn't hang about too long (far too many bandit's for my liking and they seemed to see through my disguise   That said he don't half ask some questions about the base and enemy, your answers affect the battle in how many troops the lord takes etc.

 

Ah well, we fought and won, though I took a few wounds, but I earned my pay that day It's sort of good how there's a build up to this big battle in that you feel like it would suit an end of the game battle, yet after the battle the game / story continues

[SweatyTravolta]

43 minutes ago, Talk Show Host said:

 

I will never understand the need to come here and take the high moral ground, which is bullshit, and essentially accuse people while we are having a great conversation trying to figure this out. Ffs man, get a grip.

 

I definitely do not have the moral high ground. I'm in the same boat as everyone else, trying to figure out how you justify to yourself supporting shitty people pushing awful ideas because you really want to play that game. In my case it was because Metroidvania experiences were so rare that I chose to hold my nose enjoy the game design while ignoring the story.

 

I personally don't think I could do that these days because there is an abundance of quality upon us and I've changed as a person, more aware of the world around me.

 

It's interesting that while Hollywood appears, on the surface at least, to be tackling the issues and standing up against shitty people. The game industry is tacitly endorsing some bad behaviour.

 

That taken in isolation may not be the worst thing but it has an awkward side effect of emboldening the dregs of humanity. They see the success of bad people as vindication for their awful views.

 

[Zael]

22 minutes ago, Luseth said:

Well i'm going to go back to the game (which is what this thread is about isn't it? Not the views of the maker of the game....)

 

The discussion that has taken place over the last page or so has also been about the game. Talk about the gameplay all you want but don't frame it in the "ok well I'm gonna at least talk about the game". Because that's pretty shitty.

[Stanley]

Yet ignoring his questionable views for which he has apologised, for a second anyway, another side effect is that people will see a game independently funded and made game without the typical AAA budget and bullshit that goes with it, stifling the games industry. That's a positive thing.