@Canisa I pretty sure it’s because Vendetta wants to make a great game rooted in reality that seems like it could have happened at the time in history.
Vendetta should take Canisa passion as compliement, this show just how interested, and if she realizes or not how invested in this game devepolment.
@djma46 I originally made my point that Vendetta’s androcentric viewpoint was unacceptable to me. When he argued that he was using it in the name of historical accuracy, I argued that historical accuracy is not a justification for discrimination. Then, when he contradicted himself by displaying blatant disregard for historical accuracy, I argued that he wasn’t even sticking to his own faux-justification, in an effort to get him to see reason. Each time I have posted, it has been because a new point of contention has arisen that I have felt the need to address. I will continue to post in response to everything that I do not agree with in the course of this -and any other- game’s development.
@Bikkje Vendetta’s game is not rooted in reality, he’s claimed that’s the case in an effort to convince people that what he’s doing is okay, but he’s explained that he’s actually willing to ignore historical fact in the name of a good story. The fact that Vendetta has expressed this disregard for history demonstrates that his claims of historical accuracy are merely a pretext for the misogynistic viewpoint of his game. I’m trying to find out why he insists on using that viewpoint and hopefully convince him to change the nature of the game’s storyline to something less discriminatory.
@Rogar Yes, I am interested and invested in this game’s development. It seems like it has the potential to be really cool, but is sadly marred by the unfortunate bigotry of its creator. A CoG based in prohibition-era gangland sounds like an absolute blast, I just wish the concept weren’t being so poorly executed.
Vendetta is of course free to ignore my concerns (he is, after all, the one who is actually programming this game), but I am also free to air those concerns.
Must resist getting into an argument that is unwinnable for all the wrong reasons.
@13ventrm Canisa is just trying to demonstrate that you don’t have to be a man to properly understand the concept of a never-ending vendetta . . . Ho-hum.
Well, Canisa, I mean the most constructive thing someone could say is that if the gender base is such a major issue for you and you don’t like it, then don’t play. It’s that simple. No one is going to force you one way or the other.
When you look at it as a microcosm, it seems pretty reasonable that you can simply avoid it if you don’t like it. But once you look at the bigger picture and sees how the status quo can be reinforced by adding even more material which upholds the image of the straight white man as ideal, it isn’t really simple.
People should not be a politic. The choice for us is not as simple as “We like this” or “We don’t like this.” To us, the decision to like something is a struggle between how much enjoyment we obtain and how much we can ignore its exclusionary messages. It doesn’t matter whether the exclusion is intended, it’s how it looks when it’s done.
It’s set in an extremely sexist time. I don’t see how pretending that men and women had the same opportunities would result in a more positive message, it would just be whitewashing history.
Chill, it’s just a game. And actually, accuracy is an excuse in my opinion, because if you change that, the whole society is screwed up and accuracybis really important and if you screw the society up, people start finding things that should be changed based on something or other.
I’m not saying that you can’t use an extremely misogynist period as a setting. If done right, it can even make a good point. However, the problem with old timey settings is that there is a strong tendency for both author and reader to indulge in the sexism and make excuses about realism. Because I like to be optimistic, I shall give Vendetta the benefit of the doubt and wait to see if he has a punchline. But if I say that I am skeptical, I hope you would understand why. There’s too much of unquestioning indulgence out there.
Games are evolving as an art form. Personally, I applaud the trend in recent games towards greater inclusiveness. I’m very glad to see that many games, including the core “choice of” series hosted on this website, are making strides in offering players a wide variety of choices as far as who they want to play, not only in terms of gender, but also in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and socio-economic background. If games are written in a way to be maximally inclusive, I think that’s a very good thing.
That said, I believe there is a place for historically based games which accurately reflect the prejudices of their time, as this game appears to do from the limited sample available thus far. While it is a work of fiction, as any interactive medium inevitably is, it does take place within a historical setting grounded in reality. Should all games limit the player to a male character? Absolutely not. Is it wrong for a game striving for historical accuracy, set in a period where female characters would not plausibly be able to do the things the protagonist is expected to do, to limit the player character to a male role? I don’t think so.
When authors write works of historical fiction, they are not expected to whitewash the injustices of the periods in which their stories are set. A novel set, for example, in the southern United States in the 1850s, would seem bizarre if it ignored the realities of slavery, or pretended that men and women had equal rights in that time and place. Why should games be held to a separate standard than other works of fiction? I think this game features excellent writing and admirable dedication to historical accuracy, within the constraints of a fictional work. I certainly understand why it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but I don’t think it deserves some of the attacks it has received.
I hate when people point out small mistakes and form a huge argument over them. I personally think that what canisa point out wasn’t a big deal. Manet you make friends. Not enemy’s.
@luxtizer
Well said
Further to kanamit’s & Luxtizer’s points, one of the subjects I don’t often see raised whenever this particular debate rears its ugly head but which–to me at least–should be fundamental to the debate, is the whole concept of “true role-playing”.
To me Vendetta is first and foremost a role-playing game, and one I try to make as historically-accurate and believable as possible. It places the reader / player in a very specific, minority role, and in a very specific time and place. You can’t even be a Jewish, Irish, Polish or African-American gangster (even though all of those were very common during the era depicted) because the entire game is set within a predominantly Italian & Sicilian slum. That’s just how things were back then, so that dictates how narrow the scope of this game must be if the aim is accuracy.
What some people choose to call “exclusionary”, I call “role-playing”. The whole point of role-playing is to be very, very specific, otherwise you’re not properly, truly, role-playing. Yes, I could have allowed other minority ethnic groups to be gangsters, but then I would either have to lose the very essence of the setting and its myriad characters (i.e. a predominantly Italian slum) or be forced to write reams and reams extra so that every character you meet reacts accordingly to your chosen ethnicity, because that’s how things were back then. (And that’s not even touching on the subject of including gender as well.)
Ergo: I am faced with the option of either doing the best I can with a subject with which I am actually comfortable, or doing a general, keep-everyone-happy but totally unrealistic, pseudo-gangsterish farce, with no real depth of setting or historical accuracy. No true role-playing.
As I still enjoy some small freedom of will–despite what the forum ethics gestapo have to say on the subject–I choose the first option.
1 Like
The problem with the historical accuracy excluse and inclusion is that it underestimates the role marginalised peoples played in various points of history. Of course, not every woman can be achieve feats as great as those of Princess Pingyang or Khawla bint al-Azwar. Just like not every man can be as powerful as Chandragupta Mauryan or Tokugawa Ieyasu. They are exceptional individuals. The rest of us have to make our way in the world using the tools available to us. Even in the most rigidly patriarchal society, women were able to obtain some measure of power. Yes, it was through manipulation, but they are unremarkable people like you and me and manipulation was the only tool society has provided for unremarkable women persons to use.
That said, most stories revolve around larger than life individuals. Someone who rises to power in a crime family is likely a person who is more empowered than the masses. If exceptionality is already established, then why can’t the protagonist be a woman?
EDIT: Oh, what is this? Why don’t you come out and say “Feminazi!” You obviously want to, what with you relating gender issues to the Third Reich.
Yes, I have had it up to here (indicates point on forehead) with the constant nit-picking, sharp-shooting, downright trolling activity of certain persons on this forum. Are they all female? Not to the best of my knowledge, no.
But it would, of course, suit you to infer that, so go right ahead.
As for me, I have a game to finish.
Good luck with the development, personally I thought the lack of a gender option helped develop the protagonist into more of a distinct entity rather than a blank slate of stats.
Yah goodluck. \:D/
@Vendetta Its your game ignore the trolls i personally love it. If you’re bothered by the way its written, dont play it
God damn man when will chapter two will be release!?