These games came out over a decade ago. The people responsible for these offensive elements very likely don't even work there anymore.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Extreme Homophobia from the Total War series
- Thread starter CenturionNami
- Start date
These games came out over a decade ago. The people responsible for these offensive elements very likely don't even work there anymore.
I'm not a historian or anything, but just going from what little I've read on the subject, I get the sense that all of the people saying things to the effect of "maybe it was meant to show that society was more homophobic back then" are horribly oversimplifying things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many of these earlier societies were not just more homophobic, but often had a very different idea than the contemporary idea of homosexuality and associated behaviour.
In the case of Rome, my understanding that it was a sexual dominance thing. Homosexuality between men is fine as long as you're the top, because that's the dominant position that a man should take. Being the bottom is a mark of shame.
In Medieval times, it's my understanding that while they hated homosexuality, they also weren't actively looking for in the same way that we do. As such, there was not a gay association with a lot of behaviours to demonstrate closeness between men - a kiss on the lips could be part of an oath of fealty, for example, or sleeping in the same bed could be a way for soldiers to keep each other safe. As such, you could have gay or bisexual people who were able to navigate high positions in society because people weren't really sure if they were or not.
While we're at it, China's another big one, where they believed that men having sex with a woman would be transferring their life force away to them, and thus wasting it. Having sex with a man is in fact more heavily and admirable, and so manly men should prefer the relationships of their manly man friends over women.
Going by the descriptions in the OP, it sounds like they were trying to take no effort to capture these sort of differences, and in fact have some blatantly modern phrases in there. It seems pretty obvious that they had no intention of including this in the effort of providing any sort of accuracy, but purely for the same of modern homophobia.
In the case of Rome, my understanding that it was a sexual dominance thing. Homosexuality between men is fine as long as you're the top, because that's the dominant position that a man should take. Being the bottom is a mark of shame.
In Medieval times, it's my understanding that while they hated homosexuality, they also weren't actively looking for in the same way that we do. As such, there was not a gay association with a lot of behaviours to demonstrate closeness between men - a kiss on the lips could be part of an oath of fealty, for example, or sleeping in the same bed could be a way for soldiers to keep each other safe. As such, you could have gay or bisexual people who were able to navigate high positions in society because people weren't really sure if they were or not.
While we're at it, China's another big one, where they believed that men having sex with a woman would be transferring their life force away to them, and thus wasting it. Having sex with a man is in fact more heavily and admirable, and so manly men should prefer the relationships of their manly man friends over women.
Going by the descriptions in the OP, it sounds like they were trying to take no effort to capture these sort of differences, and in fact have some blatantly modern phrases in there. It seems pretty obvious that they had no intention of including this in the effort of providing any sort of accuracy, but purely for the same of modern homophobia.
I think your grasping at straws. This comes off more like a comedic Easter egg (not to suggest that its funny). Its basically a bad joke from a time where stuff like that was not necessarily "more acceptable" but more so "overlooked".
Not really. People are entitled to give support to or boycott anything, really, for any reason.
Sure thing.
To begin, we start with some of the agents- the geisha and the metsuke. Geisha as portrayed in the game and as known in popular culture did not exist until long after the end of the Sengoku era. A good replacement might be kunoichi, but kunoichi didn't JUST seduce-then-assassinate people. They also carried out the same sort of work male ninja did, so they'd have to be just more versatile ninja. Metsuke were completely a creation of the Tokugawa shogunate and thus, given how easily the Tokugawa are eliminated in game, shouldn't really exist. There's nothing explicitly wrong with either role they have for a unit, but it's the skin/flavor they used that's innacurate. I do appreciate monks-as-agents, as a lot of Sengoku daimyo did have monks as friends who would act in their interest- but not really in conversion. It was more in a diplomatic role.
Then you get to the start date of 1545 and the problems that causes:
Oh, and the Hattori. God. I hate the Hattori in Shogun 2. The Hattori were retainers of the Tokugawa. Yes, they originated from Iga, but they weren't a major clan in of themselves and only became infamous thanks to Hanzo, who again, served the Tokugawa --in Tokugawa lands, not Iga-- as a samurai landowner as much as a ninja. What they represent, the Iga Republic, was a conglomeration of a bunch of tiny clans whose heads voted democratically on what to do. They also really weren't interested in expansion. They instead hired their services as shinobi out to other, larger clans. So, to have this super minor clan that really doesn't have much to do with the Iga Republic past a certain point represent them and also be one of the most major threats in the game? It's "Ghandi with nukes in Civ" levels of silliness.
Also, I understand the purpose of the Realm Divide- to sort of emulate the problems Nobunaga had after entering Kyoto and asserting his dominance over the Shogunate. However, given the politics of the era, if the Ashikaga clan were flat out attacked with a sizeable army, it wouldn't have made every clan immediately pissed at you. You'd really only have the deputies of the shogunate to answer to, and the sole major deputy left who actually both had power and fronted about being loyal to the Ashikaga was the Uesugi clan. Otherwise, they'd be too, too busy with the rival clans around them to really care. This was an era of social upheaval- and that included the upheaval of caring about the Ashikaga. Sure, a lot might think you're a stinker- there's a reason Matsunaga Hisahide was known as "the villain of the warring states" in Edo era literature. But they wouldn't do anything unless it could benefit them.
This is just from what I can remember, too, mind you. I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch. It's been a while since I last played it. Good game, but, as a Sengoku history buff, the pledged "accuracy" compared to all the anachronism always kills me inside, especially when you compare it to Nobunaga's Ambition. Like I love silly, fun, purposeful anachronism, like with Sengoku Basara or Samurai Warriors. But it's not that. It's just flat out wrong and presented seriously. It doesn't make it a less fun game, but suffice to say I'm disappointed with it. They could've easily kept the game fun with necessary gamification anachronisms without being so, well, anachronistic in ways which really don't improve things.
It's also important to note that you really didn't have rigid, regimented, standing armies in the era. Sure, you had some trained samurai and people who made their living as warriors. But mostly, you had given landowners gathering up able-bodied men, who usually knew how to fight or fire an arrow given it was a requirement of the era, then answering to the call of more powerful landowners in the area to go to war. However, I understand this makes gamification REALLY REALLY hard, especially in RTS titles which follow more rigid systems of warfare, so I tend to handwave it.
I will note I do appreciate some of the anachronistic things they did as they played up war stories and legends of the era- the DLC with nun warriors, for instance. But it feels like they're supposed to be exceptions rather than the rule... when they are the rule. Which would be fine if they just embraced the rule. But they aren't, so it's annoying. If that makes sense?
Then you get to the start date of 1545 and the problems that causes:
- At the time, the Uesugi were not known as the Uesugi- they were the Nagao. The Yamanouchi and Ogigayatsu? Those were the two branches of the Uesugi. Nagao Kagetora, later Uesugi Kenshin, would not become adopted into the Uesugi clan and thus make himself the head of it until the early 1560s.
- Similarly, the Tokugawa clan were NOT the Tokugawa at the time. And they wouldn't be until 1568. They were the Matsudaira until then. And it's quite likely Ieyasu's father, who you start as, wouldn't have necessarily changed the main branch clan name to Tokugawa at all.
- Otomo Sorin's father is the leader of the Otomo clan in Shogun 2 at the start... but his father was never Christian. Ever. And he himself didn't convert until 1578. So the Otomo starting off as THE Christian faction is horribly innacurate.
- And the Chosokabe? Nowhere near powerful enough at the time to do the steamroll the other major factions can do. They should have it as hard as the Tokugawa. This one is more of a nitpick, admittedly, though.
- Kenshin, though a devout worshiper of the Buddhist god of defensive warfare and luck with finances, Bishamonten, for his entire life, also wasn't a Buddhist lay clergy at the time, so he would've still been seen in armor rather than his iconic headwrap.
Oh, and the Hattori. God. I hate the Hattori in Shogun 2. The Hattori were retainers of the Tokugawa. Yes, they originated from Iga, but they weren't a major clan in of themselves and only became infamous thanks to Hanzo, who again, served the Tokugawa --in Tokugawa lands, not Iga-- as a samurai landowner as much as a ninja. What they represent, the Iga Republic, was a conglomeration of a bunch of tiny clans whose heads voted democratically on what to do. They also really weren't interested in expansion. They instead hired their services as shinobi out to other, larger clans. So, to have this super minor clan that really doesn't have much to do with the Iga Republic past a certain point represent them and also be one of the most major threats in the game? It's "Ghandi with nukes in Civ" levels of silliness.
Also, I understand the purpose of the Realm Divide- to sort of emulate the problems Nobunaga had after entering Kyoto and asserting his dominance over the Shogunate. However, given the politics of the era, if the Ashikaga clan were flat out attacked with a sizeable army, it wouldn't have made every clan immediately pissed at you. You'd really only have the deputies of the shogunate to answer to, and the sole major deputy left who actually both had power and fronted about being loyal to the Ashikaga was the Uesugi clan. Otherwise, they'd be too, too busy with the rival clans around them to really care. This was an era of social upheaval- and that included the upheaval of caring about the Ashikaga. Sure, a lot might think you're a stinker- there's a reason Matsunaga Hisahide was known as "the villain of the warring states" in Edo era literature. But they wouldn't do anything unless it could benefit them.
This is just from what I can remember, too, mind you. I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch. It's been a while since I last played it. Good game, but, as a Sengoku history buff, the pledged "accuracy" compared to all the anachronism always kills me inside, especially when you compare it to Nobunaga's Ambition. Like I love silly, fun, purposeful anachronism, like with Sengoku Basara or Samurai Warriors. But it's not that. It's just flat out wrong and presented seriously. It doesn't make it a less fun game, but suffice to say I'm disappointed with it. They could've easily kept the game fun with necessary gamification anachronisms without being so, well, anachronistic in ways which really don't improve things.
It's also important to note that you really didn't have rigid, regimented, standing armies in the era. Sure, you had some trained samurai and people who made their living as warriors. But mostly, you had given landowners gathering up able-bodied men, who usually knew how to fight or fire an arrow given it was a requirement of the era, then answering to the call of more powerful landowners in the area to go to war. However, I understand this makes gamification REALLY REALLY hard, especially in RTS titles which follow more rigid systems of warfare, so I tend to handwave it.
I will note I do appreciate some of the anachronistic things they did as they played up war stories and legends of the era- the DLC with nun warriors, for instance. But it feels like they're supposed to be exceptions rather than the rule... when they are the rule. Which would be fine if they just embraced the rule. But they aren't, so it's annoying. If that makes sense?
this happens in professional soccer, FIFA doesnt allow gay players
I'm always interested why people give the benefit of the doubt that a game that is otherwise not historically accurate is just being historically accurate when the designers do something offensive with it.
Again, homosexuality and homophobia would mean nothing to a Roman, they would simply not understand what you're talking about.
If you're looking at the past through modern lenses... than yes... it is homophobic... but that is not how one should approach the past.
The Roman view on sexual relations can be boiled down to misogyny. It can't be understated how much ancient Greeks and Romans hated (feared even) women.
Just because Romans didn't have the figurative "vocabulary" to understand homophobia doesn't mean describing it as homophobia is inaccurate.
While it is your choice if you want to boycot CA , I think it is important to mention that CA has "grown out" of these types of commentaries. On their lastest 4 games i don't remember anything too offensive.
Obviously take my opinion with a grain of salt as i do like the games. The reason i'm trying for yo uto still consider their games is because alien isolation, total war warhammer and total war attila are pretty good.
The concept is not exclusive to modern language, even if the word is relatively new.
Steering this thread into discussing historical accuracy has seriously nothing to do with the problem at hand and immediately builds up a straw-man people will use in the future when talking about the subject.
This isn't about if and how homophobic Rome was or wasn't. This isn't about which penalites would be most realistic to a character's standing based on their sexuality in certain periods of time. This is about the descriptions which have absolutely nothing to do with game mechanics or historical context.
"An embarassing parody of an ugly woman"
"Too Well Groomed"
"Foreign Fruitcake"
"Type: DykeWoman"
This is apparently how CA describes homosexuals in those games. It doesn't fucking matter if Rome was the most gay place in the history of this planet or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with historical accuracy or a lack thereof.
This isn't about if and how homophobic Rome was or wasn't. This isn't about which penalites would be most realistic to a character's standing based on their sexuality in certain periods of time. This is about the descriptions which have absolutely nothing to do with game mechanics or historical context.
"An embarassing parody of an ugly woman"
"Too Well Groomed"
"Foreign Fruitcake"
"Type: DykeWoman"
This is apparently how CA describes homosexuals in those games. It doesn't fucking matter if Rome was the most gay place in the history of this planet or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with historical accuracy or a lack thereof.
Because the alternative is to immediately dogpile on a developer over some tasteless wording in a really old game.
And I'm not willing to do that minute one.
But ok I admit it seems shitty.
I mean, it's not 'tasteless wording,' it's active homophobia and transphobia, written and inserted by the staff.
I've never understood the idea of going back 10+ years and getting mad about how things were handled as if they were released today. Pretty sure the developers wouldn't word them like that now.
Lemme look into my magic crystal ball and tell you my vision of how this might end:
- Someone's gonna tweet at CA about this issue
- CA will be keep mum until they've consulted with their PR people
- Then, they'll apologize profusely and patch out the offending material
- Cue the "muh freedom", "muh censorship" and "SJW snowflakes" brigade
- Everyone forgets this ever happened
Traits are given in-universe descriptions.
The descriptions would also, for example, derisively describe anyone who valued science over religion.
Not to say they shouldn't have considered that these would be offensive, but just because it's the description doesn't mean it's their literal opinion.
Is CA even going to bother patching Rome 1 and Medieval 2? I could see them going into the "another era" or "historical acurracy" excuse, or flat out ignore it. Now, if this was one of their newer games they would patch them ASAP
???
Calling gay women "dykes" is not period accurate.
So, you didn't even read the OP? What were you responding to if all you read was the topic title?
Yes, that far-flung year of 2006. Jesus, that's years after "really, really old" Halo and GTA: San Andreas came out.
Exactly what sort of development are you expecting to appear in minute two? You have the text. You have the context. You couldn't work out that portraying gay people as effeminate fruits who like to rape little boys is wrong?
The whole concept would be unknown to Romans as they do not divide sexuality based on gender.
The basic premise of the mechanic - a historical game portraying homosexuality as something society considers wrong, and a "negative" effect - is... mostly fine. See Crusader Kings 2 which, as mentioned, handles it in a pretty clinical way. It's simply how the world works in those games.
The descriptions and code for these I obviously a very different story, and mixes a weird "in universe" tone with a distinctly modern flavor of bigotry. It's pretty indefensible.
On the same token, 10-15 years ago this sort of behavior was rampant in gaming and the only thing I find shocking is the fact it passed professional muster in a series that always seemed to hold itself to a certain standard of "austerity." I remember the mid/late 2000s and, while it's always been ugly, it was the unfortunate norm at the time.
It's not like this is a racist 30s cartoon, but in the same way, I don't think there's any "bad guy" left to fight here. It happened. As far as I know, it doesn't happen any more. Cut it from modern ports if you need to and let it be a reminder of how much better things have gotten, even if we still have a long way to go.
The descriptions and code for these I obviously a very different story, and mixes a weird "in universe" tone with a distinctly modern flavor of bigotry. It's pretty indefensible.
On the same token, 10-15 years ago this sort of behavior was rampant in gaming and the only thing I find shocking is the fact it passed professional muster in a series that always seemed to hold itself to a certain standard of "austerity." I remember the mid/late 2000s and, while it's always been ugly, it was the unfortunate norm at the time.
It's not like this is a racist 30s cartoon, but in the same way, I don't think there's any "bad guy" left to fight here. It happened. As far as I know, it doesn't happen any more. Cut it from modern ports if you need to and let it be a reminder of how much better things have gotten, even if we still have a long way to go.
OP
OP
When CA introduced female generals and female family member politics for Rome 2 there was alot of angry people.
They're depicting a world with a morally skewed compass for the sake of a laugh, it is a common thing through these descriptions. I don't think the real joke was ever supposed to be at the expense of homosexuality but the way the characters/world think such stupid and wrong things about it. Though I'm not sure why it's called an "Arse" trait, that seems just straight up hateful.
OP
OP
If the game has such disregard for historical accuracy there's was a famous mod made for that specific reason (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Barbarorum), why is it an excuse to say it's "historical accurate" to display such blatant homophobia?
While there certainly is no extant evidence of a conscious dichotomy between heterosexuality and homosexuality in Ancient Rome, that does not change the fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality existed during that time. They may not have given them names, but that doesn't negate the reality of such concepts. As long as there were people who were exclusively attracted to the same gender during that time, the concept existed during the time. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how well the Romans understood these concepts themselves. A lot of people in 2018 don't understand why their behavior is homophobic, but that doesn't mean that they're not homophobic.
Considering the problematic views on male effeminacy in Ancient Rome (something that is still an issue today, btw), we can reasonably deduce that some forms of homophobia existed during that time as well, even if it wasn't explicitly abstracted as a concept.
Yup, it isn't even historically accurate, and even if it was, it's a disgusting way of implementing it.
You say "tasteless wording" as if what they wrote could somehow be interpreted in any way other than blatant homophobia and transphobia. Like there's no generous way to read it, it's just straight up bad.
This is very troubling. Even more troubling is that some people think 2004-6 is ancient history. You know we had the internet and shit then too right? There really wasn't rampant homophobia in gaming or anywhere else then even if there was in your middle school cause you were a frickin' teenager; grown-up world wasn't like that.
Wait, so this stuff wasn't actually in-game? That seems like pretty important information. It means the devs found the traits to be in poor taste and disabled them in-game. They just didn't delete the relevant table entries.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/show...e79fa4d658a2&p=1564066&viewfull=1#post1564066
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/121682/i-hate-the-3-trait-limit
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/show...e79fa4d658a2&p=1561114&viewfull=1#post1561114
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/show...e79fa4d658a2&p=1545375&viewfull=1#post1545375
https://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/619568793916914034/?ctp=2#c619568793955518011
https://steamcommunity.com/app/4700...39332998/?l=english&ctp=2#c451852571443802694
Spoiler: They were in-game.
In the gaming world it is effectively ancient history. VG industry has stupidly high turnover, so there's very good chances that anyone involved in this changed jobs 4-5 times since then and anyone at CA currently had no idea it was there. CA has grown /massively/ since then, becoming in effect what passes in the PC scene as an AAA dev.
It's a fucking terrible look, but I don't really get throwing CA under the bus for something that happened so long ago. As long as they don't try and brush it under the rug, come out and acknowledge that behavior like this is unacceptable both then and especially now and patch it out (again, if they can) I don't really see the point in trashing them. That's just me though, and I don't really have anything against someone who feels otherwise. We all have to chose our own way to handle offensive stuff like this, after all.
I don't remember which one it was that didn't work but I'd guess it was not working due to a typo somewhere rather than cut content, that was why I was rooting around in the files in the first place.
OP
OP
CA games are very buggy, but i've seen some of the traits in-game. There real, and they we're put there intentionally.
i dont think you realize how much gay fucking was happening in rome back in the day
but good job defending homophobia with the ol' "but its HISTORY" bullshit
these games werent made 2000 years ago. these games are always made with current sensibilities in mind. theres nothing defending this shit.
Regarding archaic Greece:
In Hesiods ''Works and Days'', misogynistic remarks served as advice to protect not only the single household, but the whole village. Hesiod overemphasised this warning. A bad wife would result in an unstable household and an unstable community. Some modern historians think, that most/all of these misogynistic remarks in archaic poems were just humours mockery.