Mordja posted:

I think it's going more for a Witcher but historical type thing than a M&B.

Captain Oblivious posted:

Hes an alt right gamergater so people are hesitant to give money or the benefit of the doubt to a transparently bad person.

The whole historical realism argument for not including women thing also doesn’t really withstand any kind of scrutiny because the game already isn’t realistic on a number of fronts, the portrayal of combat probably the biggest offender. This game does not depict anything resembling actual 14th century combat. So you have to ask yourself why is that (pretty significant) historical inaccuracy okay but not, say, playable women?

DreamShipWrecked posted:

I did notice that the combat is hardly realistic as well, they put a lot of ad space in with how the fighting is "based on real techniques", but sword-and-board combat just was not as common as most media depicts it. Teaching someone to fight with a sword requires training. Teaching someone to fight with a spear is a matter of "take this and put the pointy end in the other guy". This is especially true for large battles, where the majority of the plebs fighting would just be using spears or something close to them.

DreamShipWrecked posted:

Pretty much this, if you were one of the guards singing to himself in front of large buildings. You aren't the hero of the story, you're just Some Dude with a grudge that occasionally does mercenary work in large battles.

I'm intrigued by this game because sim games always interest me, and the idea that you are treated by citizens not only by what you wear, but also how shiny and clean your armor is, is pretty neat. The historical focus will be something, since medieval life was pretty boring for the common serf. It also doesn't explain how populations are going to work; if you break into someone's house and kill them, is the house just empty forever? It'd be pretty weird for simulation if there was just someone back the next day running the same script, but it's likely that is how it will work.


aw gently caress, why are nerds such poo poo people

I did notice that the combat is hardly realistic as well, they put a lot of ad space in with how the fighting is "based on real techniques", but sword-and-board combat just was not as common as most media depicts it. Teaching someone to fight with a sword requires training. Teaching someone to fight with a spear is a matter of "take this and put the pointy end in the other guy". This is especially true for large battles, where the majority of the plebs fighting would just be using spears or something close to them.

SlightlyMad posted:

You are partly right in my uninformed opinion, since polearms were the primary weapon for armies of the time, but grave finds show plenty of sword and board action did take place as well. I have seen the game feature polearms, axes and maces too, it is not all swords all the time. As a counterpoint to how unrealistic you think the combat is, a historical european martial arts guy commented that at least compared to other games this one gets it "closer" to reality than most. It was on a youtube video by Skallagrim, talking about the Beta version. I can not judge personally either way, I am not a martial arts historian. For all I know we could all be wrong in our assumptions, historians included.

SlightlyMad posted:

I have come across some remarks about controversies regarding the main character being male and everybody in the game being white europeans, but I don't get what the problem is if the game aims for historical realism in those regards. If the lead dev dabbles in historical re-enactments of vikings that does not mean he's automatically some nazi sympathizer either. Seems like there's a risk of jumping into conclusions, as is commonplace on the net. I will give the benefit of the doubt since I don't know either way what the details of that are. There was also some chatter about DLC content where a female lead character might get introduced if the game sold well or something. Can not confirm or deny that one.

In that time period, women would have been in a radically different role in society than nowadays, and Europe in general was not racially diverse either. If you had been of middle eastern appearance or such, you'd probably get skewered for suspicion of being a "Heathen Saracen", I'd think.

Now, if you had a game taking place 10,000 years ago the ethnicities would have been wildly different again, with dark skinned blue eyed Europeans running around. Sometimes I wish there was a game that portrayed prehistory accurately, but that is another discussion. There was a fascinating discovery recently of British prehistoric people that goes into detail about dark skin having been common in the ice age or post-ice age Europe. Us "whites" are recent mutants it seems. And we have Neanderthals in our ancestral family tree. Cross-breeding, aww yiss. Makes the racists all the more ignorant, doesn't it?

Anyways, I hope the game is good. Not trying to derail the conversation in any form. I'd appreciate if the discussion remains civil and factual as much as possible.

Skoll posted:

lol if you won't be able to mod in third person. FPS extended melee is never fuckin fun.

Skoll posted:

lol if you won't be able to mod in third person. FPS extended melee is never fuckin fun.

SlightlyMad posted:

I have come across some remarks about controversies regarding the main character being male and everybody in the game being white europeans, but I don't get what the problem is if the game aims for historical realism in those regards. If the lead dev dabbles in historical re-enactments of vikings that does not mean he's automatically some nazi sympathizer either. Seems like there's a risk of jumping into conclusions, as is commonplace on the net. I will give the benefit of the doubt since I don't know either way what the details of that are. There was also some chatter about DLC content where a female lead character might get introduced if the game sold well or something. Can not confirm or deny that one.

In that time period, women would have been in a radically different role in society than nowadays, and Europe in general was not racially diverse either. If you had been of middle eastern appearance or such, you'd probably get skewered for suspicion of being a "Heathen Saracen", I'd think.

Now, if you had a game taking place 10,000 years ago the ethnicities would have been wildly different again, with dark skinned blue eyed Europeans running around. Sometimes I wish there was a game that portrayed prehistory accurately, but that is another discussion. There was a fascinating discovery recently of British prehistoric people that goes into detail about dark skin having been common in the ice age or post-ice age Europe. Us "whites" are recent mutants it seems. And we have Neanderthals in our ancestral family tree. Cross-breeding, aww yiss. Makes the racists all the more ignorant, doesn't it?

Anyways, I hope the game is good. Not trying to derail the conversation in any form. I'd appreciate if the discussion remains civil and factual as much as possible.

Vahakyla posted:

Yeah except every day we discover more and more female influence and participation in societies of past now that "white chauvinist rich men" aren't the only style of a historian publishing research. Naturally the role of men dominating society in many ways is true, but that is no reason why we can't have believeable and well-fitting female characters in games we deem realistic and historical. From Boudicca, Cleopatra, Theodora, to Katerina, we have plenty of leadership figures that are well known, and the rank and file surely had more female adventurers and warriors than just the ones we know now, but there might be a good reason why their stories weren't told. You know, with rich white chauvinist men being in charge in Europe and all. Can you imagine how interesting a game like Kingdom Come could be with a female character that faces opposition in every act and discussion she faces, and not only fights against sword and pike, but also the raging male supremacy of the time? That'd be pretty baller imho. There's also a really good argument made for giving minority and other-than-straight guys and gals the chance to identify with their characters, and not stomp all over games with sparkly clean straight white guys in the name of "biotruths and history" that don't seem to hold against closer observation anyway.

Ever heard of Makouraino? Matilda of Tuscany? Jeanne Hachette? loving Isabella of France? Queen Rudrama Devi? Blanche of Castile? Razia Sultana? Mercadera? Matilda of Boulogne?

OutofSight posted:

I like your pitched game concept, but the execution would face so many gameplay problems.

Pablo Gigante posted:

Would it?

OutofSight posted:

Think of social stats in old tabletop roleplay games. Start out as a daughter or wife of a peasant farmer. Your lord owns your land and you can't leave. You have to decide if you want to flee to the uprising new cities, to get rid of your bonds ("Stadtluft macht frei.")and be a low wage pauper or join the local peasant rebellion, which will be brutally beaten down by the troops of the local lord. Getting ambushed and raped by local bandits in the woods in this time of strife as optional horror encounter.
I admit i exaggerated the gruesome setting a bit.

An interesting experience, but not fun for most "power fantasy" players.

Skoll posted:

Playing as a peasant female in medieval society is something I didn't know I wanted because it's 2018 and I'm woke as gently caress. Furthermore,

OutofSight posted:

Think of social stats in old tabletop roleplay games. Start out as a daughter or wife of a peasant farmer. Your lord owns your land and you can't leave. You have to decide if you want to flee to the uprising new cities, to get rid of your bonds ("Stadtluft macht frei.")and be a low wage pauper or join the local peasant rebellion, which will be brutally beaten down by the troops of the local lord. Getting ambushed and raped by local bandits in the woods in this time of strife as optional horror encounter.
I admit i exaggerated the gruesome setting a bit.

An interesting experience, but not fun for most "power fantasy" players.

Vahakyla posted:

Yeah except every day we discover more and more female influence and participation in societies of past now that "white chauvinist rich men" aren't the only style of a historian publishing research. Naturally the role of men dominating society in many ways is true, but that is no reason why we can't have believeable and well-fitting female characters in games we deem realistic and historical. From Boudicca, Cleopatra, Theodora, to Katerina, we have plenty of leadership figures that are well known, and the rank and file surely had more female adventurers and warriors than just the ones we know now, but there might be a good reason why their stories weren't told. You know, with rich white chauvinist men being in charge in Europe and all. Can you imagine how interesting a game like Kingdom Come could be with a female character that faces opposition in every act and discussion she faces, and not only fights against sword and pike, but also the raging male supremacy of the time? That'd be pretty baller imho. There's also a really good argument made for giving minority and other-than-straight guys and gals the chance to identify with their characters, and not stomp all over games with sparkly clean straight white guys in the name of "biotruths and history" that don't seem to hold against closer observation anyway.

Ever heard of Makouraino? Matilda of Tuscany? Jeanne Hachette? loving Isabella of France? Queen Rudrama Devi? Blanche of Castile? Razia Sultana? Mercadera? Matilda of Boulogne? Isabel of Conches?

Gobblecoque posted:

I agree that a game where you play as a peasant woman rather than a peasant man could be cool but you're pretty much just naming rich, powerful (and mostly white) women. Sounds like Crusader Kings 2 might be more up your alley.

corn in the bible posted:

Also who gives a poo poo, they clearly don't actually care about accuracy cause they think people used swords to cut people lol

gasman posted:

Care to elaborate?

gasman posted:

Care to elaborate?

corn in the bible posted:

also two-handed swords were like big expensive clubs, you beat people up with them

Pablo Gigante posted:

corn in the bible posted:

ah yes, the popular "everyone was constantly raped" idea of the past. big fan of game of thrones here huh

Vahakyla posted:

You ain’t cutting through plate armor like you do in movies.

quote:

While the great diversity of cutting and thrusting swords around the world testify to the importance of both cutting and thrusting in fencing, there is something of a pervasive myth of a supposed "superiority" of point over edge in swordplay, and predominantly in European swordplay. Yet, with only a few minor exceptions, prior to the early 18th century there was no "cut versus thrust" debate among Western swordsmen.

Many swords of the world were in actuality compromise designs that attempted to blend and combine in one weapon those elements ideally best for slashing and stabbing. There are many, many possible design solutions. There are types of swords with straight backs yet curved edges, and others that widen toward the point but then taper sharply. In most cultures acutely pointed cut-and-thrust swords existed side by side with more dedicated cutting blades for centuries with neither replacing the other.

The thrust and cut alike were common, even fundamental fighting techniques among warrior cultures...

Mordja posted:

A quick google on thrust v cut is

From http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html#.Wn4UcedG2Ul

Like no kidding you're not cutting through plate armor with a short sword, but you'd sure slash at a guy wearing a shirt why not.

gasman posted:

Yea, that's... I don't know.