Paradox games are.. interesting. We can put it like that. I'm talking specifically about the propensity for doing truly abominable thing within the world of the game. Stellaris and it's intergalactic slavery and genocide. Hearts of Iron and how it lets you establish a fascist regime over all the world. Crusader Kings and how you can get.. well.. medieval. And Europa Universalis, where you engage in colonial expansion and genocide as a matter of course.
EU4 stands out as the most uncomfortable to play, when you sit back from the ducats and the development and the drilling.
It's not like Stellaris, where the scales are too big to ever really grasp what you're doing. There's too much abstraction. You can't look at a pop and say "this is X amount of people I've enslaved or condemned to genocide."
It's not like Hoi4, where in the interests of creating a wargaming experience, the only relevance fascism has to the game is the alliances your country makes, the type of puppet state you establish, and the buffs you get from your focus tree. TNO is as of yet the only Hoi4 experience we've had that grapples with fascism. What it means, what it does, what it is. And it's in essence a visual novel grafted onto the game, near completely divorced from the standard experience. One of the stories it tells is in fact a repudiation of the standard Hoi4 experience, that of a world conquest. What does that say about the game?
CK2, on the other hand, is very personal. The stories you tell with the game are about people, after all. Love, lust, rage, hatred. Scheming, fighting, praying. Cruelty, kindness, apathy, fervor. It does the opposite of the two games mentioned above, and brings into sharp focus the individual lives of the rulers. Every part of the mechanics and the flavor is centered around telling the tale of an individual monarch and their dynasty.
And that's an interesting question, mechanics. How do the mechanics of a game influence your experience with it? And I'm not talking about the basic functions of mechanics here or anything. I'm not talking about whether or not the game is fun to play, or well designed. I'm talking about the way the interaction of the mechanics with the setting of the game influences the way you think about it.
In Stellaris, you think about the grand scale. Of great empires, of massive economies. You're far beyond the concerns of manpower. Far beyond the focus of the individual on the ground. You have no time for that. There are stars to explore, civilizations to conquer, and a galaxy to colonize. Stellaris is a very dehumanizing game. The closest you get to stories on the ground are events talking about large societal trends, or the archaeological digs. I don't think anything with your leaders counts, really. They're paragons, isolates, and more representative of groups than they are themselves. Stellaris isn't a game about people. It's a game about civilizational machines, beyond your ability to comprehend.
In Hoi4, you think about war. Your goal is to get to a war economy and a high conscription law as fast as possible, produce as much war material as you can, and then go about the business of fighting the second world war. Hoi4 is so incredibly focused on war in its mechanics that it presents an utterly alien dichotomy the moment you sit down to think about it. You, the commander in chief of this nation of many millions of people, are actively encouraged to rush towards the death of millions. Because doing right by your country, fighting a limited war, only doing as much as is necessary to defend yourself to ensure the best life for your people, that's not only boring, it's non-optimal gameplay. This is exacerbated to such a degree that it's the opinion of most persons that the democratic nations, the most passive and reactive nations, are the most unfun to play. You are encouraged by the mechanics of the game and how it provides enjoyment to be a warmongering tyrant, because fighting war is the purpose of the thing. For a game about the second world war, it seems incredibly uninterested in actually portraying anything but the most surface level, historybro understanding of it. Particularly when it comes to atrocity. It's a game about civilizational machines, grinding into one another and desperately asking you to forget about the civilian dead.
Then EU4. It's a game that starts in 1444, and ends in 1836, and chronicles the history of the world in a wholly and entirely eurocentric manner. Your goal is not so much to conquer the world(though you may) but to become a dominant global power through your mastery of science, diplomacy, the economy, snd the military. As one might expect, one of the primary mechanics of this game is colonization. Another primary mechanic is culture and religion. Like all things in EU4, these mechanics can be somewhat labyrinthine to those who are inexperienced with the game. So I'll spare any readers an in depth dissertation on how it works. The gist of things is that each province has a religion and a culture, representing the beliefs and way of life of those living there. Ethnicity too, one might presume. When you colonize a territory, you over the course of a number of years turn it from a stateless, uncontrolled province to one with your own culture and religion. Except, the land is not uninhabited. It is with only a very few exceptions, never uninhabited. There are people there. Cultures and religions. Helpfully marked down with population stats, as well as 'aggressiveness' and 'ferocity' stats to let any potential colonizers know what to expect. As though these people are simply animals, and should be dealt with like animals.
When you colonize, of course, people will fight back. Native uprisings, they're called. So you need to station troops there, to protect your invasion and your genocide. But since your troops can only be in so many places at once, well. Wouldn't it be nice if there was some way to get the inevitable fight over with? In comes the 'attack natives' button, marked with a helpful graphic of a stylized man wearing a stylized war bonnet running from a stylized sword. With one to three applications of sword mana, you can commit genocide at your leisure, and reduce the population in the province to zero so your settlers have an easier time of things.
And so the game goes. For captured territory, there's a religion conversion button and a culture conversion button. The mechanics, through their simulation of people simply desiring to be free, make it optimal to crack down, restrict autonomy, crush rebellions, and homogenize all religion and culture. You are playing as an absolutist monarch, after all. Though even the republics aren't any better, because they're under the same mechanical pressures as the monarchies.
So it's interesting, how these mechanics influence your view of the world that the game presents. You get to see, in close to real time, how your empire snuffs out peoples and cultures and faiths, all for the sake of power and money. And these are good things for you, the player. Because the good numbers go up, and the bad numbers go down. You make more money, you have to deal with less unrest, and your name on the map grows larger. Press button, kill people, receive dopamine. All in a way that's so incredibly difficult to divorce yourself from, because the mechanics invite you to actively take part in the atrocities. And they make them fun. And satisfying. And it's on a scale that is very, very, very possible to comprehend. It's a game about civilizational machines crushing peoples under their heels, all while inviting you to look and see with just enough detail to make out the dead.
If you're going to play Paradox games, then you need to go into them knowing damn well what the difference is between what they're portraying and how they're portraying it. So you don't reduce the very real people who survived the horrors of colonialism to numbers on a screen.
259 notes
·
View notes
Mongolian history class, 2022, start of the semester. We're having a discussion on animal slaughter, featuring the one Mongolian student in our school.
The student explains that he's slaughtered animals himself, and there are two ways of doing it that avoid the spilling of blood. For a small animal like a chicken, you reach up into the chest of the animal and sever the arteries. For a larger animal like a camel, there's a spot on the forehead that, when hit hard enough, causes the animal to die instantly.
While this discussion is going on, a couple of the students are sharing something back and forth on their phone
The professor calls this out, asking if what they're sharing is more interesting than Mongolian animal slaughter
The room is dead silent for a few seconds. The two students look at each other awkwardly.
Eventually, one of the students pipes up:
"Well, the queen of England just died."
And without missing a beat, another student:
"Did they hit her on the head like a camel?"
38K notes
·
View notes
Sometimes you just have one of those moments where the progress we've made as a culture get thrown into stark relief. You look at something and go "Holy shit, that would never have happened when I was a kid."
Today, I had one of those moments when I realized that the teenage boys I'm working with are just. genuinely, openly enthusiastic about going to Build-a-Bear for their outing.
These are sixteen and seventeen year old boys! They just had a whole conversation about what to name their "cute", mostly new squishmallows! They're genuinely excited that they're going to Build-a-Bear this weekend and asking other kids to pick up specific accessories for them!!
Holy shit, that never would've happened when I was 16. None of the boys would have dared to be visibly interested - and neither would most of the girls! There would have been a million gay jokes and "Haha, you're a girl" jokes and "What are you, a baby?" jokes. Teenagers weren't even supposed to care about anything back then!
Less than 15 years later, and I'm watching three 17 year old boys treat all that as not even worthy of comment.
So let's call that a reason for hope. Even when the kids aren't alright, in some ways apparently they are alright. Go Gen Z, honestly. It's so lovely to watch you guys just openly doing and saying stuff that, when I was a teen, would've been a social death sentence.
9K notes
·
View notes