38
39

"Slavery does not need to be in Stellaris." Discussion on Paradox Forums. Thoughts? (forum.paradoxplaza.com)

MonsieurVoltaire が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Orson1981 -17ポイント-16ポイント  (25子コメント)

Slavery doesn't need to be in the game. It could have been excluded and the game would have worked just fine. Feel free to take a look at the vast majority of 4x games without slavery.

Including Slavery in the game does increase immersion, though at the cost distaste. We all know slavery is still alive and, if not well, chugging along today in all nations of the world. When our own history is full of cultures that accept slavery and to this day people still own slaves, it should not be unexpected that in a science fiction setting, there would be a race that culturally accepts the use of slave labor.

In the end, for good or ill, Paradox chose to include slavery in the game.

[–]OriginalBadassAutocrat 8ポイント9ポイント  (7子コメント)

Weapons don't need to be in the game either. Its the future anything can happen, weapons could be gone by 2100 if humanity really tried. Weapons have resulted in much worse atrocities than slavery, as without weapons it would be impossible for slavery to exist in the first place. Mustard gas. Napalm. Hydrogen bombs. Women raped at gunpoint. All horrors caused by weapons. Do you want the game not to have weapons?

How do you really feel about weapons in this game? Or forced relocation? How about exploitation of a race (how England & America treated the native Americans and Africans)? Expansion at the cost of other races (eg. manifest destiny)? How about extermination (aka weapons as discussed above)? Well that's three of the 4x's gone? Only leaves exploration. So how about you play minecraft on peaceful and have a nice day :)

[–]Orson1981 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Can't stand minecraft....

Anyway if you take weapons out of the game where are you going to derive conflict from? An important, but not universal, part of game design is overcoming conflict. I really don't think you can take weapons or war out of the game.

That said you could probably take forced relocation out and racial exploitation and still have a fine game.

Edit: Actually after thinking about it, you could make a fine game and take weapons out. I believe Off World Trader is trying to do something like this. Where conflict is overcome though economic means rather than military. I don't know too much about the game though.

Still I say you need weapons for Stellaris.

[–]OriginalBadassAutocrat 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

And for immersive games moral conflict is as important as physical conflict. If you take out slavery, you take out a moral choice about how your empire behaves. Historically slavery has been a thing done to prisoners of war, not the racist based human trafficking that was so prevalent in American 200 years ago.

[–]Orson1981 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

If you read my post I said slavery adds immersion. You are literally arguing my point against me.

[–]OriginalBadassAutocrat 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

But at the cost of distaste? Literally everything in a video game rated higher than E or pegi 3 can be taken as distasteful. Honestly the people most offended by slavery in the game are likely white people who feel like they're doing black people a favor by saying how sickened they are by an event so far in the past that no living people had grandparents directly affected by it, and its representation in a video game about non-human characters

[–]Orson1981 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Slavery is distasteful as is war.... I hope we don't have a problem with this.

I don't believe that I ever said having slavery in Stellaris is distasteful. I said slavery the act is distasteful. I also said that slavery is still about today, and so makes sense in the context of the game (maybe I need to go back and read my post, people seem to be saying I said a lot of things I didn't think I said...).

Honestly I don't know what you are trying to argue with me about.

Edit: I absolutely did say "Slavery increase immersion at the cost of distaste." Ha! Though to be fair, its true, some people are going to find it distasteful.

[–]Forderz 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Man, I don't know why people think you have a dog in this fight.

Everyone is entitled to find things they like and dislike differently compared to others. Some people dislike chocolate, other can't stand vanilla. Some people find the prolonged suffering of slavery more objectionable than the quicker misery of warfare.

I think playing in a galaxy full of nothing but fanatical pacifists would be fascinating in Stellaris.

[–]Orson1981 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you. I think I've just hit a nerve with the seedy underbelly of the internet.

[–]WhatCrusadePresident 3ポイント4ポイント  (16子コメント)

We have a much darker history with genocide, should 'Purge' mechanic from Stellaris be removed as well?

[–]Orson1981 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (15子コメント)

It could be and you'd still have a perfectly fine game!

Again, like I said above, I'll let Paradox make the development decisions.

[–]WhatCrusadePresident 3ポイント4ポイント  (14子コメント)

PDX should remove Wars as well, because when we get down to it, they are the main cause of death and destruction for our species.

[–]Orson1981 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (13子コメント)

Okay sure, but what are you going to replace it with? It really isn't much of game if you take out war.

and before you go swoosh...

The point I was trying to make is that slavery does not need to be in Stellaris, and slavery does not need to be in Stellaris. There are a ton of good 4x games out there that do not use slavery in any way, it is clearly possible to create a good 4x title without slavery.

I countered this argument by saying that slavery does lend itself to immersion, because it is believable.

At no point did I make an argument that slavery should be removed from the game. I merely said Paradox has included it.

[–]WhatCrusadePresident 4ポイント5ポイント  (12子コメント)

Need? Who decides the needs of the game? You?

Btw, it's odd that you find slavery 'distasteful' but are completely fine with interstellar warfare among species with unimaginable technology, and each war would surely cost millions if not billions of deaths, and you don't mind it, because what, the game will not be fun without warfare?

So, you are OK with some objectionable things but not others? You have a really bizarre morality.

[–]Orson1981 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

Endless Space, Master of Orion 2, Polaris Sector, and Sword of the Stars, Gal Civ to name a few, were all excellent sci fi space based 4x games that did not include slavery. Maybe you and I have drastically different tastes in 4x games, have you ever played a 4x game without slavery? Was it fun? If they took slavery out tomorrow, do you think you could still enjoy Stellaris?

The criteria I am applying to the word "need" is, can Paradox make an enjoyable game without said feature. I really do believe that you can have an enjoyable game without slavery, I believe this because I have played many games like this that I found very enjoyable.

Also, war is absolutely as distasteful as slavery. How was this ever in doubt? However I don't believe you can make an enjoyable 4x game without war, at least not in the vein that Stellaris is hoping to achieve.

Perhaps I do have a twisted morality though. I also believe that video games are not real and the normal rules of morality can be greatly relaxed.

[–]AnthraxCat 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, your morality isn't twisted, it's actually pretty solid and intelligently put together. Unlike the rest of the internet, you apparently value ethical calculus instead of ethical absolutism.

To say why war ought but slavery or genocide ought not, why not say though that one is necessary in struggle, the other is not? All games as their fundamental element involve struggle, but genocide and slavery are not struggle, just perversion. We recognise that already: war is legal, war crimes are not. Even there we draw many different lines. For instance, it is permissible to kill civilians contributing to a war effort in total war, but not permissible to genocide them for expediency or social capital.

These are not, actually, difficult moral questions, and you are right. I am just as baffled by people saying it must be as people saying it must not be. You're right: PDOX made a choice as to what kind of options they wanted available for players when waging war.

[–]AnthraxCat 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

No, your morality isn't twisted, it's actually pretty solid and intelligently put together. Unlike the rest of the internet, you apparently value ethical calculus instead of ethical absolutism.

To say why war ought but slavery or genocide ought not, why not say though that one is necessary in struggle, the other is not? All games as their fundamental element involve struggle, but genocide and slavery are not struggle, just perversion. We recognise that already: war is legal, war crimes are not. Even there we draw many different lines. For instance, it is permissible to kill civilians contributing to a war effort in total war, but not permissible to genocide them for expediency or social capital.

These are not, actually, difficult moral questions, and you are right. I am just as baffled by people saying it must be as people saying it must not be. You're right: PDOX made a choice as to what kind of options they wanted available for players when waging war.

[–]Orson1981 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Its probably awful, but there is a real desensitizing effect when acts like slavery, genocide, and war are handled as abstract ideas. Even in video games, personal depictions of these acts can be very emotionally moving. However when zoomed out at with the 4x lens these acts lose their emotional attachments.

I think mostly that's why I'm okay with these in the game. People can and almost definitely will be suitably horrified by these types of actions if they were ever confronted by them out in the world. In the game they are reduced to flips of a switch and strategies to win the game. While they have their roots in our history (and for some our present) they are suitably divorced from their real world counter parts.

Of course I say this as I sit upon a mound of privilege never having had been forced to go through any great upheaval. It would make sense that people who have been slaves, or have lived through genocide and war would be massively more sensitive to it than I. But that isn't necessarily reason to take it out, only an acknowledgement that some people will not find the game enjoyable.

[–]Forderz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

I doubt anyone who ordered systemic, ordered genocide saw his (or her, but let's be serious here) victims as anything but numbers and values that didn't add up.

Games have the power to see into the mind of another type of person, and almost truely become them. I don't agree with slavery at all, but I can see the calculus that would let someone arrive to it as a conclusion.

[–]WhatCrusadePresident -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

I actually dislike 4x games, I am gonna play Stellaris because for starters it is a 4X/GSG hybrid. Also, if they never included slavery in Stellaris, I doubt I'd have cared, but now that they have, if they took slavery out tomorrow, I'd be immensely pissed, to the point where I might not even buy the game. Not because of slavery in itself, but because it would make Stellaris and PDX as a whole just another victim to the whiny and bleeding heart politically correct crowd.

What makes a game enjoyable, and enjoyable to whom? Some people will hate the game whether you include slavery or not. You're using your personal viewpoint of enjoyment and applying it universally. Stellaris can be an enjoyable game without Orbital Bombardment, because OB is so destructive and unnecessary, I think we can do away with it. So just start making a list of things you can arbitrarily remove from the game, while keeping it "enjoyable".

If video games are not real and the normal rules of morality can be relaxed, then what makes slavery "distasteful" in the first place?

[–]Orson1981 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Also, if they never included slavery in Stellaris, I doubt I'd have cared

Great then we can at least agree that slavery was not necessary in Stellaris! Further I think we can agree that slavery is not necessary from a gameplay stand point. We are making progress!

Now you state the reason slavery is necessary now is

because it would make Stellaris and PDX as a whole just another victim to the whiny and bleeding heart politically correct crowd.

I have to admit, I don't normally find a game enjoyable because the developer is whiny or a bleeding heart (or gives in to whiny bleeding hearts), I mostly focus on gameplay. But as you said

What makes a game enjoyable, and enjoyable to whom?

So hey man, to each their own, slavery is necessary to you because you are angry about stuff, I get it.

[–]WhatCrusadePresident -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Great then we can at least agree that slavery was not necessary in Stellaris! Further I think we can agree that slavery is not necessary from a gameplay stand point. We are making progress!

You're literally repeating yourself over and not adding anything except your poor attempt at sarcasm.

I have to admit, I don't normally find a game enjoyable because the developer is whiny or a bleeding heart (or gives in to whiny bleeding hearts), I mostly focus on gameplay.

The game will be something that I would want to play whether PDX capitulates to the bleeding hearts or not, but it's about principle for me, if my favorite game developer decides that 'well, we thought that this mechanic added depth to the game, but now a bunch of people have been triggered, so I guess we can scrap that', then I will not support that pathetic act of cowardice.

So hey man, to each their own, slavery is necessary to you because you are angry about stuff, I get it.

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I'm angry about stuff, but with omniscience like that, I guess you can state universally that a game will be enjoyable when you remove a mechanic or two.

[–]Forderz 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

What's wrong with him speaking his opinion on the matter? He laid out the pros and cons of the issue and came down against it, but he's not crusading for its removal.

[–]WhatCrusadePresident 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I never said anything is wrong with him speaking his opinion on the matter. I am just arguing against his cons of the issue. Why do you think it's wrong for me to argue against someone, with civility I might add, if I think that they are wrong?