Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
...though the 'view from Sweden' is still pretty apparent in how the game presents some things, particularly colonialism in the Americas and transatlantic slavery, things which loom rather larger in the Anglophone classroom, perhaps, than in the Swedish game studoio. 45/46
That is my overlong take on the historical benefits and pitfalls of EU4. I suspect one day I'll write this up in a full essay-blog-post style, but for now, this is what I've got. Useful (and can be fun!) but also perilous if accepted uncritically. Like most pop history. end/46
My view of the Paradox games (rather more from a gameplay perspective) is that they focus on some feature which ends up driving quite a lot of the game. For Hearts of Iron, that's operational warfare. For Crusader Kings, that's feudalism. For Europa Universalis, it's imperialism
While other aspects of the time period get a look, they're nowhere near such a focus. For example, the warfare system in Hearts of Iron is by far the most complex, but diplomacy is highly lacking, especially compared to Europa Universalis
I'll look forward to that essay.
Excellent thread. I'd definitely be interested in reading that essay. I'd also be very interested to read an analysis on how strategy games affect the political leanings of players, even unintentionally. Because these simplistic historical narratives tend to either attract 1/2
people with the view that state power should be absolute, war is a fun game to be won, different cultures are a malus, etc, or else condition people to develop those views as a result of gameplay. Would be interested to know if it's a chicken/egg scenario. 2/2
Dont politicize games PLEASE.A history game shouldn't explain why slavery is bad, it should just acknowledge it existed, the player should already know it is bad.Besides the game also demonstrates how cruelty and violence were as widespread in europe as in the rest of the world
This was a great read. EU3 was a catalyst for me in terms of pursuing history in further education but paradox games certainly have a lot of faults when it comes to portraying real history once we dig below the surface level.
One of the key issues for me is how technology (for the most part) is directly tied to culture. The game is unintentionally teaching the player that western Europeans have access to higher rates of tech progression based on their 'better' practices and behaviours.
Interesting thread. However, I'm now glad EUIV was not designed in the U.S.
It's a historical game. It does not need to preach/moralize about drama of war and conquest from a XXIc viewpoint
In game you get events related to morals, but historical ones, not anachronistic.
I would disagree. I'd say EU4 represses moral debates within the period. Read, for instance, Bartolome de las Casas' *A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies* or some 18th century abolitionist literature. These viewpoints were out there, even then.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
