6 ms·

Deus Vult – Social Networks in Crusader Kings 2

102 points by creade 9y ago

ipsin 9y ago
This may be a post about a game related to medieval political intrigue, but I am creeped-the-fuck-out by the relation to modern r/TheDonald Deus Vult-ness.
- mmanfrin 9y ago
  Deus Vult is an expansion to the original Crusader Kings and predates the stupid meme by well over a decade. Any relation is one foisted upon later on.
  - kleptako 9y ago
    The same can be said about the swastika :^)
    - JCSato 9y ago
      Not to ignore the point being illustrated, nor the tongue-in-cheek nature of it, but a symbol on the flag of Nazi Germany and a Latin phrase from the middle ages that some undesirables on the internet use don't really seem comparable in scale, and scale is the important thing here. MAGA, for instance, was memetic, so if you use/repurpose it, there's a relatively unambiguous origin. Deus Vult in this context, not so much; it lacks the spread and saturation necessary. If the Swastika was only present on a small subset of Nazi paraphernalia, it wouldn't be nearly as taboo - it's till so toxic today because it was on everything and so readily associated. So I don't really think that argument applies here.
      - _jgdh 9y ago
        I get your point - if the swastika is used in a western country, its almost certainly a Neo-Nazi using it, not a middle-aged Indian woman, even though millions of Indians use the swastika in a religious context every day. However, by the same token, if someone says Deus Vult, its statistically far more likely to be a Neo-Nazi/far right nut rather than a fan of Crusader Kings.
        ameister14 9y ago
        I don't agree with that - there are more fans of crusader kings than there are Neo-Nazis.
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      I really don't like just letting scumbags claim every cultural item and symbol they want. The swastika is clearly lost to us, give the breadth and enormity of its use, but if we let them poison everything they ever touch we'll end up poorer for it.
  - partycoder 9y ago
    Deus Vult ("god wills it") is also the expression in Latin used during the actual crusades, the historical event that predates the game by over 900 years. The name of the game is based on that expression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult Some rather informal historical explanation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0
    - _jgdh 9y ago
      A quick note on exactly what God willed, according to the Crusaders. A scene from the Siege of Antioch in 1098 > The calm night air was shattered as the Franks screamed out their battle cry "God wills it! God wills it!" With resistance crumbling, the Crusaders poured into Antioch. Amid the gloom of the approaching dawn the chaotic slaughter began. One Latin contemporary noted that 'they were sparing no Muslim on the grounds on the age or sex, the ground was covered with blood and corpses and some of these were Christians Greeks, Syrians and Armenians...'. Afterwards one Crusader described how 'all the streets of the city on every side were full of corpses, so that no one could endure to be there because of the stench, nor could anyone walk along the narrow paths of the city, except over the corpses of the dead'. And this was just the capture of Antioch. The scenes at the capture of Jerusalem were far worse, with the Crusaders indulging in butchery that's nauseating to read about. In contrast, when Sultan Saladin recaptured Jerusalem 90 years later, it was done peacefully. When we see people today brandishing swastikas, we know exactly what kind of people they are and what they aspire to be, based on our knowledge of the crimes of the Nazis. Similarly, when you see a far right nut arguing against Islam and using this catchphrase, you know what kind of cloth they're cut from. Source - The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land by Thomas Asbridge
      - Banthum 9y ago
        5 seconds of Googling reveals: >On July 4, 1187, the Muslim forces of Saladin (Salah al-Din) decisively defeated the crusader army south of the Horns of Hattin in Palestine, capturing Guy, king of Jerusalem; Reginald of Châtillon, Saladin’s enemy whom he personally killed; over two hundred Knights Hospitaller and Templar Knightly Orders whom he ordered to be killed; and many crusaders whom he ransomed. The remaining captured Christians were sold on the local slave markets. [1] Such a friendly guy, that Saladin! Your attempt to draw some great moral distinction between evil Christian and good Muslims is massively confused and, given its underlying intent to delegitimize certain religious/ethnic groups today, actually nauseating. The reality is that pretty much everyone involved in the Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the Muslim re-conquests, and all conflicts of that era were absolutely brutal. Mohammed himself ordered and carried out countless torture sessions, battles, and massacres, of soldiers and civilians. So as did the Romans and the Franks and everyone else. If they were ever merciful, on any occasion, it was not for moral reasons, but strategic/political ones. The ancient world is brutal. Stop trying to manipulate stories from it to stir up hate towards peoples' identities today. We have enough things to fight about already. [1] http://www.history.com/topics/saladin http://www.history.com/topics/saladin
- Red_Tarsius 9y ago
  The world doesn't revolve around the moral whims of the American middle class. Deus Vult is a thematic headline for a historical wargame. People shouldn't stop using it because of meme culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult 4chan loves to prey on these concerns by hijacking harmless symbols e.g. green frogs, OK sign, rainbow flags.
- DanAndersen 9y ago
  Do you similarly feel creeped-the-fuck-out when hearing the Muslim call to prayer from a mosque, just because the first line "Allahu akbar" has a relation to the catchphrase uttered by radical Islamists? Gut reactions are completely normal but they should be the beginning of understanding and conversation rather than being a rhetorical stop sign. Strategy games always have a bit of player indulgence in role-playing. Part of the fun is putting yourself into the role and play-acting -- and having some ironic amusement at how out-of-place it sounds. There's even an entire subreddit about the crazy things people say when playing CK2 ( https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitCrusaderKingsSay/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitCrusaderKingsSay/ ). Example: https://i.imgur.com/qI4s0hJ.jpg https://i.imgur.com/qI4s0hJ.jpg It's a shame that modern commentary on video games tends to point out a link between something in a game and something unsavory or "problematic" and think that's the end of the discussion. I thought we had left behind that sort of thing with Jack Thompson.
jwdunne 9y ago
Oh man, I've sunk countless hours into CK2. Such a rich game and I highly recommend it. This post pretty much lays out a facet of what I love and alludes to the bigger picture: start with a historical setting and run with it, often diverging. One game I became the king of Ireland and then somehow the king of Britanny. I then only had female child heirs. They got overthrown and ended up cast out of Ireland. I was intrigued by that so I started a game as a count in Britanny. Worked my way up to the petty king of Britanny. Somehow engineered inheritance of another duchy - became a proper king of Britanny and then somehow became king of Aquitaine (so the king of half of modern day France). EU4 is another fantastic game based on the same engine. Less focused on dynasties and more geopolitics/colonisation, this also throws you into historical settings. As Portugal, I became holy Roman emperor - they got into a fluff where no one liked each other so I was the only choice even though I wasn't in the HRE. I'd love for Paradox to officially "link up" all the games so you can go from ancient Rome all the way to say the modern world. That would mean EU: Rome and Victoria on the new engine and also a new cold war era game they definitely need to make (focusing on modern geopolitics). Clearly a secret Paradox fanboy!
- madez 9y ago
  Paradox is doing most things right, not like some of their competitors. No pay-to-win or other ingame buys, but optional DLCs, that actually enhance the game, and constant development and care over years for their games, and excellent multiplatform support. Also, they are successfully producing some of the games with the highest (hours of gameplay)/(price) ratio, second only to some indie games and the unbeatable Dwarf Fortress. These games are not for everyone. Also, not entirely unlike Dwarf Fortress, they might seem a bit off-putting due to their complexity. But they have a much better GUI, and learning the basics is faster. It still takes time, though.
  - jwdunne 9y ago
    Yes. The first time I played a paradox game, I closed it due to the overwhelming UI. Takes a bit of perseverance if you want a rich, fully featured strategy experience. After a Paradox game, although fun, Civ just doesn't cut it.
cliftoncburton 9y ago
It was pretty fun and I'd recommend it.
payamb 9y ago
Anyone knows a good alternative to Victoria 2 ? I had so much fun in Victoria II but its unplayable now and always crashes.
- j_s 9y ago
  Might find some help getting things working on the Steam discussion forum for the game: http://steamcommunity.com/app/42960/discussions/ http://steamcommunity.com/app/42960/discussions/ It appears to be still for sale ($20), without overwhelming reports of technical issues: http://store.steampowered.com/app/42960/Victoria_II/ http://store.steampowered.com/app/42960/Victoria_II/

102 points by creade 9y ago

This may be a post about a game related to medieval political intrigue, but I am creeped-the-fuck-out by the relation to modern r/TheDonald Deus Vult-ness.

mmanfrin 9y ago
Deus Vult is an expansion to the original Crusader Kings and predates the stupid meme by well over a decade. Any relation is one foisted upon later on.
- kleptako 9y ago
  The same can be said about the swastika :^)
  - JCSato 9y ago
    Not to ignore the point being illustrated, nor the tongue-in-cheek nature of it, but a symbol on the flag of Nazi Germany and a Latin phrase from the middle ages that some undesirables on the internet use don't really seem comparable in scale, and scale is the important thing here. MAGA, for instance, was memetic, so if you use/repurpose it, there's a relatively unambiguous origin. Deus Vult in this context, not so much; it lacks the spread and saturation necessary. If the Swastika was only present on a small subset of Nazi paraphernalia, it wouldn't be nearly as taboo - it's till so toxic today because it was on everything and so readily associated. So I don't really think that argument applies here.
    - _jgdh 9y ago
      I get your point - if the swastika is used in a western country, its almost certainly a Neo-Nazi using it, not a middle-aged Indian woman, even though millions of Indians use the swastika in a religious context every day. However, by the same token, if someone says Deus Vult, its statistically far more likely to be a Neo-Nazi/far right nut rather than a fan of Crusader Kings.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        I don't agree with that - there are more fans of crusader kings than there are Neo-Nazis.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    I really don't like just letting scumbags claim every cultural item and symbol they want. The swastika is clearly lost to us, give the breadth and enormity of its use, but if we let them poison everything they ever touch we'll end up poorer for it.
- partycoder 9y ago
  Deus Vult ("god wills it") is also the expression in Latin used during the actual crusades, the historical event that predates the game by over 900 years. The name of the game is based on that expression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult Some rather informal historical explanation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0
  - _jgdh 9y ago
    A quick note on exactly what God willed, according to the Crusaders. A scene from the Siege of Antioch in 1098 > The calm night air was shattered as the Franks screamed out their battle cry "God wills it! God wills it!" With resistance crumbling, the Crusaders poured into Antioch. Amid the gloom of the approaching dawn the chaotic slaughter began. One Latin contemporary noted that 'they were sparing no Muslim on the grounds on the age or sex, the ground was covered with blood and corpses and some of these were Christians Greeks, Syrians and Armenians...'. Afterwards one Crusader described how 'all the streets of the city on every side were full of corpses, so that no one could endure to be there because of the stench, nor could anyone walk along the narrow paths of the city, except over the corpses of the dead'. And this was just the capture of Antioch. The scenes at the capture of Jerusalem were far worse, with the Crusaders indulging in butchery that's nauseating to read about. In contrast, when Sultan Saladin recaptured Jerusalem 90 years later, it was done peacefully. When we see people today brandishing swastikas, we know exactly what kind of people they are and what they aspire to be, based on our knowledge of the crimes of the Nazis. Similarly, when you see a far right nut arguing against Islam and using this catchphrase, you know what kind of cloth they're cut from. Source - The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land by Thomas Asbridge
    - Banthum 9y ago
      5 seconds of Googling reveals: >On July 4, 1187, the Muslim forces of Saladin (Salah al-Din) decisively defeated the crusader army south of the Horns of Hattin in Palestine, capturing Guy, king of Jerusalem; Reginald of Châtillon, Saladin’s enemy whom he personally killed; over two hundred Knights Hospitaller and Templar Knightly Orders whom he ordered to be killed; and many crusaders whom he ransomed. The remaining captured Christians were sold on the local slave markets. [1] Such a friendly guy, that Saladin! Your attempt to draw some great moral distinction between evil Christian and good Muslims is massively confused and, given its underlying intent to delegitimize certain religious/ethnic groups today, actually nauseating. The reality is that pretty much everyone involved in the Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the Muslim re-conquests, and all conflicts of that era were absolutely brutal. Mohammed himself ordered and carried out countless torture sessions, battles, and massacres, of soldiers and civilians. So as did the Romans and the Franks and everyone else. If they were ever merciful, on any occasion, it was not for moral reasons, but strategic/political ones. The ancient world is brutal. Stop trying to manipulate stories from it to stir up hate towards peoples' identities today. We have enough things to fight about already. [1] http://www.history.com/topics/saladin http://www.history.com/topics/saladin
Red_Tarsius 9y ago
The world doesn't revolve around the moral whims of the American middle class. Deus Vult is a thematic headline for a historical wargame. People shouldn't stop using it because of meme culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult 4chan loves to prey on these concerns by hijacking harmless symbols e.g. green frogs, OK sign, rainbow flags.
DanAndersen 9y ago
Do you similarly feel creeped-the-fuck-out when hearing the Muslim call to prayer from a mosque, just because the first line "Allahu akbar" has a relation to the catchphrase uttered by radical Islamists? Gut reactions are completely normal but they should be the beginning of understanding and conversation rather than being a rhetorical stop sign. Strategy games always have a bit of player indulgence in role-playing. Part of the fun is putting yourself into the role and play-acting -- and having some ironic amusement at how out-of-place it sounds. There's even an entire subreddit about the crazy things people say when playing CK2 ( https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitCrusaderKingsSay/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitCrusaderKingsSay/ ). Example: https://i.imgur.com/qI4s0hJ.jpg https://i.imgur.com/qI4s0hJ.jpg It's a shame that modern commentary on video games tends to point out a link between something in a game and something unsavory or "problematic" and think that's the end of the discussion. I thought we had left behind that sort of thing with Jack Thompson.

jwdunne 9y ago

Oh man, I've sunk countless hours into CK2. Such a rich game and I highly recommend it. This post pretty much lays out a facet of what I love and alludes to the bigger picture: start with a historical setting and run with it, often diverging. One game I became the king of Ireland and then somehow the king of Britanny. I then only had female child heirs. They got overthrown and ended up cast out of Ireland. I was intrigued by that so I started a game as a count in Britanny. Worked my way up to the petty king of Britanny. Somehow engineered inheritance of another duchy - became a proper king of Britanny and then somehow became king of Aquitaine (so the king of half of modern day France). EU4 is another fantastic game based on the same engine. Less focused on dynasties and more geopolitics/colonisation, this also throws you into historical settings. As Portugal, I became holy Roman emperor - they got into a fluff where no one liked each other so I was the only choice even though I wasn't in the HRE. I'd love for Paradox to officially "link up" all the games so you can go from ancient Rome all the way to say the modern world. That would mean EU: Rome and Victoria on the new engine and also a new cold war era game they definitely need to make (focusing on modern geopolitics). Clearly a secret Paradox fanboy!

madez 9y ago
Paradox is doing most things right, not like some of their competitors. No pay-to-win or other ingame buys, but optional DLCs, that actually enhance the game, and constant development and care over years for their games, and excellent multiplatform support. Also, they are successfully producing some of the games with the highest (hours of gameplay)/(price) ratio, second only to some indie games and the unbeatable Dwarf Fortress. These games are not for everyone. Also, not entirely unlike Dwarf Fortress, they might seem a bit off-putting due to their complexity. But they have a much better GUI, and learning the basics is faster. It still takes time, though.
- jwdunne 9y ago
  Yes. The first time I played a paradox game, I closed it due to the overwhelming UI. Takes a bit of perseverance if you want a rich, fully featured strategy experience. After a Paradox game, although fun, Civ just doesn't cut it.

cliftoncburton 9y ago

It was pretty fun and I'd recommend it.

payamb 9y ago

Anyone knows a good alternative to Victoria 2 ? I had so much fun in Victoria II but its unplayable now and always crashes.

j_s 9y ago
Might find some help getting things working on the Steam discussion forum for the game: http://steamcommunity.com/app/42960/discussions/ http://steamcommunity.com/app/42960/discussions/ It appears to be still for sale ($20), without overwhelming reports of technical issues: http://store.steampowered.com/app/42960/Victoria_II/ http://store.steampowered.com/app/42960/Victoria_II/