As much as I want see Crusader Kings II I kind of don’t want Paradox to make it, atleast not without a dedicated force of medievalists and historians and atleast a single catholic at their side to explain what the Middle Ages actually were and tell them what all the long words mean. The main fault of Crusader Kings the first is symptomatic of all paradox game and that is viewpoint and treatment of history. Crusader Kings covers Europeans Golden Age, the height of Christian civilisation and all the things that made it so are either ignore entirely or treated as barbarism.
The great movements of the age are ignored entirely, the revolution of the Frairs goes unmentioned and the reforms of the church with it, the turbulence of the Manichean heresy and the albigensian crusade again is entirely skipped over. Feudalism is treated as mere tyranny, kings raised to the corruption and authority as was only ever seen long after the reformation once the system had degenerated completely, Serfdom is treated as though it were slavery with peasants rising against it where they only ever rose to defend it and the church is only ever mentioned when its either having its power abused or is abusing it itself, despite the era being one of great progressive reform everything is shown in the light of the most abhorred Whig history and a dismay and disgust of the past. The game purports to be set in the Middle ages but in reality it is really only set inside the middle ages as presented in American cartoons.
The feudal contract was missing one side, everything was authority and privilege with none of the responsibility, the game was one founded around individuals and yet it was expected to represent an age where everything was about families. Men were not tied to the land but to each other, it was in map of the middle ages drawn over a simplification of roman barbarism. It was a world of nationalism, not of the universalism, a world of slaves not of serfs. And there are a thousand other complaints along the same lines. Crusader Kings is a great and unique game, but it is not set in the middle ages despite the years in the top corner, despite the names of the map.
I would suggest vitally that they atleast read up on it first, not just the dates and battles and names of kings which is a good way to cover most of the other periods of mankind, but for the unique and great middle ages it is really the character that must be studied. I would suggest ‘the Glory of the Medieval World’ by Regine Pernoud, not just because it is a good and plain look at the culture and law and the middle ages but also because if a game it to be set in the middle ages it should be made from the perspective of one who loved them, although a dedicated Historian on staff would really be the only serious route of action, and there are plenty of unemployed medievalists in the world, it’s a degree that really only qualifies you to teach it to other people and they generally have the benefit of being the sort of people who are passionate about the middle ages. And it wouldn’t take more than two seconds to ask what the term original sins means, any catholic could have told you and even that little step wasn’t taken in the first, it was almost as if they didn’t even try.
But if paradox are to make Crusade Kings II, as they are the only ones who can, being both the makers of the first and the only company to not only touch but to master the genre, If Paradox is to make Crusade Kings II, they’re going to need a lot of help. They’re great at the programming but out-sourcing the research is really the only way to go if the game is even to be a touch on what it ought to be. Of all the games that paradox carries it’s the one with the most potential, and itd be a shame to see that wasted. And if it is written like all the other paradox games in the secular protestant tone all too ready to attack the past for not being what modern liberals would think good then it will not become what it should be, what it deserves to be.
The great movements of the age are ignored entirely, the revolution of the Frairs goes unmentioned and the reforms of the church with it, the turbulence of the Manichean heresy and the albigensian crusade again is entirely skipped over. Feudalism is treated as mere tyranny, kings raised to the corruption and authority as was only ever seen long after the reformation once the system had degenerated completely, Serfdom is treated as though it were slavery with peasants rising against it where they only ever rose to defend it and the church is only ever mentioned when its either having its power abused or is abusing it itself, despite the era being one of great progressive reform everything is shown in the light of the most abhorred Whig history and a dismay and disgust of the past. The game purports to be set in the Middle ages but in reality it is really only set inside the middle ages as presented in American cartoons.
The feudal contract was missing one side, everything was authority and privilege with none of the responsibility, the game was one founded around individuals and yet it was expected to represent an age where everything was about families. Men were not tied to the land but to each other, it was in map of the middle ages drawn over a simplification of roman barbarism. It was a world of nationalism, not of the universalism, a world of slaves not of serfs. And there are a thousand other complaints along the same lines. Crusader Kings is a great and unique game, but it is not set in the middle ages despite the years in the top corner, despite the names of the map.
I would suggest vitally that they atleast read up on it first, not just the dates and battles and names of kings which is a good way to cover most of the other periods of mankind, but for the unique and great middle ages it is really the character that must be studied. I would suggest ‘the Glory of the Medieval World’ by Regine Pernoud, not just because it is a good and plain look at the culture and law and the middle ages but also because if a game it to be set in the middle ages it should be made from the perspective of one who loved them, although a dedicated Historian on staff would really be the only serious route of action, and there are plenty of unemployed medievalists in the world, it’s a degree that really only qualifies you to teach it to other people and they generally have the benefit of being the sort of people who are passionate about the middle ages. And it wouldn’t take more than two seconds to ask what the term original sins means, any catholic could have told you and even that little step wasn’t taken in the first, it was almost as if they didn’t even try.
But if paradox are to make Crusade Kings II, as they are the only ones who can, being both the makers of the first and the only company to not only touch but to master the genre, If Paradox is to make Crusade Kings II, they’re going to need a lot of help. They’re great at the programming but out-sourcing the research is really the only way to go if the game is even to be a touch on what it ought to be. Of all the games that paradox carries it’s the one with the most potential, and itd be a shame to see that wasted. And if it is written like all the other paradox games in the secular protestant tone all too ready to attack the past for not being what modern liberals would think good then it will not become what it should be, what it deserves to be.
