What was inconsistent? The information you are providing is inconsistent.

Incorrect information does not lead to a "balanced" picture. It's a distorted picture.

You all need to lighten up. Guess what? Human beings are selfish and destructive creatures. The "evil" you speak of lies in human nature, and none of us here are going to fix that.

because the spanish side is the white european side, it's that simple. Same boohoo bullshit when talking about the "native americans". Like we should have just left one of the biggest land masses on earth to a bunch of near-prehistoric peoples.

Maybe not. But was it necessary to lie, cheat, steal and genocide them so vigorously, systematically, and with the full backing of the US government and military?

I see that I am just wasting my time as you clearly do not make any effort in actually reading what I write and to understand it but instead you seem to put words in my mouth.

Quite disappointing to say the least as I expected more from you. So let's just be done with it.

(Anyway, you are still OK in my book since you helped me out once with a Steam problem :))

That's generally the way that war and conquest happens, apparently. At least that's how history seems to portray it. Primitive people were defenseless against modernity, and yeah it's a crying shame, but it hasnt, or wasnt going to happen any other way.

Yep, I just hope nowadays we would know better, but not so sure of that.

Gross oversimplification. Not all domination of native or militarily inferior peoples exhibited such vicious characteristics and lasted so long well after domination had been achieved (e.g. I believe we were still ripping them off through the Indian Fund well into the 20th century). And even if you were correct, "everybody else did it" is hardly a morally defensible position.

Denying we did something wrong really doesn't help us as a country. It's far healthier to acknowledge we conducted ourselves shamefully, make what reparations are reasonable, and learn from it by confronting our past rather than running away from it or downplaying it. If we aspire to be a just society and would like to claim the high road as a nation of ideals, honesty about our past is the only option.

Why are the people arguing so much against Conquistadors a game? When they're not doing the same thing for Inquisitor, a game ?

The Inquisition tortured thousands of people, forced the expulsions of tens of thousands more, for conversion on probably hundreds of thousands more. Yet, a game about that is ok it seems, since no one in this conversation seems to mind that.

The Inquisition period lasted for centuries too.
Yes, less people were harmed, but the principle is the same. The Inquisition did many bad things yet a game on it is ok. A game that even demands from you to torture people on different torture machines by the way….

Also, I'm implying you guys think it's ok, because you don't seem to post anything about it in those threads.

In reality they are both games. If all you think about is the principle then we should never play any action games. Shooters make you kill people for the entire game and usually it doesn't matter who is being shot at, but sometimes it does. Strategy games involve buidling up empires to utterly destroy others (see Age of Empires, Civilization,…). RPGs involve you killing every animal there is in the game world. If that's not bad for the innocent animals, then what is? PETA wouldn't be happy seeing you kill all the boars in Gothic 3 or cows and chickens for that matter. On top of that you usually have to choose a group to side with and end up killing most people of the other group.

Point of this post: Differentiate between games and real life, otherwise you seem to be nitpicking (if you're a gamer)

I don't see how the subject matter is any different than any other conquest in history, such as my own nations conquest during the northern crusades. We don't live in that world anymore. Some people here and elswhere seem to get really hysterical about this game as if it was an ultimate incarnation of evil or something. Chillax, it's just a game somewhat influenced by an interesting period in history.

A game that glorifies torture or destruction of historical civilizations to me sends a bad message. THIS is why I usually prefer fantasy or scifi settings over glorification of historic massacres.

The problem is that the game doesn't "glorify" torture or destruction. Like it or not, it's part of our history.

@ Thrasher: See wolfing's post. Add to that the fact that playing as humans killing elves is just a way of seeing one race killing another. So in fact it's just hiding that you might be a Shia killing a Sunni or a Christian killing a Jew or a colonialist killing a native. In essence it IS the same thing. You are massacring an entire other race in most fantasy games because they are of another race.

In Star Wars it's Sith vs Jedi (two different religions) or Empire vs Rebels (like in Syria right now). In Lord of the Rings it's Orcs killing Humans, Dwarves and Elves.

In reality it's still wrong. Hiding what exactly the races are is not a betterment of killing a people for what they are or what they believe in.

You can of course think what you want to think and justify playing a "fantasy" game because it has different races, but in reality it IS still a game just like this game is still just a game.

Of course, if the entire idea of the game WAS to put pestilence and disease upon the natives as well as killing them all, then that would be bad in my opinion. But the game isn't like that and it will still address all of the issues as much as they can according to the developers.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/…uistador/posts

Tiptoeing in where angels fear to tread…

It's pretty clear that broad historical statements, even when accurate on the large scale, do not and cannot accurately portray every individual who was actively involved in the historical subject matter. In the real world of military campaigns, there are normally opposite extremes of some military leaders relying solely on force to achieve objectives even at the expense of their own troops; and other military leaders who restrain the use of force by their troops except when necessary to preserve life. In campaigns involving tribes, cities, or other native groups at war with each other, troops can be used defensively to protect one side of the other.

Military leaders with extreme approaches, on either end of the spectrum, are as a general rule (both then and now) most likely less than popular with the high command and among their own troops; which is to say that avoidance of activities falling outside of the norm at an extreme level, generally provides a safe haven on the one hand; while the "ends" (the extremists on either side) often find themselves "meeting in the middle" (evolving to a form seen generally as a danger to everyone), on the other hand.

Many in the military, both in the present and in the past, sign up initially with honorable but overly simplistic expectations of duty, glory, honor and the role of the military. But how individual soldiers respond to real life situations in the field can be strongly impacted by their own prior military engagements and as a result of what they have learned from other more seasoned veterans. Overly simplistic expectations, and how troops respond in the field, thus generally changes over time.

Finally to the point. The RPGs I most enjoy, that involve military aspects such as conquest, defense, and the like, generally offer choices allowing for opposite extremes of trying to achieve goals based solely on military prowess, and trying to achieve goals using compassion as a tactic to minimize violent harm to others and sometimes to convert an apparent enemy to a different side or to the use of different, less extreme, tactics. An RPG player aligned initially with what they view as "the wrong side" can often switch sides, or try to use their role to change their own side to the right side. One would expect this game to give the player a wide range of choices during gameplay.

__

For all those who keep saying I hope we would of improved of be better nowadays let me quote Fallout. "War never changes" you can not change human nature.

It's just a game just like Inquisitor. So please keep the political crap out of my games. I just want to play and enjoy a game but apparently we can't anymore.

I can.

Good now tell the others who let political nonsense get in the way to enjoy there games. Just look at Inquisitor and all the reply's on various threads on the internet.

Now excuse me while I torture more heathens and purge the unclean.

Bah, any game that rewards you for wanton destruction glorifies it. When applied to a fictional setting it makes it more palatable. Enough said.

I agree, and I would add that I'd have far more of a problem with a game that requires you to commit wanton destruction than one that allows it, but gives you the choice of not engaging in it.

From what I can gather Conquistador does not require amoral behavior to succeed, but I can't tell for sure.