"Aztecs and their pea-sized brains"? Really? I don't see that argument made anywhere by anybody. The reason why people would prefer Aliens to Aztecs (and that's not a very vocal crowd, is it?) is in the real-world timeline (our timeline) the likelyhood - no, the theoretical possibility - of a mesoamerican invasion at that time is effectively nil. So if something that couldn't have happened, and didn't happen, is going to happen, then it might as well be Aliens. Or zombies. Or nazis from the future. That's not bashing the DLC per se, realizing that Aztecs couldn't have invaded is just stating the obvious. It's surely not racism for crying out loud. I don't care if you label it "subconscious", it's still utterly false, not to mention offensive. "You don't like this DLC cuz' yer a racist" doesn't make for a discussion...
It being implausible isn't the issue. Nobody seriously says that it was plausible that the Aztecs could have invaded. The thing is most people simply
don't care that it's fantasy and could never have happened in real-life. It's completely irrelevant because it's for fun, the intention isn't to make a serious plausible timeline with a clear point of divergence and taking care of all possible butterflies. Please tell me where in the announcement it says this is a faithful purist historical simulation that could have happened? It says it's fantasy, and a light-hearted one at that.
I refuse to believe that the critics of this DLC hate it so much because it's a fantasy scenario that isn't plausible. Why would that ever evoke such an emotional response? Maybe this is true for number of aspies who can't deal with anything else then pure history and get frightened at the possibility of mixing it with a bit of fantasy, but for the majority of them I think it stems from a certain cultural chauvinism. "We are superior to Aztecs, they could have never have invaded us."
An analogy would be that saying that a Viking invasion of the U.S eastern seaboard today would be utterly crushed, is racism. Or positing that the Byzantine empire couldn't have flown to the moon, would be racist. In both cases the weaponry and technology just isn't there, it's plain facts. Let's not bandy about racism - it totally devalues the meaning of the word.
Using your own analogy let's imagine that Paradox makes an alternative scenario for EUIV in which there is a flourishing pagan Vinland in North America technologically on part with 16th century Europe, to make colonization more challenging. Could you imagine people for 50 pages arguing against it, claiming that it must be a joke and they will boycott Paradox unless it gets removed, despite that they are under no obligation to play? Because I can't, because those are essentially Europeans. On the other hand I couldn't imagine this happening either, so who knows.
By the way the possibility that the fall-out over this could mean that scenarios like these might not be made in the future really do piss me off by the way. I sincerely hope all of this doesn't discourage Paradox from doing these sort of things every once in a while.
I don't agree. Not everything has to have an effect on you for you to be "entitled" to an opinion on it. Maybe I'd like my country to give more foreign aid or provide (more) catastrophe relief? It doesn't directly affect me in the slightest whether my government drills a well in Africa or erects a field hospital in Haiti or not - but I sure as sure have the right to say what I want on it.
Yes, wanting some input in how your country is run is exactly the same as hating on an fantasy DLC, "because it's not plausible".
What I don't like is seeing people being told that their concerns is "moaning and bitching". A few posts are, for sure, but the blanket labelling of any dissent as "butthurts" and "bitchers" is detrimental to any kind of good discussion climate. Just as labelling positivism as "fanboyism!!". Everyone doesn't have the same taste, but we Paradoxians shouldn't need call fellow Paradoxians names for them not agreeing with ones own.
Their "concerns" are about something that doesn't hurt them. At all. Why is it so difficult to just look the other way and not buy the DLC and let the people who do enjoy it have their fun, without spamming the forum with mock-petitions and requests, calls for boycotting and accusations that Paradox is sullying the name of CK2.
