Why is everyone in Africa white?

[CrackdToothGrin]

However this came about, it is good that it is being addressed. It is categorically wrong not to represent major ethnic groups while representing others on a shared map.

But they are represented, just not in the original game during the development (now) seven years ago when this game was an upgraded port of a prior game that completely lacked anything in Africa south of the coast. They have been added, along with several other major ethnic groupings.

 

[Rhone]

Uhhh, no? It's extremely easy to defend against. It's how the game has been for over 6 years and people are only throwing a fit now. Africans aren't the only ones with non-ideal portraits, they were added in after the base game 4 months after the game was released (1.6 alongside SoI). There is no racism or malicious intent behind the portraits in Sub-Saharan Africa (or India, the steppes, Mongolia, Tibet, Persia, etc.) If people get upset about this and not about the rest then they are blatantly fishing for the lowest hanging fruit and don't actually care about actual racially based presentation issues.

I agree that there is no malicious intent to be racist. On the rest we can agree to disagree.

 

[Taran14]

Why is this an issue only now? Africans have never looked African without the dlc, just as Asians never looked Asian before they got portrait dlc. The base game has only two sets of portraits ("western" and "arab") that are used for every single culture and ethnicity including Africans and Mongols. It is not just sub-Saharan Africans who don't have accurate portraits without dlc, it is every single ethnicity in the entire game outside of "westerners" and "arabs" that do not get accurate portraits if you don't have the matching dlc.

 

[Taran14]

North Africa was in the base game already, as well as parts of sub-Saharan and East Africa. Everyone looked like Arabs, although the African portrait dlc was released very soon after the game's release date (in October iirc). This has pretty much been the way it has been for the entire lifespan of the game.

 

[Afinati]

But they are represented, just not in the original game during the development (now) seven years ago when this game was an upgraded port of a prior game that completely lacked anything in Africa south of the coast. They have been added, along with several other major ethnic groupings.

But black portraits aren't available for people who do not own the dlc? You have to buy the dlc to see black portraits? Like right now, black portraits are behind a pay wall? That's all I want to know. Because if that's the case, then it's wrong. Something can be going on for every day up to today and everybody can accept it. That doesn't make it right or wrong; I sense a rebuttal in your reply but can't really understand it.

 

[CrackdToothGrin]

Every single visual representation of every culture in the game outside of the original seven-year old westerngfx and muslimgfx is behind a paywall, with the exception of the southindiangfx (and that was only free first as an incentive for forum registration before being made generally free).

You want to have visually Chinese characters? DLC. Turkish? Steppe Turkish? East African? Any variation of the "Western" sets outside the default base game portraits? Italians, Greeks, Tibetans? All were added after launch.

What you're essentially arguing is that all cosmetic DLC should just be made and given away for free. Unless I'm reading it wrong and you're only arguing for special treatment of the West African graphical culture and none of the others. If that's the case, what's the arbitrary line that needs to be drawn before it's acceptable, to you, before cosmetic DLC - designed and made with considerable effort well after initial development - is considered worth a price tag?

 

[Afinati]

Every single visual representation of every culture in the game outside of the original seven-year old westerngfx and muslimgfx is behind a paywall, with the exception of the southindiangfx (and that was only free first as an incentive for forum registration before being made generally free).

You want to have visually Chinese characters? DLC. Turkish? Steppe Turkish? East African? Any variation of the "Western" sets outside the default base game portraits? Italians, Greeks, Tibetans? All were added after launch.

What you're essentially arguing is that all cosmetic DLC should just be made and given away for free. Unless I'm reading it wrong and you're only arguing for special treatment of the West African graphical culture and none of the others. If that's the case, what's the arbitrary line that needs to be drawn before it's acceptable, to you, before cosmetic DLC - designed and made with considerable effort well after initial development - is considered worth a price tag?

All major ethnic groups should be represented in the base game. If cosmetic DLC is created, ethnicity should not be cosmetic. Portrait packs should add some facial variety, some clothes and headgear and backgrounds ... but not whole ethnicities ... especially for large chunks of the map. It should mainly be clothes and backgrounds and, like, status alterations.

 

[CrackdToothGrin]

Well, I can tell you that every time a new area was added, so were the faces. Originally cosmetics were able to be purchased separately from features to make them cheaper, but public opinion thought that it increased the DLC "count" too high, and instead they were bundled into the actual DLCs themselves.

What you're looking at is the consequence of a switch in DLC policy PDS made several years ago. As a result of public feedback, they bundled all the separate portrait packs into an ultimate bundle at a discount for those made before the switch to feature DLC inclusion.

In a way, what you're asking for has already been done, only the chronologically later policy now doesn't give players the option to eschew cosmetics for a price savings point that did before.

As a side note, it takes a lot of work and time to make faces. You have no idea how much time.

And, assuming you've ever looked at the file structure for portrait_properties.txt or any .gfx file construction you'd realize that, programmatically, it's essentially impossible to isolate just facial pieces without attendant clothing, hair, etc. due to the complex web of exclusionary rules and nested system of fallback graphical cultures in 00_cultures.txt and 00_graphicalculturetypes.txt.

 

[Zsrai]

But black portraits aren't available for people who do not own the dlc? You have to buy the dlc to see black portraits? Like right now, black portraits are behind a pay wall? That's all I want to know. Because if that's the case, then it's wrong. Something can be going on for every day up to today and everybody can accept it. That doesn't make it right or wrong; I sense a rebuttal in your reply but can't really understand it.

So what? It's not wrong, suddenly, after 6 years. It's always been wrong, but no one has given a damn until "omg white Africans!!!!" People are crafting this false outrage because they don't understand how the game and the DLC work in the slightest. It's not a racist agenda, it's just an unfortunate side effect.

Being black isn't behind a paywall, the extra art and assets for the African (and East African) portraits are behind a paywall. It's added, post release, content that is sold as a DLC just like everything else. If you want to sooth your outrage, spend US$1 and do so. If a crappy McDonald's coffee is worth more than your outrage, then your outrage isn't not worth being acknowledged.

 

[Afinati]

So what? It's not wrong, suddenly, after 6 years. It's always been wrong, but no one has given a damn until "omg white Africans!!!!" People are crafting this false outrage because they don't understand how the game and the DLC work in the slightest. It's not a racist agenda, it's just an unfortunate side effect.

Being black isn't behind a paywall, the extra art and assets for the African (and East African) portraits are behind a paywall. It's added, post release, content that is sold as a DLC just like everything else. If you want to sooth your outrage, spend US$1 and do so. If a crappy McDonald's coffee is worth more than your outrage, then your outrage isn't not worth being acknowledged.

Regardless of any agenda or the history of the game's development, no major ethnic group should be behind any paywall. It is a moral issue; that it costs any money is part of the problem, not an avenue for resolution.

I am aware of this issue now because I have always owned all the dlc when they've become available. I did not know that sub-Saharan Africa had been, once that region of the map was added, left without enough free portraits to appropriately represent people. This realization, like many I suppose, was all of the sudden. I have a number of reservations about addressing your claim of it having been "crafted," but that exchange would be unhealthy for the tone of discourse. In future, please do not pursue this line.

 

[Truewhit]

I feel like this thread is just going around in circles and should be locked to be honest.

 

[treb]

Regardless of any agenda or the history of the game's development, no major ethnic group should be behind any paywall. It is a moral issue; that it costs any money is part of the problem, not an avenue for resolution.

I am aware of this issue now because I have always owned all the dlc when they've become available. I did not know that sub-Saharan Africa had been, once that region of the map was added, left without enough free portraits to appropriately represent people. This realization, like many I suppose, was all of the sudden. I have a number of reservations about addressing your claim of it having been "crafted," but that exchange would be unhealthy for the tone of discourse. In future, please do not pursue this line.

Look at the context of the games development, they have been selling unique portrait packs long before sub Saharan Africans were even playable. You cant make a moral judgement for something that when the game was first designed was never even intended...

You can't now call it a problem at what is possibly the ending stages of the games development, and I find it very telling that people are only now up in arms about portrait packs paywalling ethnicities when its involving sub Saharan Africans...

 

[Maizel]

I love the instant indignation

 

[CrackdToothGrin]

Regardless of any agenda or the history of the game's development, no major ethnic group should be behind any paywall. It is a moral issue; that it costs any money is part of the problem, not an avenue for resolution.

It's not a moral issue that artwork can have a cost.

I have a number of reservations about addressing your claim of it having been "crafted," but that exchange would be unhealthy for the tone of discourse. In future, please do not pursue this line.

I'll pursue that line without reservation. They are crafted. It involves a significant amount of time and effort. The fact that you're trying to shoehorn this as a moral issue to get free stuff and financially devalue the efforts of game artists is honestly quite appalling.

 

[thevmag]

I feel like this thread is just going around in circles and should be locked to be honest.

Sadly, that's probably the case. In the spirit of...

Okay guys, take it easy.

If you don't own Reaper's Due Content pack or the African portrait pack, Sub-Saharans are a bit off. We are looking into what we can do about it. No need to argue or bring forth more arguments about why it's wrong for now.

If this thread keeps on heating up I'll lock it.

Thank you for your feedback, and please maintain a civil tone towards each other (and us). Thank you!

...I've been holding off on continuing the "why it's wrong" discussion. But I'll address one point that keeps coming up.

So what? It's not wrong, suddenly, after 6 years. It's always been wrong, but no one has given a damn until "omg white Africans!!!!" People are crafting this false outrage because they don't understand how the game and the DLC work in the slightest.

Why it's wrong now but sortuv acceptable all the years prior. They weren't white before, but orange Africans isn't proper either, so why no outrage then? They weren't white.

The old defaults gave us the idea that here were the white people throughout Europe, and here are the people of colour throughout Africa and Asia. It was more or less acceptable then, because you had the darker tones to at least represent it. Paid portrait packs for cooler African portraits, but even without, you still had a darker skinned default that at least went halfway.

Why this is worse is because it is, accidentally, erasure of that non-white identity. Not Paradox's intent, absolutely was not, but such things aren't always intentional. But still, they are unfortunate

It's not a moral issue that artwork can have a cost.

They are crafted. It involves a significant amount of time and effort. The fact that you're trying to shoehorn this as a moral issue to get free stuff and financially devalue the efforts of game artists is honestly quite appalling.

That is why I cannot just say "give African portraits for free", and tried to steer discussion towards suggesting solutions last I was involved in this thread. While data showed that CK2's brief time being free saw a surge in new users and new DLC buyers, strong evidence towards just letting older stuff go free, it's just one possible solution out of many.

Personally, I feel that the whitening of muslimgfx was a mistake in the first place, since so many broad ethnicities depend on them by default if no other portrait packs are available. A new portrait pack for select lighter Arabic groups for Holy Fury would've been cool, while keeping the darker default. As is, vanilla Africans are now white, rip any non-whites that fall under the Arabic group umbrella, and 5 pages of back-and-forth.

 

[ᛒᛖᚱᛋᛖᚱᚲ]

If Paradox caves and releases African portraits for free, I'll be wanting a reimbursement on my purchase of the appropriate DLC.

 

[Had a dad]

closed