I agree that it is but I find the entire premise of Crusader Kings 2 to be an exercise in alternate history. Other games also utilise a historical context as a narrative backdrop whilst not remaining accurate.
That is the entire premise of CK2 though. They drop you in a snapshot of a fairly accurate historical world, from which you forge an alternative history (or not, depending on your goals). It still maintains thematic realism, more or less. For example, all the world is mostly still patriarchal in its power structures (men being the rulers, women being married off for political alliances, etc.). And if that were to be changed, I would critique it for being thematically unrealistic, and none of that criticism would come from a place of anger or disillusioned at seeing female rulers (I have no issue with Civ or Alpha Centauri even though many leaders are female).
With regards to Battlefield V, I am not sure that realism has ever really played a factor in the series, has it?
My point was to ask why does what had actually been implemented go so far beyond the pale for you if you would accept that reality?
Not gameplay realism, but thematic realism. It isn't trying to be or ever was a game like Arma or Red Orchestra in terms of gameplay. Other than my immersion breaking for a short moment, especially initially, I personally don't care that much, and certainly not enough to boycott the game or be outraged.
Just wanted to point out why someone would bring up (reasonable, though minor) criticism different from the embarrassing frothy outrage. But like I said, because people that I disagree with ideologically will tend to latch on to my views as being tacit support of idiotic anti-SJW outrages I tend not to put it out there unless I know the company I'm with can handle the conversation.
'I found EA's marketing and approach to be pretty self-defeating' Not sure what you mean by this, can you clarify?
I'm talking about stuff like this, or this. The sentiment is nice, like of course we want young female gamers to feel like they have a place in gaming culture, and in my lifetime I've seen such a huge positive change which is great. But it's my opinion that they ended up fueling the flames instead of dousing them. It's kind of like giving attention to a child that's banging pots and pans. Plus, because they don't distinguish between the different types and severity of criticism, they:
A) Make people that just want to discuss these things maturely feel attacked and reluctant to express reasonable views, and
B) Makes the idiots feel vindicated in their outrage and then you got 20 "get woke, go broke" videos from channels like The Quartering, or Sargon, or Tim Pool.
Publishers don't quite understand how to deal with these backlashes yet, imo. The best approach is to not acknowledge tantrums. And I get that the game is their baby and they worked hard on it for a couple of years, so it's understandable that they would get defensive and themselves feel attacked, but like come on know the audience and the nature of the internet. They provided unnecessary fodder and now these people are directly linking BFV's poor sales to this particular issue, and not the myriad of other shit it could be:
A) That it's derivative of BF1, or that B) The market is over-saturated, or that C) It's coming off the heels of a pretty strong COD release
All the people that should have ended up feeling embarrassed for making such a huge deal out of this end up feeling like they were justified.
I just like talking about narratives and themes in art and media, so really all I care about is myself in this situation. My point here wasn't to excuse the excessively exaggerated backlash, but instead to say that not all critiques are part of that subset.