I don’t get people saying that they prefer having fun over history. They are kinda saying that history cannot be fun. So you guys prefer Skyrim’s combat over the combat system of Kingdom Come: Deliverance? If so, well our preferences of having fun is totally different. Why wouldn’t historical accuracy be fun?
Yes I want realistic gender roles because it would make playing as a female a whole different gameplay experience. Right now it is just the same as playing a male character which doesn’t excite me for another playthrough and decreases replayability. I want to prove my mettle to those having fun of me in the game as a female. I want to achieve my goals despite all the difficulties of being a female in a medieval setting. But we have a game that when we marry a lord as a female, that lord comes to our clan instead of the other way around. Like it is inconsistent in the first place. When you are playing as a male, your spouse joins your clan and when you are playing as a female it is the same thing too. Is it the same for the NPC ladies too? I don’t think so? So what makes our situation different? I have my opinion on it but I’ll leave it to you.
And about historically accurate armor... What is fun about spending lots of money on the best armor and again dying to four arrow shots instead of three? Wouldn’t it be more fun if all those arrows broke on impact, get deflected by arrow and spin midair etc.? What is fun about an arrow stuck in a metal helm? I just want arrows to not penetrate and only harm me a symbolic amount of damage if I’m buying an armor which looks protective historically. If you are OK with spamming archers and winning all the battles, then we have different preferences of having fun, so please don’t accuse me of wanting unfun stuff.
At no time am I saying that history or historical games are boring. In fact, I'm a historian so I find the past and historical processes quite fun.
What I am saying is; it is not valid as a criticism to say that something is poorly designed because it is unrealistic in a fantasy game. This game literally takes place in a different world, with different societies, different customs, etc... One thing is to want congruence or balance in the mechanics (which should always be sought) and another thing is to think that making it historical in some cases, specifically the ones we want which makes the vision of the game subjective to make the game better.
The case of congruence (exposed here in armor) I feel the same as most here, an armor of some level should give you a feeling of greater protection or that there really is an advancement in your initial character.But one thing is what I want and the feel I'm looking for in the game and another is what I feel it should be because historically/realistically it was something. Both are perceptions, but one "tries" to be more objective and hide the "I want it to be so".
At the end of the day, it is also valid to expect or want certain things from what we play. Already here it is the field of the game experience, the same with the subject of women. Obviously it would be nice to have different experiences if you play a game as a man or a woman, but even if it is an egalitarian society it should not be that way, and it is because the developer thought so. Again, what we want to have and what it is is not justified by saying "this happened in the past and therefore here too". And again I say, it is not that the criticisms are unvalid or we have to just accept everything they give and that's it, that's the extreme. But it is not valid to justify only "what I want and so it must be because it happened in X and so it must happen here" which is often done with the argument of "historically correct".
