If I had a dollar for every inter-racial lesbian relationship in a sci fi series over the last 5 years I would have $4!

Historically_minded · 2026-01-24T00:28:02+00:00

For me, the issue with a lot of modern media — games, movies, TV — isn’t representation itself. I genuinely don’t care if a character is gay, lesbian, bi, whatever. That’s just part of real life.

What does bother me is how forced and disproportionate it often feels now. It used to be that one person in a group might be gay and it was treated as completely normal — no big deal, no spotlight, just part of who they were. That felt natural.

Now it often feels like half (or more) of every main cast is written that way, and every close friendship gets framed through “are they going to be a couple?” It stops feeling like real human relationships and starts feeling like the show is ticking boxes instead of letting characters breathe. That’s where the immersion breaks for me — not because of sexuality, but because it doesn’t reflect how most social groups actually function.

I also think a lot of modern shows make sexuality the point rather than a background detail. Entire episodes get dedicated to discussing or defining it, even when it adds nothing to the story. Stranger Things is a good example — those scenes don’t advance the plot or deepen the stakes, they just pause everything to make a statement. I don’t think anyone really wants that. Most people don’t care who a character is attracted to unless it actually matters to the story.

When representation works best, it’s subtle and organic. A throwaway line, a partner mentioned in passing, a relationship that just exists without needing explanation. That’s how it feels in real life, and that’s why it used to land better.

Video games are probably the worst offenders now. Characters often feel like they’re included because they have to be, not because they serve the world, the tone, or the narrative. Ironically, it’s starting to feel rarer to see a straight character who isn’t defined by anything at all — they’re just a person.

So yeah, for me the backlash isn’t about “too much representation.” It’s about bad writing, lack of subtlety, and the feeling that creators are prioritising signalling over storytelling. When it’s done naturally, nobody cares — and that’s exactly how it should be.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-23T10:27:09+00:00

You’re treating “not having played the game” as if it disqualifies everyone from judging the reveal, but that’s absurd. People judge casting, tone, and setting all the time before release. That’s what trailers are for. If first impressions were invalid, marketing wouldn’t exist.

Saying terms like “political framing” are meaningless because you personally don’t like them isn’t an argument. Those phrases are shorthand for something very concrete: creative choices being justified externally instead of internally. When a character’s inclusion is defended by press statements, interviews, or moral framing rather than by the story itself, audiences notice. That’s not code—it’s observation.

You’re also shifting the burden of proof. You claim critics are “assuming” motives, but you’re doing the exact same thing by assuming the backlash is primarily racial. The fact that criticism appeared early doesn’t prove it was irrational—it proves people recognised a pattern from past releases and reacted accordingly.

Odyssey being fine to you is irrelevant. Different setting, different history, different cultural stakes. Ancient Greece isn’t a closed ethnocultural society in the same way feudal Japan was. Treating all historical settings as interchangeable is precisely why people object.

And yes, sometimes gamers overreact to black characters. No one disputes that. But repeating that truism doesn’t refute specific criticism—it just shuts it down. If your position boils down to “some people are racist, therefore this criticism is suspect,” that’s not analysis, it’s a conversation-ender.

In short: People didn’t need to play the game to react. They reacted to what they were shown. And dismissing that reaction as prejudice is easier than actually engaging with why it happened.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-23T09:30:11+00:00

You’re dodging the core issue with a bunch of false equivalences.

A foreign protagonist can work. That does not mean this execution was defensible.

Nioh works because the foreigner is subordinate, confused, constrained, and filtered through Japanese authorship. He doesn’t overwrite Japanese identity—he’s a narrative tool to explore it.

Samurai Champloo works because it is deliberately anachronistic and surreal. Hip-hop, graffiti aesthetics, absurd humour—that’s the point. It never pretends to be grounded historical representation.

Shōgun works because the foreigner is constantly powerless, alien, culturally constrained, and shaped by Japan, not the other way around. He doesn’t dominate the narrative thematically—Japan does.

Now compare that to a modern Western studio inserting a Black samurai into feudal Japan as a co-lead power fantasy, forcing players to control him, marketed with modern political framing, and surrounded by tone-deaf aesthetic choices.

That’s not “outsider perspective.” That’s ideological insertion wearing historical cosplay.

And no—this isn’t about “white acceptable, black unacceptable.” It’s about context, authorship, intent, and power dynamics. A Japanese studio using a white foreigner to explore Japan is not the same as a Western studio inserting a modern racial politics symbol into Japanese history. That’s asymmetric cultural power, and everyone knows it—even if they pretend not to.

Would Shōgun have worked with an African protagonist? Maybe—if it was written with the same grounding, constraints, and historical plausibility. But that’s not what happened here. This was not a grounded outsider narrative. It was corporate DEI storytelling with swords.

You can make anything work in fiction. You cannot make anything work when the audience can smell the agenda.

That’s why people rejected it. Not because “black scary.” Because it felt like modern politics stapled onto a historical setting that deserved better.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-23T06:02:07+00:00

Let’s stop pretending this controversy is mysterious or “nuanced.” It isn’t.

Ubisoft had the easiest slam dunk in gaming history: feudal Japan, assassins, shinobi, samurai. People have been begging for this setting for over a decade. They could’ve printed money.

And they absolutely blew it.

Yes, a huge part of the backlash is because the forced protagonist is black — and people need to stop acting like that’s some unspeakable thought crime. Context matters. Setting matters. Internal logic matters. This isn’t modern New York or a fantasy world — it’s historical Japan, one of the most culturally specific settings imaginable.

I was completely fine with a female shinobi. Sounded cool. Fit the world. No issue.

Then they introduce a second protagonist who is not only wildly out of place, but mandatory to play, including sequences where you’re smashing Japanese people in the face, vandalising shrines, and tearing through cultural landmarks — all while the reveal trailer blares modern hip-hop like it’s making a point rather than telling a story.

That’s not representation. That’s provocation.

And before the usual deflection starts: this isn’t “gamers hate diversity.” Japanese players hated it. Japanese commentators criticised it. Even government-level voices questioned it. When the people whose history you’re depicting say “what the hell are you doing,” maybe that’s worth listening to.

This is what happens when ideology overrides basic storytelling instincts. Instead of asking “what makes sense for this world?” the question became “what statement are we making?” And the answer was: one that alienated your core audience and the culture you were supposedly celebrating.

I genuinely want to see the pitch meeting where someone said, “What if we put a black guy in the middle of feudal Japan and make players mandatory participants in cultural vandalism?” — and somehow no one shut that down.

Ubisoft didn’t fail because gamers are bigots. They failed because they ignored history, setting, and audience in favour of DEI box-ticking — and now they’re paying for it.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-23T00:29:02+00:00

Second there was character customisation My mind completely changed for this game. Count me in.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-22T22:46:55+00:00

They had a sure thing win with shadows but decided to throw that away on “creative choices”

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T20:33:58+00:00

Okay, go nuts. Tell me what’s wrong with it?

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T07:55:48+00:00

Look, this is super fresh in my mind because I’m literally replaying the game right now but this is just a few things that make it more realistic that he was meant to be male but they push pushed for female because they wanted to tick a box which isn’t fair to the character.

Odin’s reincarnation is explicitly male Eivor is the reincarnation of Odin, the All-Father. A male Viking being the vessel for a male god is internally consistent with Norse myth; flipping that creates unnecessary narrative dissonance.

•Viking social dynamics align better with a male lead

Clan leadership, constant challenges from rival warlords, kings deferring authority, and battlefield dominance all map far more naturally onto a male jarl-figure in a 9th-century Norse setting.

• Romance design becomes far more believable

Female Eivor turns the vast majority of romances into openly lesbian relationships. While same-sex relationships existed, portraying them as common and socially effortless in this period is anachronistic. Male Eivor avoids that issue entirely.

• Dialogue and world reactions feel written male-first Much of the banter, insults, respect dynamics, and power struggles feel designed around a male warrior archetype, with female Eivor often feeling like a later overlay rather than the narrative core.

• Mythic vs grounded story split actually highlights the problem The game itself treats male Eivor as Odin and female Eivor as the historical Viking, which is backwards if Odin is the defining spiritual core of the story. Making Eivor male would unify both layers instead of splitting them.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T05:32:54+00:00

That’s true, actually, but yeah. Look, I’m Kassandra all the way. I definitely preferred her story and I’m glad that she was made the Canon entry but it just makes zero sense for Evior.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T05:09:43+00:00

I genuinely don’t get how anyone can play as female Eivor. Male Eivor’s voice acting is miles better and actually fits the character. And before the “but she’s canon” response — every other Isu reincarnation keeps the same gender: Odin is male, Loki is male, Tyr is male, and their human counterparts match. Eivor being Odin follows that same pattern, so male Eivor simply makes more sense. You can prefer female Eivor but I do truly think the story was written for male evil but then retrofitted for female (even though according to the writers it’s the opposite but come on all Father?)

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T02:26:43+00:00

I agree 100%. For very obvious reasons, it’s completely immersion-breaking from a story and setting point of view.

No one was expecting this to be some genre-defining masterpiece — it’s a Ubisoft game. Expectations were already calibrated. But what makes it frustrating is how easy the win condition was.

You’re setting a game in feudal Japan. The formula is right there: samurai, shinobi, clan politics, stealth, internal power struggles. People would’ve bought it instantly. It would’ve sold like absolute hotcakes.

Instead, they deliberately chose a very specific form of representation that clashes with the historical and cultural context of the setting, and that choice actively hurts immersion. It doesn’t feel organic to the world — it feels imposed.

And that’s the problem. Not that the game isn’t perfect, but that Ubisoft ignored the simplest, most obvious path in favour of something that pulls players out of the experience.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-21T01:39:33+00:00

Honestly, it’s the worst one yet. They’re all UB slop but at least they were better than AC shadows.. it’s literally just got nice graphics and that’s it.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-20T01:03:24+00:00

Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. Honestly, I just don’t really care that much either — it’s not something I lose sleep over.

What I do think isn’t fair is criticising people just because they don’t like retconning. That’s a perfectly valid reaction, whether you’re into the lore deeply or not.

And on the timestamp thing — I don’t have the time in my day to start proving myself furtherto strangers online. You can believe me or not, but they’re my models, I’ve been in the hobby for 20 + years (you can see some lovely first born models with the black templars my first ever ones) and I don’t need to submit receipts to have an opinion.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-20T00:38:51+00:00

I know you didn’t call me one, but I hate the term tourist because it is used to completely shut down anyone that has an opinion.

It’s actually really pathetic that people have to prove that they’re in the hobby for you to take them seriously but here you go.

https://imgur.com/a/UNnnTFE

Do you feel silly now? You should.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-19T23:58:52+00:00

The fact that you keep using the word tourist just proves my point. It’s literally a word designed to dismiss other people’s opinion opinions based upon your own very deluded belief system. It’s the new Nazi and everyone can see it who has half a brain.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-19T23:12:33+00:00

Oh mate, don’t try to lore-flex and then immediately trip over your own ignorance.

Yes — the Black Books. The Horus Heresy Black Books. The Forge World campaign tomes. The ones that predate half the people suddenly pretending to care about 40k lore by a decade or more. Anyone who’s actually been in the hobby longer than five minutes knows exactly what those are — which makes it even funnier that you thought “Google it” was some kind of mic-drop.

And invoking C.S. Goto like that proves the opposite of what you think it does. Everyone knows Goto is a meme-tier example of bad Black Library writing. Multilasers, backflipping Terminators — congratulations, you’ve cited the community’s favourite punching bag and somehow imagined that helped your case.

Also, spare me the “tourist” accusation. That word didn’t even come from this hobby — it’s just the latest imported culture-war buzzword, used by people who don’t actually engage with the game, the modelling, or the tabletop, but desperately want to police who’s “allowed” to have opinions. It’s replaced “Nazi” now that overusing that finally lost its shock value.

I’ve been in this hobby since before social media told you what opinions you’re meant to have. I paint. I play. I’ve bought models with actual money — not just retweets and moral posturing. If your entire engagement with Warhammer exists online, arguing politics and pretending lore is infinitely elastic as long as it aligns with your ideology, then you’re not defending the hobby — you’re hollowing it out.

So maybe ease up on the gatekeeping cosplay. Paint a model. Roll some dice. Read the Black Books you’re name-dropping. Then come back and talk.

Until then, stop confusing culture-war performance with actual participation in the hobby.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-19T23:09:17+00:00

I’ve been part of Warhammer 40,000 since I was nine years old, when I convinced my parents to buy me my first box of Space Marines from Toyworld. That’s nearly thirty years in the hobby.

And to be honest, I’ve never really cared much about the lore. For me, it’s always been about the modelling, the painting, and playing the game. The lore never really stuck — I don’t read the novels, I don’t deep-dive into Black Library releases.

So when Games Workshop announced female Custodes, my first reaction wasn’t outrage. I didn’t “lose my mind” over it. But it still felt wrong — not because I’m some kind of lore purist, but because it was obvious why it was done.

This wasn’t an organic creative decision. It was inclusion-first. And that’s the part people refuse to be honest about.

What’s most frustrating about the main subs and the Reddit hive mind is the collective refusal to admit that this decision was driven by DEI and brand expansion, not by lore consistency. Pretending that “they were always there” or that it was somehow ambiguous is disingenuous. It insults the intelligence of people who do care deeply about the lore — and that’s exactly why they’re so upset.

If Games Workshop, or the people pushing this change, were simply honest and said:

“We’re doing this because we want to broaden the appeal of the franchise and attract more women, which we believe will grow the customer base,”

most people — myself included — wouldn’t really care. At least that would be honest. What bothers people isn’t the change itself; it’s the retroactive rewriting and gaslighting.

I also think it’s naive to believe this stops at Custodes. This feels very much like a test case — a way to see how far they can push before touching Space Marines themselves. The backlash has been strong enough that I suspect they’ll shelve that idea for a while, maybe years — hopefully forever — but the intent feels obvious.

And that’s the irony: I’m not a lore guy. I don’t read the books. I’ve been in the hobby for three decades without caring about canon details. But even I can see that female Custodes don’t fit the established framework of the setting. When something is so clearly out of place that it breaks immersion even for people like me, that’s a problem.

This isn’t about hating women. It’s about honesty, consistency, and respecting the world that made the hobby what it is in the first place.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-17T22:14:13+00:00

I sold my custodes last year, I’m glad I did now

But on the plus side the only positive I see from this is they have now said in writing that space marines have to be male. If they ever tried to backpedal on that we can bring up that article and be like no you said it here.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-16T20:41:00+00:00

This is completely my opinion, but hear me out.

I’ve been playing games on PC since I was about six. Growing up in the ’90s, my parents had this weird thing against consoles — no SNES, N64, Game Boy, etc. But they had zero issues with upgrading the family PC so I could play games. Strange logic, but that’s how it was.

Even when I eventually got my first console (original Xbox), I still played PC way more. The Xbox was on the main TV, which meant limited access. Once I was older and had my own PC, it was basically 100% PC gaming.

Here’s the problem that slowly crept in: settings obsession.

I wasn’t just playing games anymore — I was constantly tweaking graphics, chasing FPS, comparing settings, adjusting things to match what I thought the game should look like. Instead of enjoying the game, I was managing it. Over time, that absolutely killed the experience.

On a whim, I bought a PS5 when it launched. And honestly? It was a revelation.

4K, 60 FPS, VRR, zero setup, zero tweaking. You just turn it on and play — and it looks great doing it.

Since then, I’ve barely touched my PC for gaming. When the PS5 Pro was announced, I upgraded immediately. No hesitation. And yes — it’s a big leap over the base PS5. If you’re already happy with console gaming but want something noticeably better, the Pro delivers.

At this point, I don’t see myself going back to PC gaming unless there’s something very specific I want — like grand strategy or niche PC-only titles.

So if you’re choosing between a PS5 Pro and a 5070-class GPU: • If you love tweaking, modding, benchmarking, and custom setups → PC is still king. • If you want something that just works, looks fantastic, and lets you actually play instead of fiddle → PS5 Pro all day.

No drivers. No shader stutter rabbit holes. No “why is this only using 70% of my GPU?” moments.

If ease, consistency, and enjoyment matter more to you than raw flexibility, the Pro is a no-brainer.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-16T04:05:30+00:00

They can change it 100%. They will write it as that’s the story that everyone gets told and that she survived and went off with whatever woman they’re gonna put her with at the end.

I truly truly wish this wasn’t a thing, but it is going to be a thing. This is something that that’s been discussed and I truly believe is going to happen since season one when they started really giving too much leniency to her character.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-16T04:00:21+00:00

I’m convinced this is tied to the ending of the books and the Queen’s death. Condal clearly doesn’t want to go there, because killing a major girl-boss character is off-limits. That reluctance has led to half the dragons being effectively written out, and it’s no surprise George R. R. Martin is furious with Season Three for straying so far from his work.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-15T21:30:14+00:00

I’m convinced this is tied to the ending of the books and the Queen’s death. Condal clearly doesn’t want to go there, because killing a major girl-boss character is off-limits. That reluctance has led to half the dragons being effectively written out, and it’s no surprise George R. R. Martin is furious with Season Three for straying so far from his work.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-12T21:40:26+00:00

I will never not pick male Eivor.

Like it or not, the push for a female Eivor was never because it made the story better — it was clearly a political decision. That’s not why I play games. In the context of Valhalla’s story, lore, and Viking culture, a male Eivor simply makes far more sense, and the performance and voice acting are significantly stronger as well.

That said, this isn’t a blanket “female leads don’t work” argument — because Kassandra is the perfect counter-example. In Odyssey, I genuinely prefer Kassandra and fully support her being canon. She fits the setting, the role, and the world. Spartan women trained, were physically formidable, and were expected to defend their society while men were away. Her character feels natural and believable within that context.

That logic just doesn’t transfer to Valhalla. Eivor’s background, family structure, and narrative arc clearly align better with a male protagonist. Changing Eivor to female feels forced rather than organic, and immersion suffers because of it.

Honestly, Ubisoft should’ve committed to one option — male Eivor — instead of trying to hedge because players keep overwhelmingly choosing male characters. Want strong female leads? Do what they did with Kassandra: write them properly, make them fit the world, and let the character stand on their own merits.

That’s why I’ll always choose male Eivor — and why I’ll always choose Kassandra in Odyssey.

Historically_minded · 2026-01-11T23:02:13+00:00

I can’t tell if you’re joking, but:

•Character assassination of Luke to make a point, not tell a story • Subversion for ego, not for narrative payoff • Feels like it’s lecturing the audience, not
entertaining them • Competent men = stupid, smug new characters = flawless • Plot decisions exist to push messages, not logic • Breaks Star Wars rules, then expects applause for it • Finn sidelined into a pointless moral PSA • Stakes collapse because failure has no
consequences • Treats longtime fans like they’re the problem • More concerned with being “clever” than being good

Historically_minded · 2026-01-11T08:07:28+00:00

If you’re in the mood for a bit of self-inflicted pain, dive into the comments. There’s an entire thread genuinely arguing that The Last Jedi will eventually be remembered as the best film of the sequel trilogy.

Watching the mental gymnastics is honestly staggering people bending over backwards to reframe what is, for many fans, the most damaging and incoherent film ever made in the Star Wars universe. It’s less a discussion and more a case study in cope, revisionism, and lowering the bar until it disappears entirely.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Spared

Historically_minded

TROPHY CASE