Citadels

A quick post on a quick game today: Citadels!

 

For those of you unfamiliar, Citadels is a little role selection & building game, where each player leads a small city and is trying to build new ‘districts’ to increase the prosperity of the city. A nice thing about this game is that it plays 2-8 players and plays pretty well at each size. (Although 7-8 players gets a bit long for the depth, in my opinion.)

Strategic but light, it’s also unfortunately extremely light on the representation front.

Race/Nationality

Every single human pictured in the artwork of this game is white. There’s really not much more to say about that.

Location is unspecified, but vaguely ‘generic medieval European’.

Yeah.

I’m giving it:

0 stars

Gender

30 district cards have artwork picturing people. Abolutely zero of these show any women.

That’s right: It’s so much of a man’s world that women don’t even exist in this city.

What the actual fuck.

There are a few women on the cover art on the box. But none of them show back up in any of the playable cards.

I have the released version, which comes with 9 bonus/expansion characters in addition to the 9 base characters. Of these 18 merchants and artists and assassins and thieves, there are precisely two women: a (fat, disgruntled) Queen that can only be played in an 8-player game and an expansion card of a Witch.

This would begrudgingly score one star, but the rulebook used only male pronouns because fuck the rest of us, I guess. So that’s a full negative star for that, bringing us to:

0 stars

Sexuality

As I said when about Puerto Rico, in a land where only men exist, presumably some of them have to be boning. But the game has no queer-identified characters and no queerable mechanism (but it does have a Queen who takes her power from her involvement with the King, so we do get a smidgen of hetero up in here), so that puts us at:

0 stars

Body

There is a bit of body diversity–a few different body types, various heights, a few fat characters. Not really implemented in a way that felt body pos (the Queen in particular is fat and presented very poorly), but better than nothing, I guess?

1 star

Overall

Overall, grim. So grim. This game was shockingly disappointing. (NOT A SINGLE WOMAN IN THE ENTIRE CITY WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.)

Anyway.

Race ☆☆☆
Gender ☆☆☆
Sexuality ☆☆☆
Body ★☆☆
Overall Average 0.25

Puerto Rico

Oh, Puerto Rico. Such a great game, so deeply problematic.

DIGITAL CAMERA

I know I’m picking off some low-hanging fruit here, but I thought it was a good follow up to Catan, as discussed more below.

It’s long been rated one of the top games on Board Game Geek. A pure strategy game with zero luck-based components, the gameplay is unique, challenging, and very well-designed–if you can get over the fact that you literally get little brown slaves off of boats and force them to work on your plantations for free. 1

Yeah.

That’s a thing.

I mean, it calls them ‘colonists’ not slaves, but not sure that euphemism makes it better or worse.

So yeah.

For those of you unfamiliar, Puerto Rico is a phase game where you play as a colonial governors settling Puerto Rico. Similar to Race for the Galaxy, only the phases selected by players at the beginning of the round happen that round. You grow plantations, build buildings, get slaves from the mayor to work on both of those (without the slightest acknowledgement from the game that this is or was problematic), and ship the goods you grow back to Europe for victory points.

It’s a game whose theme I don’t really know how to feel about, except kind of gross. Although since reading Greg Loring-Albright’s excellent First Nations of Catan alternative rule set I referenced in the last post, which modifies the Settlers of Catan game to acknowledge and accommodate the fact that First Nations people nearly certainly existed in Catan before white settlers got there, my feelings have evolved slightly. Or at least have gotten more confused.

Here’s the question I’ve been pondering for months: Is it better for a game with a historical or pseudo-historical theme that touches on problematic historical realities to just completely ignore the existence of that reality or to engage with that reality in a completely non-critical way? 2

I’ve been calling it the The Catan v Puerto Rico Problem. And fuck if I have any idea what the answer is. Please discuss.

Anyway. On to the ratings.

Race

This game is not set in Europe. So that’s worth some credit, usually.

But the entire game play is about colonising said non-European place for Europe. 3 So that’s less credit.

Plus the only human-depicting art of the game depicts a European man.

Native people appear to not exist at all in any capacity?

….and as discussed above, there is a slave trade. But it’s not engaged with in any sort of substantial way. Just casually there.

Yeah, I can’t quite bring myself to give this any stars for Race/Nationality. Any that I could pooooooossbily be convinced to give for the setting, I want to immediately take away for the implementation.

I’m giving it:

0 stars only because I can’t give negative stars.

Gender

Psssssssh. Don’t you know that women didn’t exist in the colonial era? Native women *definitely* didn’t exist. Nor do gender-diverse people, obvs.

Also, the first two pages of the rule book use gender-neutral language, but then inexplicably switch to exclusively using the generic he on page 3, which offends me both as a non-dudely gamer and as a former copy editor.

-1 star except I’m too lazy to figure out how to represent that pictorially so 0 stars.

Sexuality

Ha. Hahahahahahahaha. Oh, you’re funny. (Although I guess in a world where only men exist, some of them have to be banging each other, surely?)

0 stars.

Body

In Puerto Rico’s limited defense, there’s not much human art depicting any sort of bodies, only the one strapping young man we discussed earlier. But this was still a deliberate design choice, so:

0 stars.

Overall

Overall, things are grim for poor Puerto Rico.

Race ☆☆☆
Gender ☆☆☆
Sexuality ☆☆☆
Body ☆☆☆
Overall Average 0 (-0.5?)

 

Notes:

  1. THAT’S A REALLY BIG THING TO HAVE TO GET OVER.
  2. I mean, obviously, it would be better for the game to engage with the issue in a critical or informed way, but that’s apparently not the world we live in, so if you can only pick one, which would it be?
  3. “Hilarious” side anecdote. The first time I went into the grossest board game store I know in Sydney, it was to buy this game. I walked in and it was PACKED with nearly 100 dudes gaming (zero ladies or visibly gender-diverse people. RED FLAG ALERT.). Dude at the counter leered at me and asked if I was looking for something. “Puerto Rico,” I said. “Heh. Heh,” he said, still leering. “It’s in Europe.” I just stared and started shaking my head slowly while he continued laughing and looking at me like I was some dumb thing who didn’t get his SUPER CLEVER JOKE. “Get it? Get it? Because Puerto Rico? It’s in Europe…?” until I finally snapped, “It’s definitely not. Look at a goddamn map after you tell me whether or not you have the game and where it is.” and then he dutifully showed me the game on the shelf and rang up my purchase without making eye contact or saying another word.