Civilization IV: Colonization... Wow that looks offensive

[Unicorn]

“Sid Meier’s Civilization IV: Colonization™” (2K Games). In “Sid Meier’s Civilization IV: Colonization,” players lead one of four European nations on a quest to conquer and rule the New World. Players will be challenged to guide their people from the oppressive motherland, discover the New World, and negotiate, trade and fight with both the natives and other nations as they acquire power and fight for freedom and independence. As a complete reimagining of the 1994 classic, “Colonization” is a total conversion of “Civilization IV®” that combines the latter’s addictive “just one more turn” gameplay with all-new graphics and features that add more depth to the franchise. (“Sid Meier’s Civilization IV: Colonization” does not require the original “Civilization IV” product in order to be played.)

"Now yes, a simple google search tells me that the game was actually announced two weeks ago and I missed that, so forgive me my tardiness...

But goddamit, am I the only one who think it's morally disturbing to make a game that celebrates COLONIZATION? It's ironic, actually, because just a few months ago a friend sent me a link to some information about the original "Colonization" game from 1994 (pictured left) that this one updates. At first, I thought it had to be a joke, but sure enough, it was real. However, I dismissed it as a relic from a time when neither developers nor players took videogames seriously as media with moral implications.

But the idea that 2K and Firaxis and Sid Meier himself would make and release a game in the year 2008 that is not only about colonization, but celebrates it by having the player control the people doing the colonizing is truly mind boggling.

(A huge caveat up front: Of course, the game hasn't come out yet. So this post is based entirely on that marketing blurb and the description on the website. If the game turns out to be something entirely different than it appears to be, that's fantastic and I'll withdraw everything in here.)

Remember all the debate when Newsweek's N'Gai Croal said of the "Resident Evil 5" trailer with the African zombies that "Even if you are familiar with the franchise, if you are familiar with those images and their historical weight, you look at it and say, 'Man, that’s kind of messed up.'" Well, I agreed with N'Gai on that issue, but in my opinion, a game about colonization is about 100 times more messed up.

And yes, while the description says that you "fight with... the natives," it also claims there is "improved diplomacy." It's entirely possible, even likely, that you can finish the game without killing any Native Americans. And I'm sure there are no options to give the Native Americans smallpox or send them on a death march. But that's irrelevant. A game about colonization that's entirely about controlling the settlers can either force the player to do horrific things or let him avoid doing it and whitewash some of the worst events of human history. Either option is offensive.

Forgive me if this sounds like an obnoxious history lesson, but the lack of outrage over the game does make me feel like I have to explain myself... Throughout history, colonization regularly involved stealing, killing, abuse, deceit, and the exploitation or decimation of native people. Anybody with a shred of a moral concience who studies the history will be appalled. Whether itwas British rule of India or slavery in Africa or Aboriginal children kidnapped and taken to Christian schools in Australia or the dislocation of Native Americans in the U.S., there were no positive colonization experiences.

Even more disturbing, though, is that colonization was and is a racist process. The colonizing people ALWAYS thought they were superior by dint of their ethnicity or nationality (often connected to their religious beliefs) and that this somehow justified taking land from native people, exploiting their resources, or simply "educating" them. In modern history, of course, this was always European racism playing itself out as they colonized other parts of the world. But this isn't a "white=bad" argument. It's a "colonization=racism=bad" argument.

So now, in the year 2008, we have a videogame being released by a major public company (2K is part of Take-Two Interactive) in which "players lead one of four European nations on a quest to conquer and rule the New World." The obvious comparison that spring to my mind would be if somebody released a game called "Civilization IV: Confederacy," in which players have to "lead a proud people to defend their values and traditions against their oppressive neighbors to the North." Sure the game might not require you to own and abuse your slaves. But defending the Confederacy is inherently about defending the racist practice of slavery. And "conquer[ing] and rul[ing] the New World" is inherently about engaging in the racist practice of exploiting and abusing native people. (And I'm not even getting into the offensiveness of using uncritically using the phrase "New World" in the marketing material.)

I'm sure you can make a non-offensive videogame about colonization. But it would have to in some way show things from the perspective of the people being colonized and it would have to deal with all the horrible practices that colonization has involved in the world's history. "Civilization IV: Colonization," does not appear to be that game.

And yes, before anyone brings it up, I believe in the First Amendment. Of course 2K has the right to release it. Nobody should stop them from doing so. But I think personally think they shouldn't release it, if it's at all what it appears to be based on the early marketing. And I'm hoping a lot of people agree with me and will say so publicly.

As Leigh Alexander aptly put it in Kotaku on Monday, "It must also be our responsibility to uphold a willingness to examine games, to discuss them civilly, to be willing to see what we're saying about ourselves through play." If there was a major movie coming out that uncritically told the story of Europeans colonizing America, there would be a major furor, and rightfully so. Why should it be any different with a videogame?"

http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2008/06/civilization-iv.html

[Unicorn]

Excellent blog post by Ben Fritz. Imperialist shit in mainstream video games really annoys me.

[Led Zeppelin]

That's stupid

I enjoy playing Anno 1701, that doesn't make me "an imperialist", it's a historical game.

What, you want us to ignore history and make no games related to it at all because it was bad?

[rocker935]

this makes me very sad :crying:
The regular Civilization IV is fantastic. It provides are very free environment, you can wage wars or you can lead a peaceful nation. You can become fascist or communist. I just hope that in Colonization you are given a choice whether or not you live with the natives peacefully rather than a virtual trail of tears...

[Jazzratt]

This is glorifying colonisation as much as GTA glorifies violent crime. Calm the fuck down, it's a video game.

[Holden Caulfield]

i eagerly await the newest version of the only PC game i ever play... Total War: Empires

*glee*

[turquino]

Good post.:thumbup:
Age of Empires III is another example of a video game that glorifies the land invasion of the Americas by European powers. Light on historical realism, it excludes slavery and the genocide of the native people by the colonizers. Overall the game glorifies the Euro-American land invasion.

Most video games are almost totally reactionary, even worse than the shit regularly churned out by Hollywood. Communists who won't turn a critical eye toward all forms of bourgeois culture are endorsing the continuation of this system.

[Led Zeppelin]

i eagerly await the newest version of the only PC game i ever play... Total War: Empires

*glee*

Holy shit I hadn't heard of a new Total War game!

Trailer to Empire: Total War (http://www.gamespot.com/video/942966/6193647/empire-total-war-official-trailer-2)

That looks fucking awesome!

I loved Shogun: Total War, Medieval: Total War and Rome: Total War, this game is probably going to be great as well.

In fact, I'm going to download and play Shogun: Total War plus the expansions again, that game ruled and I watched the movie Ran recently which has a lot of similarities to that game. :D

[rocker935]

Well, as I briefly stated before, it kind of depends on how the gameplay is. If you are given a choice to not commit a genocide then I see NOTHING wrong with it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Communists who won't turn a critical eye toward all forms of bourgeois culture are endorsing the continuation of this system.

Hear, hear!

[fatpanda]

This is glorifying colonisation as much as GTA glorifies violent crime. Calm the fuck down, it's a video game.

yes exactly...the kz manager is also "just a game" :rolleyes:

[Sentinel]

This is actually the first time I've felt like protesting the release of a game. The blog is very good, thanks for posting it Unicorn.



This is glorifying colonisation as much as GTA glorifies violent crime. Calm the fuck down, it's a video game.


Jazzy I'm not sure I agree with you here.. I haven't heard about 'KZ manager' which the above poster mentions, but it sounds like a game about managing nazi concentration camps. Would you say the same about such a game being released and marketed by a major company without anyone raising an eyebrow? :unsure:

Now, I like playing lots of violent games myself, and have also enjoyed wiping out civilisations in the 'Civilization' series games by Sid Meier since I got Amiga 500 in the early nineties -- but imo 'Colonization' is simply different. In the 'Civilization' games the course of history is after all fictional all the way from the stone age (and you can also theoretically play through it without committing 'atrocities' by focusing on research and only waging war in self defense).

GTA is based on a fictional storyline too, unless I'm mistaken, but what if someone made a game about some actual wackos who randomly killed innocent people, about the Columbine school massacre for instance? That's the difference.

Colonization is about a specific historical event which was an atrocity in itself, and you are supposed to simulate committing it. I did try the original 1994 game as a kid, and in it the natives weren't playable -- you were meant to be one of the European colonisers occupying their lands..

No, I'm not going to buy this one, Sid. :(

[Module]

Yes, I agree with you, Sentinel.
I felt uneasy about it just reading that first quoted description of the game before I even got to the blog.

"Players will be challenged to guide their people from the oppressive motherland, discover the New World, and negotiate, trade and fight with both the natives and other nations as they acquire power and fight for freedom and independence."
That's just a paradoxical sentence, really.

This will no doubt be a game which serves to glorify and apologise for Western imperialism, you can tell just from that description of it.

I think that it's different from GTA, because here it sounds like they're being dipicted as doing something noble, whereas in GTA you're supposed to be some hardcore gangster or whatever, and the fact such a thing is morally unacceptable is it's appeal.

Whereas with this it sounds like they're presenting it as ...
Well, "fighting for freedom and independence".

And no doubt, if you're fleeing from the 'oppressive' motherland, but 'fighting for independence' through battling natives there's going to be a lot of racism within the game.

[rocker935]

GTA is based on a fictional storyline too, unless I'm mistaken, but what if someone made a game about some actual wackos who randomly killed innocent people, about the Columbine school massacre for instance? That's the difference.

I couldn't tell if you were referring to this game or if it was just a coincidence that this game actually exists.

http://www.columbinegame.com/

Damn it, I feel sick everytime I go to that site to pull up the link. :(

[Sentinel]

Yeah, that was disgusting -- I hadn't seen it before. This proves the thesis that whatever sick shit one can imagine, probably has been done..

It's independently published, though. Was it launched by Firaxis or some other company like that, it'd cause a shitstorm in the media -- and rightfully so.

[Comrade B]

I am a fan of the Civilization games, they do not really celebrate the things you can do in it. You could as easily be an imperialistic, corporation run fascist country as you could a communist utopia. It is more about winning than being a "good person"

[Sentinel]

I am a fan of the Civilization games, they do not really celebrate the things you can do in it. You could as easily be an imperialistic, corporation run fascist country as you could a communist utopia. It is more about winning than being a "good person"


Indeed, but please read my posts on how I think 'Colonization' differs from 'Civilization'.

[ships-cat]

I remember the original colonisation. It DID have slaves, though curiously they where all white.

The purpose of the game was to declare independance against the Crown and fight of the Redcoats. In practice, you required a sophisticated industrial base to do this. In turn, this requires clear roads to move trade goods (and during the revolution, troops, munitions and canons ) around rapidly. And in practice, that meant killing off the Indians, as the wretches had an annoying habit of blocking the roads.

Non of the civilisation games (as opposed to colonisation) had decent diplomacy algorithms; the other nations would perpetually snipe at you (by attacking caravans or whatever) untill you lost your temper and lashed out at them. But colonisation's diplomacy was the weakest of the lot.

Meow Purr :)

[RedAnarchist]

I've got Civ IV, which is a good game. I like to spread out quickly and try and build up my cities so that I have plenty of land. I tend to try and avoid war as long as possible, because I'm rubbish at it without a strong army/navy.

The last game I played was the Greeks versus the Ethiopians - I tended to be more friendly, trading with them and giving them the occasional gift. Only problem was that my nation (which was centered around the Black Sea) was so spread out (It covered most of Europe, including the British Isles) that some of the newer cities wanted to join the Ethiopians (who were centered around Tunisia and held most of North Africa, the Middle East and some parts of Southern Europe). I did allow some of them to do so.

[Wanted Man]

This is stupid. In nearly every strategy game, the best way to win is by killing all the enemy workers, villagers, etc., so that they can't gather resources and make military units. In 'vanilla' Civilization, it's a good idea to starve enemy cities by blocking their ports and destroying their farms. In strategy games in general, you win by wiping out the entire population. Strategy games therefore support genocide. In fact, the only way to win is by committing genocide.

Let's stop playing strategy games full stop. :rolleyes:

Edit: in fact, so many more games are evil, Jack Thompson is right after all! Medieval and fantasy role playing games glorify feudalism! Shooters glorify mass murder: Max Payne personally murders about 1,300 people in both games combined. GTA: San Andreas showed black people calling each other 'nigga', committing violent gang crime and eating fried chicken; racist! We could go on for much longer...

[ships-cat]

In other words, Dumbass, the games reflect all the glories and facets of real life and actual history :D

I only got as far as CivIII... but even then, you COULD suceed without destroying the other nations, or commiting genocide. You simply concentrate on building your scientific/industrial structures, and complete the spaceship launch to Alpha Centauri.

I'm guessing you've not played this particular game Dumbass ? :)

Meow Purr :)

[Wanted Man]

I was referring to Civ IV in this instance. Of course, there are exceptions to this. Even in Civ IV, you don't NEED to starve enemy cities, but it's possible and it helps. There are also games that work differently, like Command & Conquer, where it's all military, and only harvesting trucks gather resources.

[Unicorn]

I was referring to Civ IV in this instance. Of course, there are exceptions to this. Even in Civ IV, you don't NEED to starve enemy cities, but it's possible and it helps.
I picked this story up from CivIV forums and there is a discussion going on about this.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=280436

The problem in Civilization games for me is that conquest strategies are usually superior to peaceful strategies. It is desirable and on higher difficulty settings necessary to "rush" the neighboring civilization early in the game and exterminate their civilization. The game also encourages you to declare war against Zulus and destroy them because their leader Shaka is designed to be a warmongering asshole. This is an example how the game reinforces the stereotypes of the colonial era. Most European civilizations are nice towards you.

It is also not a good idea to play as a peaceful socialist state because the socialist civic "State Property" is designed to benefit huge empires with lots of cities.


There are also games that work differently, like Command & Conquer, where it's all military, and only harvesting trucks gather resources.
Fantasy or science fiction games are different from games which simulate real history.

[Wanted Man]

Interesting to see the discussion amongst people who regularly play the game.

Rushing does often work in strategy games, but there are also ways to defend against it. It's more of a strategic question, rather than one of morality. Although games like Civ include the building of civilizations, military conquest tends to be the most interesting aspect. Montezuma is also shown as a warmongerer in Civ IV. But then again, so are European leaders such as Isabella (who will often declare war if you don't share a religion) and Napoleon.

Anyway, I don't think Civ is meant to simulate real history. You can play as a benevolent, peaceful Stalin who has Buddhism as his state religion. Likewise, colonization doesn't have to include genocide in this game. How does it work in Colonization? Does it actually pretend to be a historical game? Or is it just an expansion of an already existing feature from Civ IV, where one map type has two continents, one of which is less developed and houses the American, Aztec and Inca civs, and it's possible for players to settle that continent?

[Unicorn]

How does it work in Colonization? Does it actually pretend to be a historical game? Or is it just an expansion of an already existing feature from Civ IV, where one map type has two continents, one of which is less developed and houses the American, Aztec and Inca civs, and it's possible for players to settle that continent?
It is a remake of the original Colonization. IIRC, you have to be peaceful with the natives at first to survive but to expand you must encroach their lands and eventually kill them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_(computer_game)

FYI, Sid Meier founded Microprose with USAF Major Bill Stealey in 1982 and has a long history of producing hawkish anti-communist games.

[Yazman]

The problem in Civilization games for me is that conquest strategies are usually superior to peaceful strategies. It is desirable and on higher difficulty settings necessary to "rush" the neighboring civilization early in the game and exterminate their civilization. The game also encourages you to declare war against Zulus and destroy them because their leader Shaka is designed to be a warmongering asshole. This is an example how the game reinforces the stereotypes of the colonial era. Most European civilizations are nice towards you.

It is also not a good idea to play as a peaceful socialist state because the socialist civic "State Property" is designed to benefit huge empires with lots of cities.

Uh first of all I have to call massive fucking bullshit on this. I am a civ veteran and have legit copies of all of them, and in Civ 4 the conquest strategy is not emphasised over the others. It's pretty even, actually. My main strategy is to build a massive empire and just dominate with a powerful culture and technology, without ever really declaring war unless it's absolutely necessary.

I even play on high difficulties and can win with this strategy, and I have used it against other players to my own success as well.

Also while some different leadersdo have different personalities you have to realise that they aren't always tailored just to be assholes. Shaka can be a pretty good ally if you know how to please him and he's only a warmongering asshole if you piss him off, which is easy if you don't know what sort of diplomatic acts to use.

Also when it comes to Colonisation I believe Firaxis has already said you can take a more peaceful route with the natives, it only comes to war with them if you disregard their demands/requests.

Let us also not forget that the maps are randomly generated - most of the games you play won't be in the americas or europe, or what have you. Basically the goal of it is to declare independence from your home nation, and this is achieved by getting your "rebellion sentiment" level to at least 50% - you get this level up by building a strong prosperous economy, and you will be able to do this without fighting the natives.

**EDIT**
I just want to say about the Columbine game as well, some of you seem to be, well, chomping at the bit so to speak about it. It's not actually that bad - the game is an RPG and the developer created it basically to help teach people about the events of the day as some people (like a lot of kids these days) are more receptive to interactive learning tools, and in this respect it's actually a pretty well crafted game for what it is.

Basically the goal of it is to show the events leading up to the massacre, and the events of the massacre itself, as well as to try and give a little bit of insight as to what caused the boys to do what they did. It's actually not a bad game at all, really.

[Wanted Man]

It is a remake of the original Colonization. IIRC, you have to be peaceful with the natives at first to survive but to expand you must encroach their lands and eventually kill them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_(computer_game)

FYI, Sid Meier founded Microprose with USAF Major Bill Stealey in 1982 and has a long history of producing hawkish anti-communist games.

I see. Well, I think Yazman explained it above.

As for the second bit... Well, I think that's a bit of a "connecting-the-dots" way to easily declare that something is "bad". Did the Major's ideas influence the games at all? Was Meier influenced by him? What were the games, and what was wrong with them?

By the way, Yazman, about the Columbine game: that's actually pretty interesting. It's so easy to read about it somewhere, and simply have a kneejerk reaction: "A Columbine game? OMG, sick!" I'm definitely going to try this now.

[Bear MacMillan]

Perhaps they will make the Native factions playable? I haven't really played any Civilization, but the description makes it sound like this inclusion is highly doubtful. They did that in the Medieval 2 Total War expansion in the New World campaign, in fact one of the native factions could use European technology against the Europeans.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I think Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday Armageddon is a historical game too. I have it compressed for anyone who want it. It is 600MB.

[Comrade B]

There are plenty of games though where you play as a soldier in the SS, or lead the Nazi army. I don't really see this as any worse.

If this were something totally fresh and new, I could see this as pretty offensive, but I will first be disgusted by the US military game they released where everyone in Iraq appears to be a terrorist

[RedAnarchist]

I was playing Civ IV last night and I'm currently up to c2010, and I'm in a war with Russia (Spain are also fighting Russia) and its quite easy to use nuclear weapons once you've built them. The use of nukes causes global warming in different parts of your country and the country that got bombed. I've already taken Yakutsk and have nearly got Rostov, although they took Warwick (which the Spanish took off them). Up until the 1940s or 1950s I didn't wage war on anyone, and my nation is the strongest.

[Colonello Buendia]

the new total war game is quite clearly destined to be my cyber bible. as for "colonization" I consider it to be a historical simulation of a period in time. the same way WWII sim games let you play as SS, it doesn't say colonialism is right and nor does a WWII game say the SS were right. however I do draw the line at the concentration camp game and columbine. those are sick. for the people disgusted but "clonization" and atrocities I have a newsflash for you, BAD THINGS HAPPEN IN ILLEGITEMATE AND EVIL WARS. they're not glorifying it. genocide and atrocities are part of war, it aint pretty.

P.S. Hi Ships-Cat

P.S.S. I wish I had a computer which could use thos games, I like Macs but they're useless as game platforms >:(
:D

[Charliesoo]

This is glorifying colonisation as much as GTA glorifies violent crime. Calm the fuck down, it's a video game.

I concur.

If one is looking for a moral standpoint - this game may actually portray the darker side of colonization and send a positive message. Make the player feel for the natives and the less fortunate. Similar to some recent games. This is just a hypothetical as I do not know much about this game but am merely throwing out the scenario.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I encourage anyone to play the Europa Universalis series - that's far worse than this. You play a European nation-state between 1492 and 1783, and you colonize, and spread Catholicism (or Protestantism) for your own gain.

Today I played as the French, forced the Ottomans to give up Sinai, annexed Nubia, and became the number one exporter of African slaves (surpassing Portugal), while being able to expand my empire into India and elsewhere.

It's exciting, but it's painfully historically accurate as far as game-play goes.

[RedAnarchist]

I encourage anyone to play the Europa Universalis series - that's far worse than this. You play a European nation-state between 1492 and 1783, and you colonize, and spread Catholicism (or Protestantism) for your own gain.

Today I played as the French, forced the Ottomans to give up Sinai, annexed Nubia, and became the number one exporter of African slaves (surpassing Portugal), while being able to expand my empire into India and elsewhere.

It's exciting, but it's painfully historically accurate as far as game-play goes.

I've played a few versions of that game, but I'm shit at it. Although I was France once and I conquered Ireland and had a small empire.

[RedAnarchist]

I tried to attack another country that was to the east of mine, but the Spanish must have been friendly with them and so I've lost half of my cities now.:(:rolleyes::lol:

[Raoul_RedRat]

I just finished a game of chess by forcing my opponent in a corner and denying him any movement untill the final killing blow. I know i'm a fascist bastard if it comes to chess.

P.S.: No i'm not trolling, I only think it's a thought to many to let my principles and morality guide the way I play a game of make belief conflict. Given that I am a sane person and I play games for entertainment and aesthetic pleasure.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I've played a few versions of that game, but I'm shit at it. Although I was France once and I conquered Ireland and had a small empire.

The cheat codes make everything easier ;)

[LiberaCHE]

I like to play CIV as a Communist Nation ... allie myself with the head Capitalist nation ... sign a mutual pact allowing me to travel with armies through their cities ... then I stage a massive "Nuclear Sneak Attack" after I use spies to plant nukes in their 10 largest cities.

1 one turn ... that Capitalist Empire goes "boom".

Then I rebuild on the ashes. :thumbup1:

[Winter]

I've been playing Civilization:Revolutions for Nintendo DS and have been having a blast. You don't necessarilly have to play as an imperialist, when I play, I'm always fighting off imperialists trying to take my land!

I think the game gives you many options and you are not forced to dominate the world by force. You can win via cultural victory, technological victory, or even by creating the United Nations! Creating the UN in the game is like uniting the world, so it's not like the UN in real life, haha.

[Black Dagger]

At least in the old european colonisation scenarios they had in Civ II or III you could play as the Indigenous groups and fight invasion :thumbup:

[politics student]

At least in the old european colonisation scenarios they had in Civ II or III you could play as the Indigenous groups and fight invasion :thumbup:

I love fighting as the British on rome total war, taking down the romans is truly satisfying if not a long war.

[Pogue]

Holy shit I hadn't heard of a new Total War game!

Trailer to Empire: Total War (http://www.gamespot.com/video/942966/6193647/empire-total-war-official-trailer-2)

That looks fucking awesome!

I loved Shogun: Total War, Medieval: Total War and Rome: Total War, this game is probably going to be great as well.

In fact, I'm going to download and play Shogun: Total War plus the expansions again, that game ruled and I watched the movie Ran recently which has a lot of similarities to that game. :D

I loved Shogun, but I could never get to grips with Rome, all I managed to do was send huge cavalry charges in to crush an army of screeching women :(

[politics student]

I loved Shogun, but I could never get to grips with Rome, all I managed to do was send huge cavalry charges in to crush an army of screeching women :(

Rome was rather easy.

10 units of catapults, 6 units of archers, 1 general and 3 heavy infantry.

Lets just say by the time the enemy made it to you they would have gone from a 1000-2000 men to at most 200. That was my main city attack force.

I used 6 units of heavy infantry, 5 archers, 5 catapults and 4 heavy calvary (including general) for city attack.

City defense consisted between 5-20 archer units.

With this sort of set up not much would stand in your way.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I love fighting as the British on rome total war, taking down the romans is truly satisfying if not a long war.

It's harder than running up a greased-up pole to beat the Romans as the British tribe.

[Anarch_Mesa]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this,the most advanced government type of technology in Civilization IV Revolutions is Communism and suprisingly you can get it as Ghengis Khan