Ok, so is he saying that we should stop making movies, music or any other art form, about the colonization period?

What an idiot. I actually learned A LOT with Sid Meyer's Colonization. At school I was the only guy that knew the names of the first american settlements (and i'm from Europe).

SirM

@Yetanotheruninspiredscreename:

Worth noting, but off topic: Slavery was a component of some cultures in Africa. By conquest or other debt, men and woman would come under slavery. However, this was more in the line of indentured servitude and was not a matter of one man being chattel to another man. African indentured servitude allowed a certain amount of social freedom to slaves and allowed for the enslaved to earn/buy their own freedom.

The trading and ownership practices, one way or another, became harsh during the trans-atlantic trade era.

Tubatic

I never thought I would see the day when Civilization came under the scrutiny of the press and their video game controversy love affair. Was colonization a very good thing... not really, but I think that our modern minds of acceptable and unacceptable are to a large degree different than previous times of history. Not that we are necessarily more civilized, merely that what offends us is often much less because we live in mostly peaceful times. Often times colonization was a power grab so that they could have resources and land to assure they wouldn't be outdone by another country.

These events often happened with tragic consequences to indigenous peoples unfortunately, but turning a blind eye to that happening is hardly the answer. Knowing Civilization the way I do, since I've played nearly every iteration of it, they tend to approach things in a very non-controversial way. Quite frankly this sensationalism generated by the press over video games needs to stop, I mean name me a game that some organization wouldn't have a problem with. Hell, I'm surprised PETA hasn't been all over Mario for turtle abuse, or Ape Escape for capturing monkeys or something...

Dullshimmer

i don't think winning the game by making diplomacy with the natives (assuming this is an option) is whitewashing history. it's called historical fiction. ya know, the whole 'what if' scenario.

deathpie

He's having an issue with colonization. Though, what does colonization actually mean?

col•o•nize
1. to establish a colony in; settle
2. to form a colony of
3. to form a colony
4. to settle in a colony.

(from [dictionary.reference.com])

As we can see the definition of the word does not warrant Ben's overreaction. But his thought must be that the European's personal history seems to warrant the vilification of such a word.

However, does that history though reflect that every time a player colonizes a new land in the game that there will be natives on that land and that they must be eradicated? And even then does the exploitation even happen between people of different races or religions? Could the exploitation just be between different sects of the same race and religion? Could there be a downfall to those that are doing the exploitation? Would there even need to be any exploitation at all? Maybe it's all of these things and more…

As anyone who has played one of Sid Meier's games knows, anything can and will happen. If anything, this could be used as a learning tool showing the devastation or the benefits of colonization. Colonization was what made the US; we wouldn't be here without it. Though how it was done could have been done differently. This game can become a reflection of history or an alternate reality to it. Show us how it should have been done.

Ben basing his rant upon the dust jacket of the game is definitely providing it more advertising and is falling for a ploy of the marketing person that wrote it. He's definitely hooked on it which is the point of the dust jacket and as many gamers know, certainly not truthful with what the game really entails. If anything, and he's kind of stated this himself, he should have really waited for the game before saying his peace. Now he's just made it that much popular and interesting to those that may not have been interested before.

Thank you.

*shifty eyes*
(did I win?)

LizC

"Bonus reader challenge: Reply to this post, pro or con, without using the old conversation-stopper: "It's just a game."

but but... it is

I don't know, I find real colonization to be wrong but I don't quite see this game as "celebrating" it, but rather using the idea of conquest for entertainment. I mean we all have our dark desires, to be a badass slaughtering people or being a mighty military ruler conquering foreign lands.

It's all just fulfilling out fantasy, just like any book/movie/etc. This guy is taking it a bit seriously, there is no need to worry that these games are raising a civilization of Napoleons or Alexanders.

Mikazukinoyaiba

@Yetanotheruninspiredscreename: Wow dude, not that I don't believe it was possible, nor that it doesn't still happen in some parts of the world today.

But I am seriously going to have to ask you back up those statements with articles for reference regarding the African slave markets. I am interested to read more on that side of history and those are just some bold statements to say without having something to back them up.

LizC

Why does Ben Fritz hate America so much?

Colonization is the settlement of America without even the serial numbers filed off, any moral reaction to it would be better directed to the real world historical events it parallels?

I say send him to Gitmo with the rest of the freedom hating terrorist Democrats ;)

GloatingSwine

Oh wow...Are we becoming just a bit over sensitive?

This has caused me to rethink my views on boardgames! Monopoly is really about bankrupting your competition - and that's evil. Risk is about world domination - and that's evil. Every time you play a game of Clue someone has to die.

I think it's time to have a conversation about the harm these seemingly fun but ultimately insensitive games are causing.

buttonmasher

Let's put a few strawmen to rest here. He's not comparing the game to Gears of War or GTA or CoD4. He's not saying that because colonization is wrong, chainsawing a body in half is fine. Don't be silly, people. Of course, he is comparing it to RE5, and presumably using the hyperbole of 100 times worse because of the higher number of people killed through colonization than in a zombie killing spree. That is a bit silly, but let's get our comparisons correct here.

Now, I was an avid player of the original Colonization, and I see where Fritz's concerns are coming from; it wasn't exactly humanity's finest hour. However, Colonization, like Civilization, provided penalties for playing the game in a morally offensive fashion. You actually LOSE points for razing enemy settlements. However, there is a chance of receiving a large amount of gold from capturing an advanced civilization's city, such as the Aztecs. So the issue isn't simply black and white, the player is given the opportunity to choose.

When I was playing the original Colonization, I often chose instead to cooperate with the native population. They could train your settlers to plant crops indigenous to the new world, and provided good trade partners. The Colonization aspect wasn't about genocide and cultural appropriation, the real focus on the game was more on preparing your colonies for the prospect of revolution and having to fight off the forces of the motherland.

Now, I understand Fritz's complaints, but I think at the very least before makes a "call to action" or anything silly like that he ought to at least play the original game and get an idea for what Sid Meier's Colonization is really about.

criminallyinane

Colonisation is bad. The invation, murder, metaphorical/literal rape and plundering of and indigenous peoples is a heinous act and should never happen again. But at the time of Colonisation this was the norm, i'd like to use the excuse they didnt know any better (which in a sence years of indoctrination and institutional racism pretty much meant they didnt) but they arent morally/socially evolved like ourself. But in terms it is our history and i dont think a game will glorify it any more than wwii games gloryify nazi germany (although not many games played from the nazi point of view might be an idea(please not that was a joke the author of this comment has no affiliation with the nazi party has never been a member of the nazi party and does not condone mass genocide))

SSJ4_Macd

It's hard to pick on one game that treads on (historical) themes we currently find unacceptable... because games just sprial out of control in that regard. I mean, I've never played many WWII flight games but would Fritz be against one of those if some missions involved bombing cities? That happened in WWII (and we were the good guys!), though that's not smiled upon these days.

This example is novel, so it stands out a bit more but many games tread in morally reprehensible territory, so if Fritz wants to continue without looking dumb he's gong to have to widen the net.

Ninegauger

It is not a problem since colonization is an important part of modern history and has shaped and created the world we live in today. Leftists can use whatever buzz words they want to describe the evils of colonization, neo-colonization or whatever crap is in their head this week, but it will never change the current state of the world.

Bon5ai

Hang on. There isn't a problem with assassinating people in Assassins Creed? Chopping things up with chainsaws in GoW? Mega Killing in UT?

But, my goodness, don't present a historical game, because people just might get offended. Medieval Total War 2 could be seen as offensive to the Catholic church because of how bloody annoying the pope and all his inquisitors were. And what about burning witches and heritics? There might be a few people in Salom that could have a problem with that.

Colonization, AT WORST, is going to teach someone something, teach them some history. No one is going to pick up and flag, go to their next door neighbour and fulfill a testimony to Eddie Izzard:
"I claim this country for England!"
"Oi! You can do that, we're living here!"
"Do you have a flag?"
"No..."
"No flag, no country! Those are the rules...that I've just made up."

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to shoot a bunch of hispanics and black people in Uncharted and Resident Evil 4.

Catsi

Has this guy actually played the game? Does Civ IV celebrate colonisation or have the developers used the game to actually say something meaningful about colonisation? Maybe the game is designed to show the player first hand the consequences of stealing land from a native populace?

photoboy

@zaky: I think its a matter of historical gravity, and a consideration that the issue of outrage would come from a minority voice.

I think alot of these recent game controversies are spring up from an aware and public vocal group of individuals that may or may not have a personal investment in the issue at hand. I don't think you more level headed game journalists bring up these social issues in games are necessarily invested in crusading a social change. However, it appears to me that there's a personal investment to the addage of "those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

Think of it like Idiocracy. Where the populace has no running dialog of historical context or education, to the point where they can't run or maintain the machines they rely on. Hyperbole is over 9000, but I think there's some interest in both preserving historical context and voicing potential (or personal) opinion that may come from an offected, by a group that is not publicly vocal.

Tubatic

@chantron: Here's hoping it doesn't teach too many children to pass out diseased blankets! :3

Esplosion

I think that complaints like these will only grow as video games become bigger, and really ... who can blame them? Colonization is a bad thing, really. But then, who says that games have to cast us in heroic roles where we have the moral high ground and save the day?

I think just like movies, games will develop more of a moral ambiguity to them. They'll have to, to increase their appeal. You're in this setting doing these things, because that's what the game's about. How you feel about it, whether you think it's good or not, should be a decision the game asks you to make.

We already know the game is going to be about colonization, sure, because it's on the box. But I do think that games can and should put us in the place of the people in the wrong from time to time, and maybe show us something we otherwise wouldn't see or experience.

litrock

I think these answers would be a lot more interesting if we knew the cultural and ethnic background of the respondants.

Do these answers come from people who's ancestors were misplaced and placed onto "reservations"?
Have these respondant's parents/grandparents ever been forced into schools that attempted to erradicate their culture?
Do they themselves know what it's like to not know what culture you used to have?
Was your ethnic group ever subjected to property seizure and genocidal attrocities?

I'm not one to throw around "Blame the White Man!" but there is a certain amount of resentment at the actions of various countries (USA, Canada, Iraq, Bosnia, Australia, oh hell, EVERYONE, I'm looking at you) towards ethnic groups that inhabited land that the government wished to colonize/expand into.

Marikir

@Insomnia Bob:

" N'gai Coral's outrage at Resident Evil 5"

Of course N'Gai like most African Americans has no real idea of African history. The Europeans did no worse or differant then the Africans did to themselves prior to the Europeans coming or after. Without Africans selling their fellow tribesman or from enemy tribes there wouldn't have been a slave trade. The notion that white slavers went into villages and rounded up slaves is pretty much shown to be complete utter garbage by history. All the slavers did was go to the African towns and buy slaves that were already on sale. Once the African leaders say that there was a huge market for slaves they willingly sold their fellow countryman for profit. They knew the slaves were going to a far off land and never returning.

Yetanotheruninspiredscreename

Does this mean that I should throw away The Oregon Trail or any Civil War game that lets you play as the Confederates? Was it wrong for us to take land from the natives for our own good and possibly a bit racist? Yes. Does that make this game racist? No, because the fact is that this did happen and this game is just replaying a historic period of time.

ceilingFANBOY

@Insomnia Bob: It concerns me when people start down a road of "my oppression was greater than your oppression". Quantitative talk about disenfranchisement just leads to pointless pissing matches.

That said, parallels to the nature of the controversy, general response, and media handling of the issue can certainly be drawn . . .

Tubatic

@Philonious: I'm pretty sure that what troubles people is video games' interactive aspect vs. movies'/television's passive entertainment.

In other words, it's okay to watch a movie about someone soliciting a prostitute and killing her, but it's not okay to have to press a button on a controller to see the same thing.

*ahem*. On topic, I'd have to say Fritz's concern can apply to a wide variety of games well beyond Civ, such as every single WW2 game made, or even Starcraft. In Starcraft, your goal is extermination of the opposing species in the map. At least in Civ you can negotiate.

Chucklestyle

@XbhaskarX: All well and good, where you come from and how you feel, but one person's feelings can't speak for all, or invalidate a topic. IMO. :)

Tubatic

Like it or not, if you're American it's part of your nation's history and you've certainly benefited from it.

There's not much to be offended by at this point. It is how it is. the most offensive thing you do is refuse to educate yourselves about your nation's history.

If this sort of historical, strategic game is for you, then go ahead an enjoy it.

And sorry Kotaku-reader-challenge, It IS just a game. No different than playing as the Nazis in Call of Duty or Battlefield.

Sundermania

@Daizaru1:

"
If you play as Rome and don't fall then you just develop all the same technologies of the industrial age."

Galatic Civiliations recent expansion each race has their own unique techs instead of the same exact tech tree. Perhaps the next civiliation games will achieve balancing but each civiliation when they reach a new age will have their own twists on technology. All the game designers would have to do is consult lots of historians on what said technological twists would look like.

Hey the Romans could have had steam engines a thousand years prior to anyone else, they had some toys that were steam powered so historians know they had the base ingrediants.

Yetanotheruninspiredscreename

I think its worth noting that the press release bolsters the fact that you're controlling a European country's colonists and are more or less escaping the rule of the land by Europe. Its definitely playing up to the colonists as protagonnists, and other factors (home rule, natives) as, at the least, obstacles.

Tubatic

White guilt.

"Whether it was British rule of India..."

STFU Ben Fritz, I'm orignally from a country that was once colonized (India) and I look forward to playing this, just as I look forward to every Civilization game. Same goes for GTA4, Resident Evil 5, and every other artificially created controversy. All these politically correct idiots need to go away.

XbhaskarX

Fritz compares his distress at Colonization to N'gai Coral's outrage at Resident Evil 5. "A game about colonization", he says, "is 100 times more messed up." He laments the lack of outrage at this title, pointing to various attrocities commited through the ages by European colonists.

In essence, what Fritz is saying is that issues that have a possibility of being provocative, controversial, or even (god help us) offensive, have no place in games. Which is, if you'll pardon the expression, FUCKING STUPID. Fritz acknowledges the game likely won't have an 'atrocity button', letting you throw small pox laden blankets to the natives, but for some crazy reason, he seems to take offense at the mere NOTION of colonization. He even talks about how it's possible to peacefully resolve your conflicts with the natives... but, no. Still offended. Lastly, he talks about how he's for the first amendment, and how he believes 2K has the right to release the game, before saying they SHOULDN'T.

You can't sanitize history, Mr. Fritz. Well... you can, it's been done. But you shouldn't. It leads to bad places. Nor should you sanitize a video game ABOUT history. I'm sorry if the events of the 1400-1800s offended you, sir, but you seriously need to grab hold on some reality. The claim that a Civilization title is in some way obscene is just absurd.

Insomnia Bob

games ain't always about uncontroversial topics

COUGHbattlefieldvietnamCOUGH

jonfiredaman02

It's not celebrating the colonization. It portrays it. The fact that it is a game does not mean that it celebrates or glorifies the events it portrays.

That is a message that mainstream media, and the public in general, need to understand.

attila

@Esplosion: yeah! its about time someone develops the exploitation and genocide simulator games we've all been dying (dying? not us white dudes!) to play!

chantron

Possibly, but no more so than GTA, Manhunt, Rome: Total War, Medieval: Total War and any game that features government armies fighting. All of those are games that feature things that some westerners find equally appalling (crime, murder, emperialism, cultural superiority, war, etc).

It all depends on context. If you are playing as a colonial nation, than it's perfectly reasonable to present a pro-colonial stance. In Rome, if you play as the Julia family, it's perfectly acceptable to view the Gauls as filthy barbarians and to sack their cities and sell them as slaves. Is that morally reprehensible? Sure, but it's contextually accurate. In Medieval II, it's perfectly acceptable to join a crusade to take Jerusalem just because the Pope told you to. Hell, can't an argument be made that Oregon Trail is a celebration of Manifest Destiny?

Reading a romance novels doesn't mean you approve casual sex. Watching Saw doesn't mean you approve of torture (just that you have bad taste). Playing a game like Civ doesn't mean you approve of whatever it's presenting either. The world would be a very boring place if people didn't make things because someone else might find it offencive.

dry-roasted-peanuts

Oh for fuck's sake. Colonization is wrong, but chainsaws-into-bodies is fine?

zaky

How many achievement points do I get for meeting Totilo's challenge? Because my first thoughts were: A) How much of the game have we seen? It may handle colonization in a very mature manner--even going so far as to encourage *gasp* diplomacy, and B) Colonization was and is a real concern, just like many other controversial game subjects (see, for an excellent example: WAR).

Besides, it's just a game...shit. Now I have to load up an old save and try that challenge again. BRB.

Lawya

@Srol: Thirded...if it's anything like Civ III it's completely morally ambiguous (sorry if that sounds stupid I've only played a bit of Civ III XD), and when it comes right down to it that's the best way to handle a topic like that.

happycodemonkey

I'm sorry but "It's a game" is the right answer. Sid Meiers games are like Risk: Evolved.

Do I get morally offended in WW2 games when online multiplayer forces me to be Axis instead of Allies? No, someone has to be Axis. Do people think that a game as old as counter-strike is a celebration of Terrorism?

The biggest issue I have with Civ games is that they have so much promise to be educational and variational but every society is the same. If you play as Rome and don't fall then you just develop all the same technologies of the industrial age. It balances the game but is also a makes it short lived when I play them.

Daizaru1

Actually, all of the Civilization games have had an element of colonization already built into them.

In the normal flow of things, once your nations filled up their mainland continent, there would often end up being "colonies" of the main nation by way of sea faring exploration. And the "opposition" to your colonization was often either barbarians or a new nation that you had previously had no contact with.

Though the lot of the barbarians are easy to tag with historical, oppressive colonialism, one could say that bringing down a civilization to take their land in a whole separate part of the world from your homeland is the same sort of cruel movement, especially so if that nation was less powerful.

Should there be outrage about the new game touting colonization specifically? Perhaps. The game has the potential to display a matter-of-fact, ugly picture of colonialism. Or, it could very easily implement nifty new colony game play that downplays the effects on native peoples. While one would hope the Firaxis cares to make a bold play in the games-as-living-education front, its very easy to expect this to be just another excellent Civilization game.

Tubatic

It's no worse than glorifying crime, corporate greed, murder, or any other number of socially unacceptable activities. Let's face it: every entertainment, be it books, movies, TV shows, or music has glorified socially unacceptable behavior, often in a spectacular fashion. Does he spend his days protesting against every random thing he finds offensive? Why is this different?

And, let's face it: you're going to have a very difficult time getting US citizens to _protest_ against the events that led to the creation of their country.

Erwos

Fritz should be happy that Meier was dissuaded from making the game he wanted to: Custer's Revenge 2: The Revengening.

Fnor

I'm starting to ask myself why exactly games are being held to a higher standard than... Well, anything else?

Philonious

After reading the game description and seeing that you are colonizing and inhabited area, I can see where he's coming from. At the same time, one of the main ways of winning in Civ has always been the complete eradication of all other civilizations, so...this seems not that shocking.

ProdigalMoon

Yeah, why can't he just make a WWII sim like everyone else? Now that'd be classy.

rdj

He's absolutely right. I know my quest for world domination started right after a game of civilization.

CheechWizz

ok here goes....

"it's just a...form of...genocide?"

MenaceIISobriety

I'm seriously getting tired of these censor and moral outrage advocates in this world.

So let me get this straight, Mr. Fritz wants us to ignore history and not make games, write books, or movies about this subject that happened 500 years ago because we now find it racist and morally irreprehensible. You can't rewrite history to make it go away, matter of fact the only way you learn not to do it again is to learn about it.

Ignoring history is to let it happen again.

Magnum1024k

Not all colonization was bad, actally some of it can be good.

it's the few sore spots in history that stand out and make it bad.

Zaos

I think the a good comparison for this game would be The Conquerors expansion for Age of Empires 2. That game took place in the same time period as Colonization and focused on the European excursions into the Americas. What made that game acceptable, however, was that players had the option of playing as the Native Americans and driving the invaders off their lands. Basically, the game took a time in history and played with the possibilities.

Knowing what I know about the Civilization series, I wouldn't doubt that Colonization will offer similar options. If that is the case, then the game wouldn't be an "oppression simulator" but merely an interesting take on history.

Darth Navster

@TinyLightning: I had pretty much exactly the thought. Saying the game "celebrates" colonization is like saying Bioshock "celebrates" mutilating little girls.

Assuming this guy works for Variety, that means he probably is out on the West Coast, probably in L.A. How does he think that city got there. Mutual Admiration Society with the local indigenous people?

Srol

Hey, it'll let me see if I could do a better job than Elizabeth, James, Charles, Louis, etc. That'd make me feel pretty damn good if I did it with awesome native relations and still keeping colonists happy. Why can't you be positive about how people go about it, Ben Fritz? :\

Drake Lake: Apologies to your lost battalion.

Video games may be fun for us but what few people realize is that they are really alien technology that are used to control real world situations remotely. Who knows what planet's poor denizens we're unwittingly colonizing. And I bet I made a shitton of cash for those sneaky bastards as a miner in EVE.

jacksinn

This is absolutely harmless compared to most games. Unless there's some kind of new minigame included where you're expected to kill the natives yourself, I really don't understand how a historical simulator is inherently offensive.

...Actually, that'd be pretty cool. An FPS with muskets and smallpox-infected blankets!

Bort617

@enewtabie: I think you're confusing him with the Unibomber, he lived in the log cabin although I don't think it was in Kentucky.

Anyway, I have no problem with it, society wouldn't be where it is today will pillaging and plundering, most of the worlds technology and advancements have been driven by the need to out do, and ultimately hurt/mame/kill, another sets of beings. Unfortunately/Fortunately this is life and for all the disgustingness that surrounds it, it wouldn't be the same without it.

Dannon

Okay, don't use the 'only a game' show-stopper. Bonus time.

I think it's all dependent on what you treat lightly and to whom you do such. It's easier for a kid to "bring Daddy's widowmaker in a brown lunch bag" and as such that is regarded with more.. emotion. But I don't think a kid/socially retarded teenager would play this game and then summarily sail to a different country with his friends (if he has any) in tow, ready to pillage and plunder and rape. He'd at least fly.

Now, if there was a game that openly celebrated something that we deal with today, like racism and prejudice, and they added Sid Meier's charm and appeal to it, that'd be a case.

jBusiness

but... Civ games have always been highly customizable. Just because the stock is that way doesn't mean people play it that way. Also, it's a fact of life. Yea, maybe not so much now, but should we forget what our ancestors did because of it's morality? He does know that Civ 4 has the equivalent of "slavery" right? Well, it's called slavery, and let's you "spend" citizens to build shit fast, but no can't complain about that. In the end, it's just a ... oops, almost did it. He just needs to lighten up.

darknessgp

It is in poor taste. But tempered by the fact that within the nerd-world extraterrestrial colonization is a real concern. The people playing this game do not assume that Europeans have a gods given right to land.

jarjarwang

He must absolutely hate historical Television then... I bet he's one of those guys who prefers doctored history books... o.O

rezlow

If we're talking over-powering Whites taking the land of indiginous people, then yes it's a bit offensive. It's not the same as random killing in GTA, and it's not just knee-jerk whining. I don't know much about the game, so if it has nothing to do with over-powering Whites taking the land of indeginous people, then Variety needs to accept the fact that "Colonization" is a word that can and will be used in sentences.

NoahIdea

The ultimate endgame of Colonization was to win the war against the European nations who sent the settlers and to declare freedom for your colonies. Quite noble actually.
Guess Fritz doesn't know the game much.

Also - excellent point by Starsky...

El-Suave

Wouldn't that make this the perfect leaning tool for people to realize, as long as they are being reminded, that colonization can in fact include things such as genocide. I'm not sure you could necessarily call it racist (that term is used so often these days I do not believe it contains any real meaning anymore, IMO) you could just be greedy and it really doesn't matter what race you're taking the land from after all. You're not ipso-facto racist simply because you want what a Black or Asian or White guy has.

Mommar

It's nice to see that with all our murder simulators and virtual orgasmic rape, there's still people willing to sweat the small stuff.

Esplosion

It's just a game!

Ah, crap, I failed terribly...

Shiryu

What about those games that celebrate jumping on people and butt stomps and whatnot? Mario, I'm looking at you...

TinyLightning

All that needs to be said: allowing (or forcing) a player to do something does not mean that such a thing is good. Pretty much every game with an M rating ever shows this, as well as plenty of ones with T or even E ratings.

Feba

If they changed the setting from Africa...er, I mean Earth to say Mars, would he still consider that racist?

Akira119

we could go with the frequently employed GTA defence: the game allows you to choose how to play it. In fact, this game, more so than GTA, allows you several victory scenarios that require no combat or COLONIZATION whatsoever. I would imagine this gentleman has never played this game.

Also, what is it that make colonization so appalling to this gentleman? Wide spread slaughter, rape, religious conversion, economic theft? I'm fairly certain CIv hasn't put their rape simulator into effect yet. Religious conversiona nd economic victories can both be carried out without killing anyone. And the "slaughter" in this game consists of little animated men running at eachother and then disappearing from the playing board when they "die" with zero blood.

Is he concerned that this game will spawn a generation of Christopher Columbus', Ponce de Leones, or Genghis Kahns?

3inst3in

Huh? The civ games usually emphasized competition with equally powerful forces and not killing/enslaving the natives.

cyhborg

Sorry, I've got no time to think about that. I have to shoot, stab and blow up police-officers in Liberty City.

Starsky

@ Ben Fritz
Okay, so saying Civilization was bad, and like life, there are bad things. Get over it, stop whining. I've seen worse on the History channel and news channels.

Coors Light is God

Is it wrong that when I saw this, I had the image of Stewie on caffeine pills shouting, "Manifest Destiny" going through my mind?

AndrewG009

Ben's been living in a log cabin in Kentucky if he's thinking that Civilization is morally disturbing.Come on,there's much better examples.

enewtabie

I don't see a problem with it, and the same goes for all the other violent games or games that portrais criminal acts. If he has a problem with Colonization, he should also have with COD4 or let me see most of the other RTS games that is all about building up and make war.

ztilleto

Colonization happens.

It is a natural human response to many assorted pressures, and is nothing to be ashamed of.

The so-called "Native" Americans didn't spring out of the mud here either, there is increasing evidence that they displaced an even earlier migration of humans (that also didn't spring out of the mud here either, but migrated).

If there was a mini-game where you move a settler infected with small pox from native village to native village and got scored based on each person you wiped out I'd have a problem with it.

But humans responding to pressures back home migrating and then competing with resources with other humans? That's natural, and I don't have a problem with seeing it in a game.

BigWeather

Well you got to take risks sometimes right? I mean being racist is a big no no, but so is killing people and in videogames, killing is almost everywhere.

goldwings

Subjectivity, where one finds celebration, another will find vilification, and yet another will find nothing at all. That's just the way it goes.

Pezdispenser

It's just a history simulator!

Sphinx

I believe we should all go to his office sit where we please, establish new rules of conduct (prohibiting anything bad be said of Sid). Maybe even create something wondrous....that'll show him!

Silverwolf

"Goddamit, am I the only one who think it's morally disturbing to make a game that celebrates COLONIZATION?"

Of course you're not alone! People get offended over everything.

Should a game be made/remade about this topic...absolutely.

Maybe a kid who has never pick up a history book plays this game, and actually learns a little something.

sp3d

Won't someone think of the children? Just imagine all the roving bands of inner city teenagers who will set off to colonize the suburbs when this is released.

Trust me, I'm a doctor

Don't forget that you can also win by cultural adoption...

rezlow

I'm really concerned when I see something that qualifies as educational, historical, and intelligent be denounced as foul due to the racist overtones. Colonization was a good thing. It's not very difficult to see that without the colonization of the Americas, when Hitler was deciding to take Europe, there wouldn't be the resources and troops from Canada and the USA.

I'm getting pretty fucking offended by every jackass getting offended over stupid things.

tensenki

I think playing a game like this might motivate someone to study up on this part of history. They may then realize the danger of invading a land for profit and imposing your culture on them in the name of "noble" ideals causes.

Randomeis

@KirbyMorph:

Colonization is not inherently bad, no more than a spear is inherently bad. It's all about intent and execution . . . ok, maybe that was a bad choice of words there.

Don't the Hollywood talking-heads declare the need for Americans to raise up the poverty-stricken nations to our own level of prosperity?

The Dude

Damn, you guys with your longwinded monologues are drowning me out.

Plantation Tycoon: It happened and is part of history - would it be racist?

jsf49

Geez. I've never been a fan of "if you don't talk about it, it doesn't exist"-ideology. Colonization was an actual period in history, a period kids definitely should learn about. Besides, you don't have to kill the natives, but you DO have to compete against other colonizers.

kryo

My handful of thoughts, in the order of the article:

1. There has always been a group of people aware of the moral implications of games, but the non-gaming media (including Variety) is just now catching on.

2. Fritz's "obnoxious history lesson" is not obnoxious, but it commits the sin of omission. Colonization is a two way street of ideas. British oppression in India initially appears evil and devoid of any benefit for the Indians, but you have to look deeper. The caste system was a dominant force in Indian politics for centuries until it was outlawed by the Brits, immediately improving life for millions. Industrialization stabilized the economy and provided the momentum for India's currently thriving tech industry. And let's not forget that Indian culture spread into Europe during this time. Britain's favorite dish: curry. Our enlightened tendency towards moral equivalency doesn't work as the events of the past must be judged through the lenses of the time.

3. Nationalism =/= Racism. That's just a stupid statement, like claiming religious intolerance is racism - a common charge in 21st century America. 10% of African slaves held in the US were owned by Blacks. That's classism or elitism, but not racism. Muhammad's consolidation of power in the Arab world stemmed from racism? Nope, tribalism all the way.

I understand where Fritz's knee-jerk response comes from, but his "I might be wrong but I'll level these charges anyway" attitude seems to come from a place where things are read at face value, without analysis of the myriad factors involved.

The Dude

"Goddamit, am I the only one who think it's morally disturbing to make a game that celebrates COLONIZATION?"

It doesn't celebrate it, it simulates it.

Plus, it's a pretty essential part of world history.

Dijkie1337

@Yetanotheruninspiredscreename: Oh, phew! That makes the fact that Europeans traded in slaves all okay then.

criminallyinane

I demand that the board game "Axis & Allies" not allow people to play as Nazi Germany.

XbhaskarX

@Tubatic:

It was also a componet of numerous European cultures as well as Middle Eastern ones. Slavery was often what happened to a defeated army or area population when one side beat the other.

Slavery has long been a part of Africa still is as a matter of fact. Most illegal slavery today takes place in Africa. [news.bbc.co.uk]

" I am interested to read more on that side of history and those are just some bold statements to say without having something to back them up."

From [africanhistory.about.com]

"Between 1450 and the end of the nineteenth century, slaves were obtained from along the west coast of Africa with the full and active co-operation of African kings and merchants. (There were occasional military campaigns organised by Europeans to capture slaves, especially by the Portuguese in what is now Angola, but this accounts for only a small percentage of the total.)"

There are lots of books that detail the slave trade from not only records from Europeans and Africans but also archeology. Know what the Africans involved in the slave trade wanted besides material wealth was guns so they could used against their enemies with the survivors being sold into slavery. By the end of slavery a several African countries had half or a third of their populace in slavery in their own home countries. It was the Europeans who took over the slave empires and abolished slavery.

Also their is this to consider

"Conditions on the slave ships were terrible, but the estimated death rate of around 13% is lower than the mortality rate for seamen, officers and passengers on the same voyages."

Yetanotheruninspiredscreename

Perhaps ALL history should be forgotton in case it's 'offensive' to someone...

MikoKeZ

I prefer realism in my simulations. And, yes, I can handle it. Thank you.

theone124

@clonestyle: The thing about it is N'Gai is just as wrong about RE4 as Ben Fritz is here. Even beyond 'it's just a game'. I actually lost respect for Mr. Croal when I read his opinions on the matter of racism in RE4. I had thought for sure he would have been able to see past it.

antialias02

@GloatingSwine: That's a pretty good parody of a Dittohead, but I don't really get what relevance it has to this discussion.

criminallyinane

The reason on one gets up in arms about a colonization game where we oust and slaughter natives who have lived in those lands for generations is because the colonists won and got to write the history books.

Notice it's called colonization and not genocide / subjugation / etc?

This is equivilent to playing as Nazis and steamrolling through Europe, wiping out Jews and taking over in early WWII. However, we ended up winning the war and have written history to have that, rightfully, seen as a bad thing, so we don't play as Nazis killing and slaughtering.

Should colonization be viewed as a bad thing? Yes, but we've been brought up to ignore it and see it as "progress", so it's never going to be a problem in the news or see any controversy about it.

KirbyMorph

Incoming N'Gai to chime in with his drivel on RE4 in 5...4...3...

clonestyle

In principle, I can agree with Fritz. Colonial endeavors were rarely pretty. In practice, I know that he never played the original, which stands out as one of the most unique of the Civ games. Still, it's not the sturdiest of moral high grounds.

Simply put, if Colonization is racist, then Civ in general is racist. Sure, you have the option of who and how it's racist but - no, wait, in the current Civ 4 version, the very notion that every type of people has its own sort of special attributes strikes me as pretty damn racist. "The Indians are an industrious people," isn't exactly content neutral.

But, beyond that, Civ itself is a racist exercise. The point of the game is to fashion your people into the ultimate world power. Doing almost inevitably means smashing about some of the other races. And that's what proves to me that Fritz really hasn't thought it out.

The act of colonization happens all the time in civ games. There's land, it has valuable resources, and so you do so. Maybe there's not a focus on the topic, but I certainly have had games where the equivalent of the grab for the Americas took place. Moreover, what he's really disturbed by, the sort of "we can use this better than they can," is pretty well the basis of any game of civ.

Play civ long enough, and it becomes a given that you have to go to war with your neighbors to get their stuff. If you don't, they will want to take yours. This is the way the game works. Beneficial trading relationships are possible, but, especially if it's a weaker party, conquest is almost required to avoid getting screwed over, and is required on the harder levels.

To begin to complain about it just because of the name change is disingenuous. Let's not even discuss all the other bad lessons that Civ teaches. Things like how history is linear, or the sort of techno-fetishism of progress.

But here's the other kicker: I know it's dangerous to say on Kotaku, remembering what happened before, but he brings up the Croal/RE5 issue. To me, the most dangerous thing that occurred in that discussion was the screams of "WAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" This is, to some extent, the same point Alexander was making in the "not just a game" discussion. Put simply, that RE5 had (arguably) racist elements didn't bother me, but people's unwillingness to even accept as a colorable argument the presence of such elements did.

This, then, is the flipside to that. If, and I don't really agree with this because of the history, but if colonization=racism, then any game about colonization is necessarily racist. If so, then Fritz's theoretical "non-offensive" game about colonization is worse than Meier's. It's equally an impediment to discussion.

See, to my thinking, the real goal isn't to tell us as gamers the moral high ground, it's to cause us to question and talk about what the high ground should be. A game that comes off as "colonization bad" is just as useless as a game that comes off as "colonization good." In some ways, the "good" version is better. It's much more subversive, and I trust the audience of game players to get the joke, as it were. No, really, what we're looking for is "colonization is," a simulation of the game that aims for fun, but also looks to include the beauty and the warts.

Something, in short, that isn't going to tell people what to think about colonization, but will get people thinking about colonization.

And, in closing, colonization=racism? To call that facile is an insult to shallowness everywhere. The colonizing people thought they were superior. Strangely enough, the "colonized" thought they were superior also. The history of colonization isn't one of one vast European Anschluss. There were many, many more subtle interplays, both between the Europeans and between the various aboriginal peoples. Not everyone was hot to decimate the natives. Likewise, not every native was disinterested in getting the settlers in.

We don't want simplification. We want conversation.

Slatz_Grobnik

Wow, I'm surprised at how few of you have actually played the original Colonization (or maybe just not as recently as I have). Of course the writer probably never played either.

In colonization, the player takes the role of one of the European nations colonizing the New World. The ultimate goal is to declare independance from your mother country and fight her off until she grants your freedom.

You do expand like in Civ, building additional cities as you explore the area. Your competition in the New World is the other European nations (until you declare independance). You can engage in trade and diplomacy with these nations like in Civ, but sometimes restricted by your mother country.

You also run into native villages as you expand. These villages can teach your colonists skills, provide map information, and give opportunity for trade. If your are friendly with them they will give you resources and sometimes join your cities. If you are unfriendly, they will send fighters to attack you. If you do not fend off the attacks the natives will kill your colonits, burn buildings, and take resources from your city.

Your nearby colonies automatically make the natives restless over time and eventually they will attack you just for being there. You can send missionaries and get leaders that will reduce the amount of unrest and try to keep them happy. You can also give them goods to pacify them.

You may decide that certain villages are too much of a nusiance (or just in your way) and attack them just like a city to wipe them out. However, the each village is part of a tribe, and attacking one aztec village will automatically anger all the others in that tribe, so you could also create problems for yourself.

Early in the game, the natives can be difficult to fend off or pacify, so it may be wise to build as far away from them if possible. However, as you expand you will have to figure out how to deal with them. You can't simply ignore them.

Also, each european nation has a different inherent benefit. If you play as France you have some type of bonus that helps when you cooperate with the natives. Sorry, I must have deleted the game on this machine, so I can't check the exact bonus.)

I think the game takes a pretty historical view of the 1500-1800 time period. It does not glorify or encourage genocide, but you can play it that way if you want. It does try to model the historical conditions, which means you will have to decide what to do about the natives. Just like Civilization though, there are paths to victory that do not involve attacking others (although you must have a military eventually to defend against the mother country).

PhaserBait

The article raises a good point. Would a Plantation Owning sim be racist?

jsf49

Are they worried little kids will imitate what they see and start colonizing each other?

Civ is a history-oriented game, and colonization is a (large) part of history.

TheCakeIsALie

Valid concerns.

thesycophant

It's just history...

PatMan33

Right or wrong, it's history. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Civ games were all about virtualizing world history, and making it interactive and fun.

I don't understand how placing a colonization mechanic, or any other "bad idea," in a game means that the thing is being celebrated. No one's throwing ticker tape parades in joy at the ability to oust natives. More importantly, no one comes to Civ thinking, "Oh man, I can totally opress and degenerate ethnic groups! Badass!"

No one seemed to have any problems when Relic allowed players to execute their own men with Imperial Commisars in DoW: Winter Assault in order to boost morale. That was a grim throwback to certain bloody histories, eh? The thing is, we play games like Civ to learn a bit of history, enjoy interacting with it, and to just have fun. Kicking out natives wasn't daisies and roses, but it's how many countries got started. I don't see a need to pave over that little tidbit.

I understand where he's coming from, but I think the end of his line of thinking is skewed a bit. It's not "just a game" but it is "just a game mechanic."

Garro

Civilization AND Colonization are mere reflections of the way our human race behaves. This is by far my favorite aspect of the series. Yes there is racism, nationalism, etc, etc. In the end my soldiers trample your dead.. raze your cities... breed your people out... bankrupt your economy... force others to view you negatively... force my god(s) or lack thereof on your masses... poison your water supplies.. sabotage your hard work... destroy your land through what can only be called terrorism in the modern world... incite revolts.. burn everything you are to the ground.

Notice the trend here?

It's NOT just a game. It's a reflection of the human machination. Turn-based but accurate as proven by history.

Project Thanatos

Oh C'mon! It's just a...

Sh*t that's hard. (guessing I'm like the 20th person to make that joke)

Anyway, I can see what the guy is saying here. But I'm a little less concerned with Civilization turning kids into fascist dictators than the effects some other games might have.

graddy

Seems to me that such a game would be ripe with potential as an educational tool. Sid Meier usually makes the route of diplomacy and peace the most effective strategy over lengthy games.

jettokisora

I'm continually offended by people playing WW2 games, knowing that when playing the German side, they're tacitly supporting and whitewashing the holocaust. Yes, I'm sure there are no options to send the Jews to ovens. But that's irrelevant. A game about WW2 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.

Also: lol@me for Godwin.

The_Foo

We're becoming a nation of weak-kneed apologists. George Carlin, I miss you already!

kagai

Galatic News Release

13/99/4005 (New Galactic Reckoning) -

Galactic Enterprise Simulations issued their response today to the outcry from the colonial planet Earth over their latest immersion game "Grax Dred's Colonization." In this latest incarnation of the widely acclaimed immersion, the player begins by choosing one of the 3 colonial planets to begin colonizing. The outcry comes from the choice to include Earth, whose colonization and subjugation into the Galactic Empire caused the loss of over 85% of it's original Human population, the destruction of the "Earther culture," and the complete strip mining of the now barren world.

The response was "It's just a game. Get over it."

Marikir

I don't know why 'colonization' has to mean racism. the word 'colonization' simply means to start a new settlement in a new place. He's using his own bias to assume that means displacing another people. Historically colonization has meant displacement or eradication of other cultures but that's because it was historically relevant. You don't read in history books about settling a barren island because there's nothing of historical significance in that.

How come people can't make a distinction on on violence against a culture and against a race? When the Danes colonized england that's not considered racism but when the english colonized North America it is?

Colonization at it's core is a response to environmental stresses. If there aren't enough resources for people in one area then they have to move or drastically change their way of life. Humans (all animal life I believe...) generally favor the idea of spreading out. If something else is in the way of that goal then it has to be removed. Is it nice? No. But who said life was nice?

I have both European and Native American ancestors. If I could trace those back further I'm sure I'd find other subjugated peoples represented in my family history. In the past colonization was a viable survival strategy and a lot of cultures lost out but that's nature.

In the modern age colonization of this planet isn't relevant but eventually we'll colonize another planet. That doesn't mean we have to slaughter any life that may or may not exist there but biological stresses here will mean we either have to spread out or see another great war.

obstacle-man

Ah yes because the american settlers drifted over there by accident, and the native americans are just such nice people they let them have the country rent freefor 300 years

Bob6k

@ all who say it's just history:

Where are the holocaust games at? THERE ARE NONE. Why? because you (thats right YOU) would be outraged.

If the game was Death Camp Tycoon, the comments section would be filled with "How dare they", "It is in poor taste", "Boycott this game" people saying "It's just a game" wouldnt apply anymore. Funny because I though it was just history...

I'm not on this guy's side btw, I think they SHOULD make games about the holocaust. Just know that the majority of you are conditioned to brush aside anything but the horrors of WWII and it is reflected in your responses.

TheHun

Honestly, after giving it some thought, I can't defend it.

I'm a big gamer, but I don't feel the need to defend every critique of the industry and its game's content. That's borderline zealotry to me.

DARTH_TIGRIS

@tensenki:It's not very difficult to see that without the colonization of the Americas, when Hitler was deciding to take Europe, there wouldn't be the resources and troops from Canada and the USA.

Er, isn't that one of the biggest leaps of logic in the long history of logic leapiness, ever? The Colonization of the Americas was one of the things that defined the history of europe and the european empires - remove it and you'd have more than the removal of the US, Canada, etc, you'd get the complete revisal of european history.

aldo_14

Here's another variation. This one would be really easy for anyone to do.

You remember the "Where's Waldo" series of books (and even games)? Well, how's about a "Where's Anne Frank"? You take the role of a Nazi soldier and try to find Anne Frank.

It's true. It happened. Is that enough for it to be okay with everyone?

jsf49

The word 'celebration' seems overly generalized and a bit pre-mature, it depends on the framing, I suppose and how much humanity they lend to your choices and the outcome. The attention span of a young adult has changed, this may be a good tool in teaching kids a dark chapter in every 'civilized' cultures' book.

SuedeGopher

Sorry that article did nothing for me, it really only deserved the "conversation-stopper" "It's just a game". Unless I can convince around a 1,000,000 other jackasses to join up with me, while we attack and begin to colonize Canada it's just a stupid argument.

Pornosaur

@Spenze: "I'm sure they'll be an equivalent to how the French first colonized the northern areas, focusing on trade and being friendlier with the natives, achiving an economic victory."

This was almost entirely verbatim present in the original Colonization. Of course, it was traded off by the Spanish who had + bonuses to attacking native villages but, like I said earlier, conquering natives lost the player points.

criminallyinane

@BigWeather: Fifth paragraph, "competing FOR resources..." Sigh.

BigWeather

No one will man up to answer?

Plantation Tycoon: The Plantation Owning Sim.

Play real history. Racist or not?

jsf49

@tensenki: "It's not very difficult to see that without the colonization of the Americas, when Hitler was deciding to take Europe, there wouldn't be the resources and troops from Canada and the USA."

That kind of seems like a bad example. I am sure some Native Americans would ask if the death of millions of them was so easily justified by that explanation.

jccalhoun

The Civ games usually have gameplay balance that correlates to the civ itself. In Civ 4, you could be a warmongering fascist who nukes every city on the planet.

But if you are, the other Civs hate you, and theres a very good chance your own people will as well. Cid is a master of weighing the pros and cons of doing good and evil things as a civilization, I'm sure he'll manage to do the same here.

I'm sure they'll be an equivalent to how the French first colonized the northern areas, focusing on trade and being friendlier with the natives, achiving an economic victory.

Spenze

pro colonization game. Is Civilization racist by grouping different ethnicities together to compete against one another?

Corncob

@jsf49: "Damn, you guys with your longwinded monologues are drowning me out.

Plantation Tycoon: It happened and is part of history - would it be racist?"

QFE:
Someone who sees absolutely nothing wrong about games with these types of historical parallels/simulations (Civ Colonies, RE5) needs to address jsf49's question.

ProdigalMoon

Great art imitates life.

bornonce

The fact is, the Civ series tries to portray the history of man. Sure colonization was a brutal, imperialistic thing, but it is a part of the history of our world as much as war and globalization. This person should be disturbed by the base premise of the Civ series. To force your will on the rest of the world, and make you the only leader, be it through war, trade dominion, cultural supremacy, et all. Colonization is no more or less barbaric then all out war, or trying to dominate the world through trade. All of these methods exploit other people to bring you money and power.

That said, I love this game. It's a lot of fun. But put it into context and this new expansion pack is no more than just another method of global domination, the aim of the Civ gameplay.

Shade Malek

@Spenze: i meant to say Nazi tycoon wouldn't, not would.

Spenze

I've been murdering people all week in three different games, and it has been up close and personal. Unless Civ IV: Colonization has a specific mechanic for pseudospeciation, or committing atrocities I'd say this guy is getting upset over nothing.

Somebody should tell him in Medieval Total War 2 you can go on crusades to reclaim the holy land, and colonize the new world. He could get another column out of that. Then maybe he can get his knickers in a twist over Oregon Trail.

Gouki4u

colonization is much more disturbing then shooting people in the face and tea bagging them well seductively whispering "Ooooh yea, suck it..."

Argyle

Yes, holocost tycoon would be a bad idea; BUT I don't think Nazi tycoon would be. I'd be in total support of being able to play a game where I could run the german empire during WWII, it would be a rather interesting campaign.

And yes, you should have the choice to have concentration camps and to commit genocide, you just shouldn't be forced to do so. It might be a painful part of history, but it IS something human beings committed, and millions more human beings allowed to be commit.

One of the Civ 4 expansion packs actually has a campaign similar to this premise already actually, you can play as any of the WWII powers, Nazis included. I don't see anything wrong with playing out a part in history, even divergent history. What is wrong is being ignorant to that history, and forgetting, sometimes intentionally, all the horrible things man is capable of doing if left unchecked.

Spenze

@z0phi3l: You're saying that because you're a conservative. To you, you're a centrist. To the rest of the world (and yes, I said "world"), you're a right-wing fascist.

I'm not sure why conservatives look at stuff like this and automatically scream "liberal!" I guess anything that they disagree with gets that blanket term. If it doesn't involve nuking terrorists or invading other countries, they don't want to hear about it - it's "liberal", which to them means "bad".

First of all, liberal is no more a dirty word than conservative. And you know what? The opposite of colonialism is not liberalism. In fact, you've got it backwards. True conservatives, both today and throughout history, did not and do not believe in either nation-building or in ruling far-off lands by fiat. Our founding fathers sure did not believe in colonization or we would still be flying the British flag. Does that make them "liberals"? Remember that they weren't the ones who colonized America in the first place - those guys were long since dead. You're saying the guys who fought the revolution against the British were a bunch of weak-kneed liberals? This is your position?

As for the game, I'm not offended by it... but it's amazing to see the perspective in here, or lack thereof. I guess that's what 8 years of neo-con government buys you. No doubt some of the commenters here so far are too young to even remember a country run any other way (in other words, properly).

badasscat

@Erwos: "It's no worse than glorifying crime, corporate greed, murder, or any other number of socially unacceptable activities. Let's face it: every entertainment, be it books, movies, TV shows, or music has glorified socially unacceptable behavior, often in a spectacular fashion. Does he spend his days protesting against every random thing he finds offensive? Why is this different?

And, let's face it: you're going to have a very difficult time getting US citizens to _protest_ against the events that led to the creation of their country."

Dammit, you took the words right out of my mouth. ibid.

mariospants

There's a difference between creating dialogue surrounding video games, and stretching for a reason to create a dialogue surrounding video games. In the case of the latter, "It's just a game", is not only a conversation-stopper, but is the appropriate response.

I think the challenge should be on the media that's writing about video games to discern between the two, not for the reading public to have to respond in a certain manner.

Omnimon

Here is my best shot Stephen

A Mexican American here, chiming in on the subject of colonization in gaming. Since the game came out, we have no idea if the developer and the creator have up their sleeve in regards to the New World people. If they can portray a historically accurate account of what happen to the new world, show the effects to the Columbian exchange and to tell the story for the tragic incidents of Trails of Tears, the Fall of the Aztecs and Incas, then I am all for it. History can be a tragic affair, and at times we do not want to hear the inconceivable truth, but we must.

My hope is that the developers, publisher and the creator will not allow a simple lie prevailing the complicated truth in regards to the New World and its colonization.

"There is always a certain glamour about the idea of a nation rising up to crush an evil simply because it is wrong. Unfortunately, this can seldom be realized in real life; for the very existence of the evil usually argues a moral weakness in the very place where extraordinary moral strength is called for."
WEB du Bois

latinogamer

@obstacle-man: Colonization would be a bigger deal if there were "colonization survivors" and if history books weren't the only place you encounter it. Keep in mind that the victorious write the history books. If the natives would have won against the colonialists, you can be sure the horrors wouldn't have been swept under the rug.

TheHun

What won't the Liberals be offended by?

They make Conservatives look like Centrists now a days

z0phi3l

If someone is morally outraged this easily, how can they ever even get out of bed?

SwimOdin

If this doesn't bother you at all, what about Civilization V: Plantation? Would that get any one up in arms.

mattman58

What sould we do?

Should we purge all records of colonization from history beacsue its too taboo?

Should we annex the word from our vocabulary?

Granted, i understand hes talking about "celebrating" colonization... but its so much more than that. This is what it is on the surface... but.. people dont sit at home and say "Man, I could really go for some oppressive colonization where I can push my ideals and culture on others! Time to fire up the game!".

No... they want a stratiegic, tactical and political challenge. Humans, living through metaphor and experience as we do (for better or worse) only naturally come up with games like this via past events.

Look at our track record for an example. War sims (are we celebrating WW1 and WW2 by having games about them?) are a prime example.

It's not so much a game about coloniztion, but an experience that delivers a very specific challenge with colors that resonate recognition with the majority of people. It could be a space sim, where you go out and discover new worlds.. but it wouldn't resonate quite as well since there is no back story.. theres no history.. and it's much, much less personal.

But, I challenge a developer to make such a game so that in the year 2132 when we have a galactic civilization some alien can protest about celebrating galactic colonization (and subsequently suppression of alien species... assuming that there are alien species.... yeah...)

To make my point. Someone moved a brick 2 feet from its original location in front of my house yesterday. I'm offended, how can no one else be?!

asphix20

It says a lot about the politically correct culture of eternal grievance that it takes a game about colonization to get them riled up, while the zillion other games which celebrate extreme violence are defended in the name of "artistic freedom". It's fine to mow down innocent pedestrians in GTAIV (and I truly believe it is), or to engage in the forms of simulated massacre popular in most games (loving it), but if you want to make a game in which the historical expansion of the 17th century is modeled, you've gone way over the line. Idiots.

AtomicPlayboy

Maybe if we can get the game canceled, it will be like none of those things ever happened.

barndawgie

Don't they teach colonization in public schools? How is this any more offensive than that. For that matter how is it any more offensive than Organ Trail?

Did I mention that I'm working on a DS game called Pimps and Hookers: A player's tail? In this game you get to slap your hookers with the stylus and this game has gotten no media coverage positive or negative.

Emperor_Guam

Question: Where were these self-righteous sensationalist douchebags when Sid Meier's Colonization was released in 199-fucking-4? 14 years ago?

@ProdigalMoon:

As for jsf49's question - the answer is simple. If it was a Sid Meier game and afforded you the freedom and abstraction that Sid Meier games do, then no, it wouldn't be offensive. You'd likely be able to take an African civilization, build it up and enslave whitey - or whichever combination you prefer. Or maybe you could build a plantation where workers receive profit-sharing as payment.

In any game that affords you freedom, you can do things that someone, somewhere will find offensive. What if I went around in GTAIV killing only women or only asians or only whites or only ? Is it the game that's offensive or am I the one being offensive?

Koztah

Ben Fritz is wrong regarding this issue.

Colonization can be a deeply distasteful process, and it is one powered by the belief of superiority over other races. But colonization happened, it's part of our history, it has shaped the geopolitical map of the globe.

We should not forget this, it should not be whitewashed. Games give us a unique looking glass into the past, the interactivity allows us to see the consequences of our actions.

Colonization allows the player to confront the past, to confront the actions of his ancestors. If you do not kill the natives, then the mechanics of the game gear you towards a loss. The only way you can achieve a peaceful victory is to not play. How powerful is that?

hahnchen