Variety Gaming Blog: Sid Meier's Colonization is offensive

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Get a grip

I literally exclaimed "holy sh*t" out loud when I was reading an e-mail this morning listing the "Games for Windows" coming out this year and I came across this:

?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 itColonial_dominion_1700_1763_2 was 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?

:roll: I'm not sure how this individual can make a comment like this without having played the original game or the upcoming version.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
I love how a weblog whining about how we should all be offended by a game about "colonization" is itself full of words ("holy sh*t", "goddamit", etc.) which others would consider highly offensive. PC types just plain suck.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
As long there's no option for selling measles-infected blankets to natives I have no problem with it. Although I'm sure a clever modder will add such a feature, lol.

Seriously though, what kind of liberal garbage is this? I don't understand how people get so brainwashed.
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
This person is obviously a moron, trying to drum up traffic to his site. This is just completely stupid and not worth the code it was written in/on (not sure that works here, but you get what I'm saying).

I swear people go out of their way to find things to be offended about these days.

KT
 

Keeper

Senior member
Mar 9, 2005
905
0
71
Here is what is bad about the age we live in... Everyone now with a PC and an internet connection OR at the very least a local library now has a soap box on to which to stand.....

Would this guy have existed if NO internet existed? SURE, but you can bet his ideas were more local *(His circle of friends both real and imagined) and probably not as passionate because now he/she knows with a simple google search I can reach hundreds of minds.....
So they embellish.....

I love this line:

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...

Oh yes, yes, please go on as I am enthralled by each wise and eye opening passage you write.....

Blogs.... UGH..................................................

 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
61,549
17,136
136
I am also alarmed at this game! We can't have kids playing this and then going out and colonizing!
 

mundane

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2002
5,603
8
81
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
As long there's no option for selling measles-infected blankets to natives I have no problem with it. Although I'm sure a clever modder will add such a feature, lol.

Seriously though, what kind of liberal garbage is this? I don't understand how people get so brainwashed.

IIRC, in one of the previous Civs you could smuggle a nuke into an unsuspecting city and set it off.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: mundane
IIRC, in one of the previous Civs you could smuggle a nuke into an unsuspecting city and set it off.

Yep, in Civ2 you could send a spy in to set off a nuke in a city. There was a chance that no one would trace it back to your civilization as well.
 

Sumguy

Golden Member
Jun 2, 2007
1,409
0
0
lol how is this any less "offensive" than a Civ game?

I would like to see his reaction to a Fallout game.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
While, yes, Colonization is horrible, it isn't especially horrible when compared to many other common facets of video games.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,955
1,268
126
TRuely disgusting game. I'm outraged enough to...to....well....to sip my coffee a bit faster in outrage.

Well, I'm off to play Crysis and kill me some Koreans.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
Damn, the nerve of those game devs. Next thing you know someone's going to invent some kind of deathmatch game. If that ever happens I'm giving up gaming forever and will just go hug some bunnies instead.
 

wanderer27

Platinum Member
Aug 6, 2005
2,173
15
81
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
TRuely disgusting game. I'm outraged enough to...to....well....to sip my coffee a bit faster in outrage.

Well, I'm off to play Crysis and kill me some Koreans.

:laugh:




Sheesh - it's a game for cryin' out loud.

About the only thing that'll offend me about this game is if they have Draconian DRM - yeah, let's not go there :)

 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
Didn't bother reading past the 2nd paragraph because it sounded like the rambling of a moron.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
He must not play many other games. I kinda think think the wanton slaughter of hundreds of human beings seen in most FPS games would qualify as much more offensive than colonizing a new continent.
 

VashHT

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2007
3,290
1,321
136
Originally posted by: Bateluer
He must not play many other games. I kinda think think the wanton slaughter of hundreds of human beings seen in most FPS games would qualify as much more offensive than colonizing a new continent.

Yeah seriously out of all the things he could b*tch about he chooses a Civ game haha. Compared to other games Civ is incredibly tame with respect to "offensive" material. Its not like this is glorifying and recommending that people go start colonizing someplace themselves, its just a damn historic strategy game. Funny that he mentions the civil war too, because there have in fact been games made about it where you can play as the confederacy (imagine that...). Also, where the hell was this guy when AOE3 and its expansions came out? You slaughter plenty of people in that and take over native american villages and use them in your own war machine even. I don't know how the hell this game alone could trigger such a response, this guy needs to take a step back, its just a f-ing video game.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Why does the outrage of guys like this seem to stop at 1492? Does he really think there was peace, love, and harmony world wide prior to 1492 in either the "Old World" or the "New World"?
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Yep, in Civ2 you could send a spy in to set off a nuke in a city. There was a chance that no one would trace it back to your civilization as well.

ZOMG Ban ze Terrorist Training Tool!