A few extra points on Colonization
Rather than individually respond to the 100-plus comments and several e-mails, I figured I'd just make a few points here that hopefully address some of the points that people who disagreed with me made.
But first, a general point. Some of the disagreements seem to stem from what I'd say is the difference between the general concept of "colonization" and the specific concept of "colonialism." They're pretty distinct as the linked wikipedia references describe. (and let's please not make this a debate about the validity of wikipedia)
Now yes, the game's subtitle is "Colonization." But it does not appear to just be about (quoting Wikipedia) "whenever any one or more species populates a new area." If it involved made-up countries colonizing a made-up land, I certainly wouldn't care.
Because it involves European nations and the "New World," it's clearly about colonization from the roughly 1400s to mid-20th century, which is, as the wikipedia entry says, known as "colonialism." And what's colonialism? "It is essentially a system of direct political, economic and cultural intervention and hegemony by a powerful country in a weaker one... Colonialism was often based on the ethnocentric belief that the morals and values of the colonizer were superior to those of the colonized."
So, if you don't agree with me on that distinction, we probably won't get too far. But for those who at least think there's something to where I'm coming from, I"ll deal with a few specific concerns. The italicized statements are general summaries of points that numerous people made, except where I use quotes. Hopefully they don't appear to be straw men because I tried really hard to be fair.
-It really happened in history! We can't make games about history anymore?
Of course I'm not saying you can't make games about real historical events, even very unpleasant ones. But if you're going to base a game on a series of real historical events, don't you have a responsibility to deal with the major issues of that history? Colonization involved a lot of racism and exploitation and even genocide. "Civ IV: Colonization" puts you in the role of the people doing the colonizing and, unless I'm crazy and every description of the game is off, motives you to "colonize" successfully in order to win. In the year 2008, we shouldn't be uncritically celebrating successful colonization of the "new world" by European nations. If you want to deal with the reality of colonization, that's cool. But it seems to me the bare minimum to achieve that would be including the option to look at events -- or in the case of a game, play -- as the people being colonized. That's not an option here.
-Lots of battle strategy games let you do terrible things
That's great, because real life war involves doing terrible things. But colonization was a very specific historical phenomenom perpetrated (in the modern history this game portrays) by one group of people against others. War has involved pretty much every kind of people fighting every other kind of people in every kind of way. It sucks, but it's reality (perhaps even human nature). Colonization is not just this thing that happens. Especially since the game specifically chooses to show Europeans conquering the "New World," thus firmly putting it in the context of European colonialism, not just a vague concept of people from one nation moving somewhere else.
-Why aren't you outraged that you can play as Nazis in World War II games? Or the South in "Sid Meier's Gettysburg?"
First of all, the fact that those games let you play as both sides is inherently better than the one sided "Colonization," as mentioned above. Second, that's not the correct comparison. The correct comparison, as I said, would be a game where you can only fight as the Confederacy and you're encouraged to preserve the South's values and traditions and not deal with the fact that the main cause you're fighting to is to preserve slavery. Even if you want to simulate it just for the fact of wondering how and whether the South could have won, you should acknowledge somewhere in such a game the reality of what the South was fighting for. Similarly, a game like this should explicitly acknowledge that colonization, as practiced by Europeans in the modern age, was an inherently morally disturbing practice.
-You didn't even play the original Colonization.
True, which is why I focused on my criticism on the new one
-You're just criticizing a marketing blurb.
I'm basing my analysis on that marketing blurb and the description of the game on Firaxis's site. I'm sure both are simplifications of the game. But unless they're inaccurate, I think it's valid to discuss what the game appears to be. Trust me, if there was a movie called "Colonization" described by the makers as portraying "a European nation on their quest to conquer and rule the New World," people would be talking about it and raising concerns. And of course I plan to demo the game at E3 and play it when it comes out and say something more definitive one way or the other based on that.
-"Is this author a member of Critical Mass? Is he a freegan or a vegan? Does he wear v-neck t-shirts without anything over them? Does he have nautical tattoos or swallows? Has he ever kissed members of the same sex not due to any sexual desire or rational urge but for a complete and desperate desire to prove how "progressive" he is? Does he enjoy the Blood Brothers? Because he certainly comes across as a typical indiedolt pushing a shallow view out as if he's a deep thinker."
I had to quote that one at length because it's my favorite comment by far. And yes, sadly, I do sometimes wear v-neck t-shirts without anything over them. Please don't judge me too harshly.
Chris Morris reports on the business and culture of video games and offers analysis of recent events and industry trends.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
For one thing, I agree with alot of what you say about Colonialism being the force that drove the "Colonization" in the game. I think that there are some pretty grave misunderstandings here between the gamers and you. Now I really don't have to make any points against the gamers for you, you and I both know the truth about Colonialism. Their ignorance is not a problem that I believe should be addressed in a video game column.
Here's what the gamers are trying to tell you: You discussed at length the difference between colonialism and colonization: If there's one excuse I can make for "Civilization IV: Colonization", it's that when you are playing from the point of view of the Colonizers, not the Colonialists. Remember that the settlers of America may have been racist or viewed themselves as superior, but their major concern was day to day survival. I can imagine that a colonial governor may have been much the same. At the time of the American revolution, it was the European powers who were the "colonialists"; the founding fathers sensed the injustice in this and this is why they rebelled. It's only a few decades later, once most of them were dead or senile that America began its own colonialism... the plague spreading and death marches that you mentioned.
The gamers are right on one count, Mr. Fritz, you would have understood all of this had you only played the 1994 game. Fortunately for you, that doesn't actually even fit into your job description! If the posters hadn't been so immersed in their white guilt, they would have noticed that your job is to comment ON THE INTERSECTION OF THE GAME INDUSTRY AND HOLLYWOOD. Technically a film student is probably more qualified to do this than a video game enthusiast seeing as this is a Film industry publication. You raised a point that needed to be made, and I congratulate you on warranting a comment from Firaxis (definitely couldn't happen to a company who has been more sympathetic to differing views of history). You just ended up drawing responses from people who didn't understand where you were coming from.
I understand and share your sympathy towards the peoples of the world who suffer the effects of colonialism. I honestly think that if there was one weakness to your original article it would be the passion with which you attacked Civilization IV: Colonization. Granted it's an argument that must be had, over and over again, we just have to figure out the right way to have it. Maybe if you had taken a more technical approach and compared the game to a film about the era it was supposed to represent such as "Pocahontas". Anyway, I support the job you are doing here. Someone has to think of this stuff.
Posted by: Ed | September 28, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Excellent comment by Aaron below. And I wish you would stop using the movie comparison. In a game, you make your own story, where a movie tells you the story that the creative staff created. So while I agree that a movie about Colonization would be met with much angst by the American public, the same should not hold true for a game.
Posted by: apes with guns | July 08, 2008 at 11:32 AM
How is it that the video game reviewer for Variety has never played Colonization?
Posted by: A. Nonny Mouse | July 08, 2008 at 11:30 AM
It baffles the mind that a writer for VARIETY would be unfamiliar with the concept of a REMAKE and wouldn't take the time to research the original before talking about the remake.
"Ocean's Eleven? Italian Job? You mean it's not the first time you made movies with those titles?"
I refer you to this text on Firaxis' page which you quoted to "Classic Game Design Rebuilt for the Modern Era".
I'll be gentle - that means it's a remake if you didn't realize it the first time you saw it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_(video_game)
Here's a good quote for you:
"Relationships must be carefully maintained with Indians and other colonial powers ... Destroying native settlements yields a quick profit and makes land available, but prevents the substantial long-term gains to be made by friendly bargaining and trading. Destruction of native settlements also counts against your final score."
Posted by: Krupo | July 06, 2008 at 10:12 PM
So I just wanted to thank you for your inane rant about Colonization...a game you've never played...or even interviewed the developers about...and lambasted. I now know enough about you...to know that I never need to read anything you write again as your opinions are biased, unfounded, and idiotic. I hope everyone else figures this out and you find yourself a new line of work where your opinions don't matter.
die dulci fruere
Posted by: John | July 04, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Most of my criticisms are handled by another reviewer in the hyperlink in my name below (no, I didn't write the article).
I will add a few points.
1. Your chief premise is that the game "celebrates" colonialization. This is unsupported by virtue of the historical simulation game genre, a genre almost as old as games themselves (I'm referring to 'games,' not just 'video games').
2. You based your entire reportage on a marketing blurb which makes you no better in your criticism than the fanboys who blindingly praise a game. What happened to professional pride? You have lost credibility as a journalist and as a writer. You are just a blogger trolling the internet for comment-spam. Your original article earned you plenty of comments. I hope this sates your comment lust. (In fairness, I know this is not all your fault. I'm sure you have editors and penny-pinching publishers who have no idea what actual journalism looks like anymore nor how to take advantage of digital publishing. But that doesn't absolve you, as a wannabe journalist.)
3. Your argument (I'm being generous here and am trying to incorporate your points above) is of the form "x is bad, so we shouldn't do a simulation game on the topic x unless condition y" where, in this case, y fulfills some social responsibility. Okay. 3A: You have no idea whether it fulfills condition y because you failed to do any journalistic reporting such as calling the developer for an interview. 3B: More importantly, it's an unsupported argument. You've failed to show that there is some negative consequence to people who play historical simulations.
I'd suggest considering the nature of historical simulations. It's very different than a social conscience simulator.
Posted by: Dave | July 03, 2008 at 07:38 AM
Ben--
As a fellow game reviewer and game blogger for a rival trade (sorry for the shameless plug), I think I'm mostly offended because you claim to be offended about a game YOU NEVER PLAYED!
If you had played, you'd know that you have the option to buy land from the natives, respect their burial mounds and trade peacefully with them. This isn't a game where you are forced to wipe them out. Yes, you can play that game... as you should be allowed to do so, but you have the option to make treaties and keep them too!
So shame on you for not at least playing the game before condemning it! But yeah, that's par for the course with too much of the gaming press.
Peter Suciu
Posted by: Peter Suciu | July 02, 2008 at 05:04 PM
I'm confused as to why you've suddenly decided whip out your overinflated morality stick to start judging games with. I would assume your morally opposed to killing people yet I don't see any lengthy, poorly argued diatribes against the taking of human life. Why should a game about Colonization be held to some arbitrarily higher level expected realism when dealing with historical events than say a WWII game?
Finally, playing as the indigenous people would be boring. Why, you ask? Well they would always loose. See part of what you're missing is that the designers had to include, and brace yourself for this one, gameplay in their game. Not just gameplay, but fun/intriguing gameplay. As you might be able to imagine, playing for a team that's set up to always lose probably would not satisfy the fun part of that equation. Maybe playing as indigenous people would help you achieve your moral high water mark of dealing with more sides of the historical event.
I like your posts for the most part, but I think this is certainly an argument you miscalculated.
Posted by: Peter | July 01, 2008 at 05:38 PM
Is it only racist/offensive when European nations conquer non-European nations? War, subjugation of indigenous peoples, slavery, rape have occured all over the planet for all of human history. Every nation on the planet is the product of colonization and conquest, usually several times over. My favorite double standard, though is how the crusades are characterized as the bad, intolerant Christians using vioence to impose their religion on others while the Muslim conquest of Spain, southern Italy, and the Balkans are celebrated for their enlightenment. It is funny how historical interpretations continuously adjust over time to suit the intellectual and political climate.
Posted by: Aaron | July 01, 2008 at 04:18 PM
Dear Ben,
You're still wrong. Not about all the Colonialism = bad 6th form debating society stuff, but about the 'games that don't allow you to explore both sides are inherently evil' nonsense.
The scope of any game is necessarily limited. In this case it's limited to the colonial point of view. How you as a player interpret that experience is not something that can be designed in elegantly without bludgeoning players over the head with ideology - and that's something that is even more 'offensive' than presenting a historical period 'as is'. Context is everything and I see nothing particularly offensive about giving people the opportunity to explore the issues faced by one side in a conflict. Your mileage clearly varies but as we've already established you A) are wrong and B) don't know your subject well enough to be a credible critic.
Posted by: IainC | July 01, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Look at that smug grin he has.
You know this guy wants to live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn and live off yesterday's bagels out of the local dumpster!
Posted by: Beamer | July 01, 2008 at 03:59 AM
"unless I'm crazy and every description of the game is off, motives you to "colonize" successfully in order to win. In the year 2008, we shouldn't be uncritically celebrating successful colonization"
This is where you're wrong, the first game doesn't do that. And so I assume the second doesn't either. You are responding to a bullet point. Read Wanderer's response it is really the best reason why we need simulations like this.
Posted by: yunk | June 30, 2008 at 09:06 AM
Having carefully considered your response i have to conclude: you are still an idiot.
Best regards
Posted by: AHappyBrit | June 30, 2008 at 06:32 AM
You're an idiot.
First of all colonization does not last from 1400 to the mid 20th century, it lasts from the mid 1400s to the mid 1700s. Most players play it on a made up (randomly generated) world and actually there is only one power which is encouraged to pillage Indian settlements (the Spanish who get double the loot). If you play the French your national characteristics actually encourage you to become friends and trade with the Indians.
When you say the game encourages you to do evil things you just show that you're an ignorant liar. You can buy the land off them, you can convert them to Christianity, you could just build around their territories... nothing forces you to steal.
In fact in most of my games I never attack an Indian settlement unless I get attacked myself, in most cases I avoid conflict yet the Indians attack me out of greed and prejudice.
Moron.
Posted by: colonization fan | June 29, 2008 at 08:16 PM
Thanks for responding to the comments, that was very...standupish of you ;) not a word I know heh.
Anyway, although it would be trite to simply state again that "It's just a game", it is just that. It's primary purpose is for entertainment's sake. If indeed the makers were going for a 100% totally accurate historical simulator, that's probably what they would have done. But, as it stands, this game, and all those like it, are there for people to enjoy. And, when it comes to these types, the more they can stick to the real world events -without- sacrificing the gameplay, the better. Thinking though, I wonder, if books, and films can explore such complex ideas and situation as Colonialism or Racism and etc., why not games?
From what I gathered, your original point of contention, was not just that it was portraying colonisation as an overall 'positive' thing, but rather, it focused to much on one side of it, i.e. the colonising powers. But again, the gameplay comes first and foremost. And while everything else around it can be deep, meaningful and thought provoking. If that's all you're going to focus on, you may aswell have written a book instead. Sorry, I'm rambling. I hope any kind of point I had wasn't lost ^^'
Posted by: Kosomjet | June 29, 2008 at 03:59 PM
PS: Thanks for addressing the major themes from the comments - let's hope the rest of the discussion (if there is any) is that civil.
Posted by: Sean w/o an H | June 27, 2008 at 08:09 PM
And we thought the racism discussion was rampant... when one opens video games up for critical discussion, all sorts of cultural studies and political economic ideas come bursting forth from the academic closet. Never would have guessed that video games would be the medium where I see media studies/academic views (and their baggage) cross over and clash with mainstream/"it's just a [film/book/TV show/]game" ideas.
If I were not on my way out of academia, this would be a great reason to stick around.
Sean (Viva la grad school course debate! )
Posted by: Sean w/o an H | June 27, 2008 at 08:08 PM