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.

I invited someone from 2K or Firaxis to respond to my post about the problems I have with "Civilization IV: Colonization" and I just received this from Steve Martin, president of developer Firaxis Games:

For seventeen years the Civilization series has given people the opportunity to create their own history of the world. Colonization deals with a specific time in global history, and treats the events of that time with respect and care. As with all previous versions of Civilization, the game does not endorse any particular position or strategy - players can and should make their own moral judgments. Firaxis keeps the player at the center of the game providing them with interesting choices and decisions to make, which has proven to be a fun experience for millions of people around the world.

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 it 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?

(map of European colonization from the 18th century taken from here.)