Here is a link to the original post in case you missed it yesterday:
http://blackenheimer.com/sid_meier_civilization_racist_colonization_260608
And here is the response from 2K.

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.

Be sure to let these guys where you stand on this ridiculous waste of everyone's time

Why did they bother responding to the guy anyway? I guess they felt they had to, but this blog is just one of billions out there. Nothing special. The blogger isn't educated, isn't a good writer and isn't popular. Moving on . . .

It's sad that they felt the need to respond to some adolescent's cry for attention.

Think I'll go post about how Mario Kart is racist as it implies that all Italians are fat plumbers who can't drive and like to "feel good" on mushrooms. :)

^^There is a good reason to write this... given that there will be some more nutheads saying the same stuff in the future, better to let is already written, even if for copy-paste reasons only ;)

...why don't they address the fact that you can't play as the natives?

...why don't they address the fact that you can't play as the natives?

Good point. The original critic's claims were mostly just influenced by his own disgust over colonialism. He doesn't have a clue about the gaming industry.

From the player's perspective, the inability to play natives is one aspect that might be viewed as a bit racist. My main complaint is that it makes it impossible to play a game without the AI present, which is different from all previous civ iv expansions unless you count barbs and such.

From the player's perspective, the inability to play natives is one aspect that might be viewed as a bit racist.

Not any more so than the inability to play the barbarians in Civ, is it? (I figure that Sid won't let us play barbs because HE is having fun playing the barbs, as shown in the "funny screen shots" thread.)

As to the author of the anti-Colonization rant, here's what I said about this over on the Escapist, where I first saw this story:

Why would Colonization be any more disturbing that Civilization? I have to think that this author has actually never played either. And come to think of it, he could well have been traumatized by the board game Risk when he was a child.

Either that, or when viewing the blurb about Colonization, he was overcome by a sense of European-American guilt because this particular iteration of the common conquer-the-world-via-your-computer theme involved what he believes HIS ancestors did that was not so nice. In that case, this author may want to check out Galactic Civiliations or Alpha Centauri or Sins of a Solar Empire where he can happily conquer and subjugate others without historical referents. Or, who knows? Maybe he'd just be happier in Webkinz world...

I enjoyed occasionally creating a generic barbarian civ in some of my scenarios. Like how some folks used to set up the Celts to account for the various tribes throughout britain/france/scandavia in Civ 2 scenarios. But anyway, I think it would be kinda neat to have the option to play as the natives at least. There were a few good scenarios in on of the Civ 2 expansions that had a 'new world' type game where you could play as any number of tribes in the Americas. I think the scenario ended before the Europeans showed up though... More options are always fun, this doesn't make the game any more or less moral/immoral to me.

It's an RTS, but there was a game from the Cossacks franchise that dealt with this rather well ... American Conquest. You could play as most of the European powers plus the US, or, as one of a wide variety of native groups. And they were all pretty fun to play, the natives were all treated differently and there was alot of effort put into portraying each group (Europeans included) in a unique way. The artwork was outstanding for the time, too.

It's not make-or-break for me - I enjoyed Imperialism alot as well as the original colonization - but it is a disappoinment. And, yeah, the tone with the marketing of the game and some of the imagery (like stars and stripes on Columbus' ships) is going to be a turn-off for non-Americans of all stripes because it gives the impression the game will give a fairly shallow and distorted historical treatment of Spanish/French/Dutch colonial experiences and motivations.

That original article was just silly, but, it has brought up a few things to consider, political correctness aside.

I enjoyed occasionally creating a generic barbarian civ in some of my scenarios. Like how some folks used to set up the Celts to account for the various tribes throughout britain/france/scandavia in Civ 2 scenarios. But anyway, I think it would be kinda neat to have the option to play as the natives at least. There were a few good scenarios in on of the Civ 2 expansions that had a 'new world' type game where you could play as any number of tribes in the Americas. I think the scenario ended before the Europeans showed up though... More options are always fun, this doesn't make the game any more or less moral/immoral to me.
Wasn't there a scenario where you could play as the barbarians, never settling anywhere but using gold pillaged from established civs to buy more units?

Yes, it was shipped with warlords iirc. One of the most fun senarios too. You had to kill everybody before they researched gunpowder/rifling as the most advanced unit you had was a trebuchet.

I loved the Discovering the New World Mod in Civ 3 warlords, and colonization and conwuering a new world is always fun. In the final game we might be able to play as some of the indian tribes, and maybe mod it to where we can play as any of them.

Oh, and that guy needs to get some sexy time with a woman, play civ, or get off his high horse.

Not any more so than the inability to play the barbarians in Civ, is it?

The difference is that in colonization the "barbarians" are representative of the various native tribes of the Americas, as opposed to simply having one city arbitrarily named after a "barbarian" city. I would consider them quite different from the Barbarians in civ. Also note that 4 of the native tribes/empires in question are playable in normal civ.

The difference is that in colonization the "barbarians" are representative of the various native tribes of the Americas, as opposed to simply having one city arbitrarily named after a "barbarian" city. I would consider them quite different from the Barbarians in civ. Also note that 4 of the native tribes/empires in question are playable in normal civ.

It's probably better that they are not playable, as it is difficult to get a player to just try and survive with minor raids rather than become a superpower.

Having the Indians as nations on the same level as the European powers would significantly change the game to more of a war game imo which is not what Col is all about.

Having the Indians as nations on the same level as the European powers would significantly change the game to more of a war game imo which is not what Col is all about.

I can't see why having playable native powers would make it any more of a wargame than having playable colonial rivals. There's alot of stuff native groups like the Iroqouis can be doing besides making war; they can be expanding agriculture, building towns and recovering the population from the initial shock of diseases, doing diplomacy, trading, managing internal politics and factions, etc etc. Instead of independance, the end goal would be formal recognition by all the colonial powers, perhaps through repudiation of your chief European patron and independant dealing with the other powers (kind of like declaring independance, but different).

I can't see why having playable native powers would make it any more of a wargame than having playable colonial rivals. There's alot of stuff native groups like the Iroqouis can be doing besides making war; they can be expanding agriculture, building towns and recovering the population from the initial shock of diseases, doing diplomacy, trading, managing internal politics and factions, etc etc. Instead of independance, the end goal would be formal recognition by all the colonial powers, perhaps through repudiation of your chief European patron and independant dealing with the other powers (kind of like declaring independance, but different).

I think it would be far too difficult to make a game where playing as the natives would be interesting without making it a pure fantasy scenario(e.g. natives driving off the European powers). After all, who wants to play a nation that starts kinda big and then has to survive the onslaught of disease and European conquest, just to scrape by to the end of the game? Playing as the natives really doesn't fit the bill of 'start small get big' gameplay that the 4X genre is known for and would probably be disappointing. Besides, there will be mods later that half-ass it and make up fantasy scenarios where the natives conquer Europe.

After all, who wants to play a nation that starts kinda big and then has to survive the onslaught of disease and European conquest, just to scrape by to the end of the game? Playing as the natives really doesn't fit the bill of 'start small get big' gameplay that the 4X genre is known for and would probably be disappointing.

The Iroqouis would fit the bill alright, since they did expand (immensely) after the arrival of the Europeans. English guns greatly accelerated their conquest of native rivals and, for a time, they went from controlling a small patch in upstate New York to dominating much of the Great Lakes basin. And they were never really trying to drive off the Europeans ... they were very close partners with the English and sought to - well, did - achieve a standing in North America equivalent to any of the colonies. Until the Revolution, when they disintegrated in internal divisions over questions of which side to retain allegiance with. I think this group, at least, would fit well in the context of the game.

The other groups might be difficult to portray, though.

They should make some natives playable.
I think it would be a win-win solution

The problem with making the natives playable is that it would feel like an entirely separate game lumped in with the main colonization game. As a native there wouldn't be any "old world" to trade goods with or receive immigrants from, the entire founding fathers and gaining independence concept would have to be tossed out/reworked entirely, having expert specialists that produce refined goods out of the regular resources wouldn't be possible, etc., etc. Not to mention that it would be tremendously harder to have to fight off four other technologically and financially superior AI opponents in addition to other tribes that you may not get along with. So not only would it go against the spirit of the game but it just wouldn't be much fun, either.

If you really want to play as the inca or aztec or native americans or whatever fighting off european nations then just play Civ4 (and if you really wanted it to be accurate then select the British/Dutch/French/Spanish as your opponents and give them a ton of techs in the worldbuilder).

I liked what Troy at Flash of Steel (http://flashofsteel.com/) had to say about Ben Fritz's comments:



It’s not whether or not any game can pass his dubious test. It’s that he is asking a serious question about what these games mean, a question that a lot of people don’t bother asking.

Now, as a regular reader, you know that I love these sorts of questions. But Fritz’s big problem is that he tried to answer it from a position of ignorance about this game or any other similar game. It’s not that he’s holding Colonization to a higher standard than any games of its sort; it’s that he’s not aware of what Colonization is or any other games like it.

Other commentators have noted that he had no issue with the violence and more personalized unsavory material in GTA4. Which makes his Colonization stand an odd case to make.

I just want Civilization IV: Colonization to be as entertaining a game as the the original Colonization was. So bug off, Ben Fritz! :mad:

Col was a brilliant game, far better than the original Civ in my mind.

I still listen to the midi music!

The blogger cleary is uneducated and spiteful of history.

They need to put the slave trade in it for it to be truely historical. Slave labor from Africa was a huge part of the Caribbean and Southern North American colonies.

Also unless you are the Spanish, most the time it is not even worth it to conquer the natives, they usually provide you with free stuff and only demand food from you and they don't use up a great deal of the land. I usually just ignore them until the Revolution time and then incite them to attack my former mother country I am seeking independence from.

The Iroqouis would fit the bill alright, since they did expand (immensely) after the arrival of the Europeans. English guns greatly accelerated their conquest of native rivals and, for a time, they went from controlling a small patch in upstate New York to dominating much of the Great Lakes basin. And they were never really trying to drive off the Europeans ... they were very close partners with the English and sought to - well, did - achieve a standing in North America equivalent to any of the colonies. Until the Revolution, when they disintegrated in internal divisions over questions of which side to retain allegiance with. I think this group, at least, would fit well in the context of the game.

The other groups might be difficult to portray, though.

I think the Aztecs and the Incans would be good as well. The Spanish were very lucky with these two great empires. The Aztec king decided they were prophesised gods and refused to fight until it was too late and the Incans were crippled from their civil war (and possible thought the Spaniards were gods too, I can't remember). If it wasn't for these two accidents of history, those nations might still be with us today.

If it was to have basis in history then playing as the natives would certainly be more of a challenge than playing as the Europeans, but what's wrong with that? I'm disappointed it isn't possible to play as any native civs, but I'm sure it will appear in the mods.

I can understand why some people might disapprove of a game about colonization because colonization did go hand-in-hand with racism historically. However that's true of just about any warfare-based game (and that includes non-European wars). It's only in modern times that there has been a significant movement against denigrating other cultures.

Also, historical colonisation involved good motives (a free-er society, greater knowledge of the world) and neutral ones (more trade) mixed in with the evil ones. Colonisation cannot be reduced to just a racist ideology and nothing more. For me what made Sid Meier's Colonization fun was the excitement of discovering and settling an unknown land and the way that instead of generic 'hammers' and 'trade' points you had actual resources and manufactured goods, transforming the civ economy into something more meaningful and playable. I think this reflects how Colonization was more than conquering and ideologically degrading native americans.

Finally, the player doesn't not have to oppress the natives in Colonisation. They can trade with them give them gifts and always be nice to them.

None of that applies to Grand Theft Auto, where the player can only follow the 'evil' path and has no better in-game motive then self-advancement, but which this blogger guy apparently didn't criticise.

For Americans, I think it is very important to play games about American history. Playing historical games is a fun way to begin learning about history, and every American should know their history. The simple fact is, racism is a huge part of American history. You have to deal with it head on. You can't tell the story without the plight of the natives, or about the horrendous crime of slavery, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be told.

However, for a company dedicated to fun, this is not going to be easy. I would say that if the game is fun for African American players and also Native American players, then they could be satisfied that they treated the subject with due respect. I do know that some friends of mine who are African American get visibly upset when the topic of history comes up at all. Thier history is one of sadness, injustice and humiliation. The anger is still there and is rekindled time and again. Imagine coming home from fighting in Viet Nam, going to a place for a hamburger and being told, "We don't like n**** in here boy. You better leave." I heard that story only a year ago, told to me with some emotion, so it's still pretty fresh.

Yeah, I'd say this game won't make everyone happy, but the story should still be told.

I cannot believe my eyes reading the quotes from these people.

I thought was funny that the linked article brought up the fact that Colonization was released so long ago lol. Where was the outrage omg!?

I guess civilization should be banned too as it allows a form of slavery, conquest of other nations, nukes, wars, etc. In fact it seems to me that most of Sid's titles could be seen in a negative light. Railroad tycoon, the railroads helped to complete the conquest of north america etc. Pirates are bad mmmkay. Don't even get me started on Golf!

Why doesn't this guy go after GTA4 or something? Oh that's right, because Rockstar has pretty much beaten the psycho conservatives with Free Speech yay!

I'm sorry that we humans have done some not so nice stuff in our history, but too bad. If you are so against colonization then perhaps he should move to Africa somewhere in the cradle of mankind otherwise he'll be living in a colonized region of the world omg.

Such BS I can't imagine what they are thinking hahaha. Ok enough ranting.

I am going to write an email to Firaxis promising my Pre-order of c4:COL as the all mighty dollar speaks louder than crazy politically correct writers whining about nonsensical issues.

In truth though, not being able to play some of the European powers as well as the natives doesn't feel racist, it feels overly constrained. Sure going to the natives for expert workers was a cool concept and grounded in history, the original Colonialism setting assumes the natives were totally reactionary, when in fact some tribes (e.g. Iroquois) played a strong role and were crucial to political maneuvering before the hordes of unwashed Europeans finally immigrated. Especially during the Seven Years War period. Speaking of which, ignoring the home front during that war ignores stress on the colonial powers.

And native allies played a role even in the US Civil War.

A great topic for an expansion, but still I wish Firaxis would realize some of the features of the original Colonization are way dated, and should be updated by the Civ4 ruleset.

haha, I love reading these blogs. I hope he's never heard of Grand Theft Auto or he'll . .. .. .. . himself. I'm also a big fan of evangelical christian fundamentalist movie reviews that get upset about harry potter.

All joking aside, will I get to rape natives and spread syphalis? Because frankly, that's the only reason I play video games these days

The problem with making the natives playable is that it would feel like an entirely separate game lumped in with the main colonization game. As a native there wouldn't be any "old world" to trade goods with

Sure there would. Who do you think the Iroqouis were getting their guns from? Space aliens? They didn't get them from the colonies because the colonies weren't really producing manufactured goods yet.

the entire founding fathers and gaining independence concept would have to be tossed out/reworked entirely

Not as much as you might think ... they could just renounce alliance and start to deal independantly with other colonial powers, in effect, declaring independance.

having expert specialists that produce refined goods out of the regular resources wouldn't be possible, etc., etc.

True. Your economy would need to be based on trade and getting control of trade routes.

Not to mention that it would be tremendously harder to have to fight off four other technologically and financially superior AI opponents in addition to other tribes that you may not get along with.

Well, in the real history, the Iroqouis managed fine for a long time - in fact, until the Revolution, they were militarily equal to any of the colonies, except for the fact that France and England could reinforce their colonies with regular armies from Europe. It's the only native power I can imagine including in the game without altering it too much, since in effect, they operated alot like a European colonial power. They were playing off the French-English conflict and making a bid to come out on top, and they came very close to succeeding in the wake of the French and Indian War - but then the Revolution happened and tore them to pieces over divided allegiances.

It doesn't seem any more "what if" than playing New France as if it were being colonized in the English pattern, and declaring independance and all that. There's already a pretty heavy element of "what if" going on, with everyone in the game using the English model of colonization as a template.

Hi

My favorite part was in comments on the critical artical where someone basically asked if a person who just now hearing about a game thats been out since 1994 REALLY Variety's BEST choice to be their main video game columnist?

Kaytie

The Iroqouis would fit the bill alright, since they did expand (immensely) after the arrival of the Europeans. English guns greatly accelerated their conquest of native rivals and, for a time, they went from controlling a small patch in upstate New York to dominating much of the Great Lakes basin. And they were never really trying to drive off the Europeans ... they were very close partners with the English and sought to - well, did - achieve a standing in North America equivalent to any of the colonies. Until the Revolution, when they disintegrated in internal divisions over questions of which side to retain allegiance with. I think this group, at least, would fit well in the context of the game.

The other groups might be difficult to portray, though.

And what for choices would you have as a native leader? No priest, no elder statesman, no blacksmith, no founding father, no trade with old world. Sorry to say, but playing a native is not interresting. Rhyes&Fall allows you to play natives with interresting victory condition, but come on, playing Colonization with natives just kills all the flavour of the game.

Saying that Colonization is racist because you cannot play the natives is stupid. It cannot even be discussed, because it's absurd. Forget that guy.

I cant understand WHY slavery is omitted. Is it because this game is expected to sell far more in the US as a total then Civ? Many Americans are not ignorant about their history, at least most of the ones who play Civ arent, they know about slavery and wouldnt be shocked to have it included. As others have said, if I can play as Germany in Civ4 and completely wipe out Russia, nuke the middle east and adopt slavery as a civic, then whats the problem wuith having it in col?

I cant understand WHY slavery is omitted. Is it because this game is expected to sell far more in the US as a total then Civ? Many Americans are not ignorant about their history, at least most of the ones who play Civ arent, they know about slavery and wouldnt be shocked to have it included. As others have said, if I can play as Germany in Civ4 and completely wipe out Russia, nuke the middle east and adopt slavery as a civic, then whats the problem wuith having it in col?

You have complete control over your labor anyway, what more would you want?

A historical game should be wary of ommiting major concepts because of political corectness.

Slavery was a major factor both in the colonisation of American, its development, and its history. The civil war and the civil rights movements were not minor events.

Racism isn't a valid justification for exclusion, simply because you can read it both ways. Is leaving slavery out really showing respect to the african population? You might say so... or you might say that excluding slavery also hides the shame of the slavers and assists in historical whitewashing. You might say leaving out slavery shows disrespect to the suffering of the enslaved by not acknowledging their existance, and by denying the contribution of people like King.

Of course the decision here shows nothing of the sort. The designers wanted to make a game, and wanted people, all people, to have fun playing it without being offended. This involves walking a fine path through minefields and they chose one of several less than perfect paths, and it is hard to blame them for any given decision since after all this remains a game, not a tool to teach history.

Well, original didn't had slavery, but you did get indian converts if you attacked village that had your mission.

That was almost like active enslaving.
(worse then just buying slaves from Africa, IMHO)

I think the game should have slavery but there should be an option to turn it off for those people that would be offended by it.

If they include slavery then there should be some negative side effects as well such as slave revolts or slaves escaping from colonies in order to discourage their use unless you desperately need colony workers.

Hmm, WW2 games never cover the Holocaust, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about that. Isn't it similar with slavery in a colonization game? It's still too hurting for many people to have it made into a game feature.

I think the game should have slavery but there should be an option to turn it off for those people that would be offended by it.


ROFLMAO. I hope for an option to turn off the Roman Empire in Civ because I'm offended by Bacchanalia. I also wish for an option to turn off Pyramids and the Great Wall, because they caused the death of a lot of slaves. Lastly, please let me turn off Hollywood !

Civ is made to give you a chance to build an empire in your computer, not be a real leader that enslaves natives. Natives is not racist in Civ4, and natives here will also be like in Civ4: not racist.

Hmm, WW2 games never cover the Holocaust, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about that. Isn't it similar with slavery in a colonization game? It's still too hurting for many people to have it made into a game feature.

that's just thing. many people view all european colonisation as pretty much as evil as slavery or the holocaust

ROFLMAO. I hope for an option to turn off the Roman Empire in Civ because I'm offended by Bacchanalia. I also wish for an option to turn off Pyramids and the Great Wall, because they caused the death of a lot of slaves. Lastly, please let me turn off Hollywood !

How is any of this a relevant comparison? You can make a game about civilization without including the things you mentioned and nobody would really care but a game about the colonization of america that completely ignores slavery is pretty stupid. The issue of slavery is still fresh in a lot of people's minds and it's a lot more touchy of an issue than something from ancient times. Both including and not including it could offend people and so I thought my suggestion would've made a decent compromise.

Slavery was a major factor both in the colonisation of American, its development, and its history. The civil war and the civil rights movements were not minor events.

Colonization deals with everything before the American Revolution, which is the game's endpoint ... there was slavery, but it was on a much smaller scale and of a generally different nature (indentured slavery - and many of them were whites, usually German, Irish, English, or Scottish, believe it or not). Indentured slavery was not racially based and it was more of an apprenticeship system than chattel slavery - most commoners who emigrated to the English colonies did so under an indenture. Many Africans were also brought over, but during this period, they were indentured slaves, not (usually) chattel slaves. Just like European commoners, they had contracts (indentures) and became free after the term was over.

In the South, because of the tobacco plantations and agrarian-based economy, it gradually evolved into the race-based chattel slavery we are all familiar with from the civil war era, but this was very rare until a few years after the Revolution, not becoming a widespread practice until the 1780s. The Civil War, slave states, the slave-based economy of the South, and civil rights movements are all anachronisms in this context.

That's very interesting frekk. I knew there were plenty of European indentured labourers in colonial America but I had no idea that most pre-independence African slaves were treated in the same way. Do you have any sources for that as I'd like to find out more?

Col II should ship as it's billed -with an Americas map!

Everything else - Slavery, playing as Native Americans - is Moddable!

That's the beauty of the CIV4 game engine.......

I think the game should have slavery but there should be an option to turn it off for those people that would be offended by it.
I quote this post as I could have quoted many others in this thread, nothing personal.

Like it or not slavery is something that happened in human history (and to different extent still exists in the world) and omitting it in a game will not make it disappear.
The same applies to the wars against american natives and other stuff that appeared in the original colonization game.

Why anybody should be offended?
The game is only trying to portrait a historical period as best as possible in the limit of playability and software constraints (do not forget that the original game came out when computers had very limited power compared, many orders of magnitude less than now).

Actually being able to see this stuff in a game have two very positive effects:
- People who may not have known anything about that period of history can actually learn something
- it's possible to understand the reasons behing such atrocius acts of cruelty and exploitations like slavery and exterminations of native cultures.

The European colonists didn't act cruel because they were evil, they did because they had a very clear economic advantages.
Understanding, even with a game, the economic implications at the base of that historical time may help us to understand why such cruelty still exist today.
There is no offence in knowledge.
There is no offence in remembering history.

There is only offence (against intelligence) in closing our eyes to the world and into polically correct hipocrisy.

I did play a lot of strategy games in the past based on world war 2.
Often using the nazi at the conquest of Europe: this didn't mean I was a nazi or accepted their doctrine.
Playing such games didn't make me shave my head and start tensing my right arm.

The same with Colonization: people have brain, they see the difference between a game and reality.

Players are NOT morons that cannot distinguish reality from a game... c'mon lets be realistic!

Actually then Slavery is already included in cIV: Colonization, as you will be able to choose to include Slavery(civic style) in your own custom made Constitution once your colony declares Independence.

Of course, if you are talking about implementing actual Slave Trade then that would require Africa to be represented in some form as well.


Playable natives would indeed require Firaxis to think up a whole new angle for them alone - so I can see why they are probably not going to do that. But it wouldn't be impossible to come up with different objectives/mechanisms for the natives to replace the ones the Europeans have.

Ie. native statesmen could be working to unite the various native tribes against the invaders instead of working for Independence (using sort of a UN mechanism among the natives perhaps).


On topic then I normally choose to ignore ill-informed people and whatever equally ill-informed nosense they may post on the net. However, I can't help but finding it ironic that he makes the accusation of the game being racist, when he is clearly guilty of making detrimental judgements more or less solely based on the 'color of the game' himself.

Isn't there already an Age of Discovery scn for Civ3 that allows you to play as the Natives?

I don't see whats the big problem with turning off a 'Slavery' Option. If you could turn off random events, like earthquakes etc, why not slavery? After all, as
Like it or not slavery is something that happened in human history is true, so is "Like it or not Natural Disasters is something that happened in human history". If one could be disabled, so could the other. But if thats not good enough...you could also make it possible to illegalize slavery in your col empire. That would be historically accurate.

Options are always a good solution/compromise to controversial elements in a game. :)

they should have just given the "non-apology apology" and said...

"We apologize for any inconvenience the themes of this game may have caused to anyone with deep regret and remorse. As such, we hope you will enjoy this product for what it is, as well as our future releases.

Kind regards,
Firaxis"


Isn't this how its usually done?

The problem with the idea that the conflict was a native versus european one is that its wrong. Immediately this comes up;"The natives need to band together to fight off the Europeaners". First of all Im assuming this game "Colonization" starts off in the 1600's. (Founding of Jamestown 1607) People consistantly overlook the real situation, which was native and European versus native & european. Not as vassals, but allies, not just to send them off to die, but as partners. Escpecially the French in America lived with the Algonquin tribes of the Great Lakes, many as indians. Combining aspects of both cultures. The French get a bad rap getting lumped together in the Europeaners category.

The Americans are the ones that committed most of the atrocities from around 1776 to 1830. The "Indian wars", and Andrew Jacksons removal policy. Before that the natives are still there. The revolution was really a catalist event that brought droves of imigrants from Europe. The natives were beat with population, not guns and steal. As theyre populations went down with desease, and constant fighting, the American population was pouring off the boat.

The Iroquois are a must. From about 1630 to about 1680 they were said to be the strongest military force in North America. Sofisticated government, and trade. This is the reason for much peace within the colonies. The Iroquois are effectively a shield from the many pro French Algonquin tribes of great lakes.

What's different about the the native's aims? Their goals arent drive out the Europeaners until later much later. Their goals are trade, and the control of it, as well as the gaining of new territory to harvest fine furs.

Look it up, its there, theres alot that can be done with it. It is very interesting all the things going on, either way there were large tribal entities that were just as powerful and sometimes more powerful than theyre Euopean counter parts. The tribes saw the Europeans as we kind of see the Chinese, a partner to buy nice manufactored goods from. Also there is not enough attention given to the embargo's & price increases on goods sold
to natives. One of the reasons for colapse was too much dependence on foreign goods. Goods that had been readily available for over a hundered years. Alot of damage was done economically by the French finally getting all those furs on market and causing the price to fall out. The burst of the "fur bubble".

Other large entities;
1. The Iroquois Confederacy (5 nations) THe League of Peace & Power. Invaded the great lakes, midwest, and reported as sending war partys as far west as Nebraska. Shield for the colonies, if they wanted to run out the colonist they would have in the mid 17th century. They did not want to they wanted to control the trade of furs coming from all the other tribes.

2. The 3 Fires a traditional confederacy of Ojibwe/ Chippewa, Ottawa, & Potawatomi, that represents the bulk of the French Algonquin Alliance. They drove the Iroquois back accross the great lakes, drove and the Sioux out of Minnesota. Large in number almost twice as big as the Iroquois. The difference being in structure and leadership.

3. The Cherokee Nation- Large in number, & area, deliberate & diplomatic quasi- trade partners of the English.

4. The Creek confederacy- Large expansive confederacy of tribes in georgia and surrounding area.

Aren't you forgetting about the Aztecs and Incas? They were the most advanced native civilization by the time the Europeans settled the American continent. Some conquistadores claimed Tenochtitlan and Cuzco were more impressive than cities back in Europe!

I think that you needn't fudge too many things to make them a viable, playable choice. However, it's true that a whole new set of gameplay mechanics would be needed to make the natives as engaging to play as the European powers.

As for the article, I've nothing else to add. You guys have already said everything. :p

The problem with the idea that the conflict was a native versus european one is that its wrong. Immediately this comes up;"The natives need to band together to fight off the Europeaners".
Well, since the natives (if they were to be included as playable nations) obviously cannot be using the mechanism of building Rebel sentiment aiming for Independence from Europe, then what would you suggest that the native nations should have as a replacement mechanism/goal to work towards - if not to ultimately unite against the rising threat of the growing European presence?

I can't wait for the Hot Coffee mod.

oh yeahh

Is it any worse than this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/CustersRevenge.jpg

Aren't you forgetting about the Aztecs and Incas? They were the most advanced native civilization by the time the Europeans settled the American continent. Some conquistadores claimed Tenochtitlan and Cuzco were more impressive than cities back in Europe!


Different time period, if they are covering it then sure, by the 1607 (founding of Jamestown) the Spanish were already there (Mexico) & had been there for over 50 years. Differnent types of weapons, better muskets moving away from the pike. Colonization based on the picture is based on the East coast of North America. Not the plains as they have displayed the tribes in teepees. :mad:

To the other response about what should theyre goals be?

Just the same as everyone else. Number one trade, agriculture & resource gathering (maize, tobacco, deer, herbs for medicine, buffalo, wood, bark for making canoes, sweet tree syrups for flavoring food, and varios other resources) warfare.

Natives were competing with other tribes to reap the monopoly of the fur trade interactions between Europeans & indians. Self preservation & expansion not set in the framework of race.

Like stated before people try to make this about race v.s. race. There were alot of different independant entities even within the European factions that work with & against each other, sometimes within the same country allegiance. These individual colonies worked with different tribes against other European entities with theyre allied native tribes, ect. The Natives saw the Europeaners as seperate tribes. This European v.s. Native idea was one that didnt show up until the colonies started expanding out of N.E. and then the natives saw the Europeans as another tribe native or European that was moving into they're territory.

The picture above is rediculious & discusting.

Is it any worse than this?

Nothing is worse than that.

I've seen gameplay from Custer's Revenge... as was the case with most Atari games, the box cover is way more pleasant to look at than the game itself. However, I could've done without the grotesque little Custer in the foreground...

Look Im a native american which doesnt make me a spokesmen for all native americans. Personally, I dont think that colonizations representation of European historical writtings is racist. What I do feal, though is that the natives are many times underrepresented.

Whats racist is some of these simple stereo types that were written in the removal years (as redoric for removal) after & against the facts by people that were selling a book, & didnt know nothing, and Pawnee Bill esc shows. A view that all natives are so simple, even stupid thats racist. These viewpionts and really modern public opinion was based on this rederic instead of the history.

Also its worse to cover it up, than talk about it. Read the history, about the Iroquois & the back story of the Beaver wars. The Cherokee, Creek conferacy, all complex factions in the Americas. There were different sizes of native factions, small, medium & large just like the rest of the world.

There are also two other factions in America that I will discuss that I feal are a product of these claims. One faction we'll call them the Democrats:) portray Nduns as mythical wood elfs, taking some of our customs & traditions & turning them into jelly. Wearing wild trade things you guys probably associate with natives, that are in the upmost sense of the word generic. We are almost not indian enough for them:lol: Not like real people, like last time I checked we are. People with flaws, many, just like everyone else.

Then you've got another faction lets just say the Republicans:) (a tiny sliver of) that are racist & try at ever turn even to this day to destroy us & all meaningful & real history of our peoples.

To me there is no reason for guilt. This wasnt ancient history though, & youve got to realize that there are deep bruises to our familys that are clearly evident today.

At the same time that doesnt mean saying off the wall racist stuff is cool either. You do that & your propogating that set of ideals.

god, that guy is such a retard: first of all: he doesnt understand it is a game, something to get us out of everyday life. and anyway, the game is based on history, and recreating it in a game is a way of increasing public knowledge of what happened in that "dark" era. personally, i think that the age of exploration is a great era to set this type of game in, racist games probably wouldnt even be out on the market anyway, so wats the point of whinging about them??: i mean: firaxis did that religion thing really well in civ 4, as it was designed not to offend anyone, why should colonisation be any different?

Now, was that comment necessary, blackhawkdown93? tlucky4life is, as all of us, free to state his opinions. Please don't turn this thread into a flame war.

no wtf!! i meant the guy who said that civ 4 bts was a racist game!! not the person above me...

no wtf!! i meant the guy who said that civ 4 colonisation was a racist game!! not the person above me...

Oh, sorry! I guess I'm a bit too afraid of flaming... :blush: