Gameology: Commentary and Resources for the Game Studies Community

You're right. The weakest part of my essay is probably that point about slaughtering the Indians; there are more charitable ways, in the game, to work with them. But I would also argue that even in the bartering that a player undertakes with them, the object is to get as much out of them for the lowest cost. The greater point is that - fair trade or none - in the end, the Indians lose out. Their homes are invaded, they are continually edged off of the map, and the most charitable way to approach the Indians in Colonization would be to never land in the New World and to leave them alone. But that wouldn't be much of a game.

When I was a young man and I wrote this essay, I didn't want to make Colonization the game out to be some kind of abomination, or suggest that it shouldn't have been made. That it did come across that way I ascribe to the clumsiness of youth. All I wanted was to raise questions about it that occurred to me during the many hours I spent playing it, like: by playing a game that pits us against other European invaders to exploit a continent for the most resources, do we then, like the real-life invaders involved in actual colonization, implicate ourselves as guilty participants in an ugly system, even if the system is simulated? And does it make that implication a little more real when the events in Colonization actually took place, approximately?

Ultimately, I want to side with Colonization and the portrayal of its titular system of exploitation. It simulates exactly what colonization was (minus slavery) in the New World, and places us in the position of a participant in it. It doesn't give us options to be very nice to the Indians, because that wasn't an option for many of the actual, historical colonizers. The game consists of exactly what the title indicates it will. It places us in a position of authority over things, but it also limits that power in ways that I think are poignant and worth noticing.

I also think Colonization can be more poignant than this, because - at least for those of us in the US - we live in a country that currently occupies several important other countries, and we have a military presence in lots more countries than that. So that playing Colonization and playing the role of a colonizer becomes even more suspect. It either exacerbates the problems inherent in playing Colonization, and makes the game out to be worse than it is; or it points out how important it is that we comprehend that system, and understand it, making Colonization the game seem to be even more important, and useful.

I don't think my essay "lambastes" Colonization at all. It's possible to raise questions about something without trying to make it look bad, and I made no effort to vilify the game or its creators. I don't have time for that.