Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

why from an European perspective? And not anyone else's?

The game did feature a form of slavery with indentured servants from Europe, many of those ended up being literal slaves with no end to their contract once in the new World.

Regarding the issue of slavery, Colonization would have been criticized both ways: had they included it, they would have seen as condoning it. Removing it makes it seem like they did not care or are trying to hide it from History.

There's no good solution that will satisfy everyone.

View on HN

I played it as a ten year old and loved it. It has great game mechanics and loved the interplay between empires.

But having read several books on what colonisation actually means I would be reluctant to play it again.

For some reason for me Civilisation the game keeps it at a fictional enough level that you are not re-enacting whereas colonisation does not keep that level of separation.

The big question in the room is should you be re-enacting historical slavery for fun?

I could probably play a game where it wasn't historical and feel ok with it like a science fiction game but when it's something as insanely terrible as the trans-atlantic slave trade and you want to 'play' that game it feels morally wrong to me.

> The big question in the room is should you be re-enacting historical slavery for fun?

The same is true (if not worse) for murder. Should war be allowed?

This is an interesting question, what makes this more gross than killing in video games.

For some reason I would want to show some reverence for historical events. It probably comes down to whether I have emotional connection to the event.

I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying out atrocities in a war video game for entertainment but the unrealistic killing that is depicted in video games and Hollywood is not the same calibre. But you are right to ask the question it's an interesting topic.

Is that glorification of murder and violence a positive thing? What do you think about it all?

"There's no good solution that will satisfy everyone. "

That is allmost never the case. It is important to keep this in mind. I for once want a historical game to be trul historical. As close to the facts as possible.

Do you want a story telling device game where no matter what you do, you repeat history exactly as it’s recorded by historians? Or do you want for example slavery to be an option so you can immediately avoid it? In the latter example, of course the game wouldn’t be historic and the authors of the game would need to build in these non-canonical alternatives and fictions.

I don’t disagree with you wholly because I think a video game that didn’t have slavery as a subject but did educate about it in this kind of way would be very effective at for example teaching kids and adults about things like Juneteenth or the only coup to ever happen on US soil. But unless the game is on rails, the historical facts will always be just one of the possible choices.

"But unless the game is on rails, the historical facts will always be just one of the possible choices"

Sure. Thats why I am talking about the general setting. I start at a time, which I like to be somewhat historical correct. And from there it is free playing. Otherwise those strategygames would not be possible.

So in the example of collonization, there definitely should be the option of slaves, as it was done. But there should also be the option of avoiding it. Basically, playing nice, without the game mechanics pushing you to be a slaver. (I do not remember how it was actually implemented)

But I would not mind the game to be harder playing it nice. Which is probably more to historical truth.

European perspective because I'm european.

What I'm trying to say is that I can see why americans see it as a sensitive issue, but as a non-american it would makes as much sense to remove indians or the parent country from the game.

(guessing) Because pelliphant is European, that is their perspective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com