Trogodo wrote: ↑27 October 2025, 18:00
For those who find the themes of this game challenging or offensive, I offer a simple recommendation: instead of attempting to lobby the BGA platform to remove it—based on anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, or historical grievances—I urge you to simply
choose not to play it.
Personally, I believe this is a fun and engaging game. The effort
KuWizard has put into adapting it, and
Portal Games’ collaboration with
BGA to bring this experience to us, is highly commendable. We should celebrate the hard work of developers and publishers who expand our options.
I understand the desire to pursue a
morally virtuous position by imposing a lofty view of history and reality. However, reality is complex enough that these small moments of playing with others around the world should be seen as opportunities for connection, not conflict.
My experience has been the opposite of what some critics fear. Through playing games like these on BGA (and even historical wargames, which some might consider the epitome of bad taste), I’ve met people from other countries and have had genuinely interesting conversations about their life experiences, national histories, and perspectives—often vastly different from what I was taught in school.
The purpose of these games isn't to glorify history; it's to provide an engaging and abstracted experience. They can, inadvertently, become icebreakers for real-world dialogue, indeed.
My greatest concern is the precedent set by demanding the suppression or censorship of content—whether it's a game, a book, or a film—simply because its themes do not align with current prevailing political or social ideologies.
Suppressing creative works based on contemporary ideological litmus tests is unhealthy for any platform and for the community as a whole. It stifles the diversity of games available and risks creating an environment where developers must self-censor.
I would deeply regret it if BGA were to cease producing or developing this or any other game because some individuals might be offended by the subject matter, the language used, or even the nationality of their fellow players. Freedom of choice and the diversity of expression are values worth protecting in our global gaming community.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciate you engaging on the substance of the issue. I'd like to respond to a few of your points, because I think we might be talking past each other on some key issues, and the official announcement for
Imperial Settlers: Empire State of Mind provides a useful example.
You write:
"For those who find the themes of this game challenging or offensive, I offer a simple recommendation: instead of attempting to lobby the BGA platform to remove it... I urge you to simply choose not to play it."
This is a crucial point of divergence. My critique, and that of others, was not primarily about the
existence of the game on BGA, nor was it a call for its removal (though others are free to express that view). The critique was about
the tone and framing set by BGA itself. Let's look at the official announcement:
It begins with settlers "venturing to newly discovered lands." The history of "discovery" is one of erasure. Lands are "discovered" only from the perspective of the colonizer; for the people already there, it was an invasion.
It cheerfully states the settlers will "build barracks and training grounds to train soldiers" because the land is "far too small for everybody." The solution? "And then the battle begins..."
It concludes by joking that the objective is "crush everyone and rule the world! Scratch that sorry… to score victory points."
This isn't a neutral description of mechanics. This is a
celebratory narrative of settler-colonialism: arrive on "discovered" land, militarize because coexistence is framed as impossible, and battle for dominance. The "scratch that" joke acknowledges the uncomfortable truth even as it tries to laugh it off.
The issue isn't personal choice not to play; it's about the
public environment this language creates. When the platform's official communication frames this narrative as a fun adventure, it normalizes it. It invites the kind of forum comments we saw celebrating "Manifest Destiny." This creates a space that can feel hostile to those for whom this isn't a fun abstraction, but a historical reality of displacement and violence.
You also say:
"The purpose of these games isn't to glorify history; it's to provide an engaging and abstracted experience."
This is the core of the disconnect. You are describing the
mechanics. Others are responding to
the theme and its presentation. The game may be an abstract engine-builder to you, but its title, its faction choices (Barbarians, Egyptians, Japanese, Romans), and the language used to promote it are not abstract. They are loaded with historical and cultural meaning. The problem is the uncritical, adventure-story presentation of a process that, in reality, was catastrophic for countless peoples. Abstraction that erases violence is a form of glorification by omission.
Your personal experience of using such games as an "icebreaker" for meaningful dialogue is commendable. However, that is a privileged position. It presupposes that all parties at the table feel safe and equal in that conversation. For someone whose cultural history is being used as a faction in a game about "crushing everyone," being asked to treat that as a fun, abstract mechanic in a space where the narrative is celebratory can feel less like an icebreaker and more like a reinforcement of historical caricatures.
Finally, you express concern about censorship and ideological litmus tests. I share a concern for censorship.
But we must ask: Censorship of whom? The current moderation standard, as stated publicly by a moderator, is: "It is fine to question themes, but please do not use triggering language and examples while doing so." This is, itself, a form of censorship. It censors the historical facts that give the critique its weight, while allowing the celebratory fantasy of the announcement and similar user comments to stand unchallenged. It protects one narrative (that this history can be discussed only as harmless fun) and suppresses another (that it should be acknowledged as violent and traumatic).
My request is not for the suppression of the game, but for
more thoughtful platform stewardship. This could mean:
- Announcements that, even in their excitement, avoid framing historical processes of conquest as cheerful adventures of "discovery" and inevitable battle.
- Moderation that understands that glorifying this narrative (e.g., "Manifest destiny is back baby") can create a hostile environment, and applies rules against discriminatory speech consistently.
- Fostering discussions that allow for the full, factual context, not just the sanitized version required by the current moderation note.
This isn't about removing choices. It's about asking BGA to ensure that in providing a diverse library, it doesn't allow its official voice and its forums to normalize a one-sided, celebratory view of historical empire-building. It's about recognizing that for a global community, our shared space should be mindful of the many histories it evokes.
Thank you again for the civil discussion.