Virtual Unaustralia: Videogames and Australia's Colonial History
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Virtual Unaustralia: Videogames and Australia’s Colonial History Thomas H. Apperley PhD Candidate Media and Communications Program University of Melbourne In August 2006 the Games Lab at ACMI (the Australian Centre for the Moving Image) in Melbourne hosted an exhibition ‘Best of the Independent Games Festival 2006’; among the games featured was Braid (Number None Inc., game still in development).1 This game was noted for its clever examination of the platform genre, a genre of videogame2 closely associated with Nintendo games like Super Mario Brothers (Nintendo, 1985) and Super Mario 64 (Nintendo EAD, 1996). The focus of the game was to explore the flow of time, by allowing players to rewind the game – in a manner similar to that explored in a more limited fashion in UbiSoft’s Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2003) – they could ‘explore alternate approaches and differing causes and effects’ (Best of Independent Games Festival, 2006). Braid’s examination of this genre of videogames parallels this paper’s concern with how time, and cause and effect, are presented in another prominent genre of videogames: the historic strategy genre. The use of the time rewind function in Braid creates potential for multiple readings of the game, and allows the player to shift between – and play with – temporal perspectives: what is at stake in this game is a detailed analysis of what could otherwise be regarded as an outdated genre. Currently the platform genre is enjoying a renaissance in appreciation through its remediation to mobile consoles and telephones; however, it is widely regarded as having had a peak of popularity during the eighties and early nineties. So while Braid acts as a nostalgic exploration of the mind-set associated with the playing and solving of the platform game, historic strategy games have other issues at stake. The key issue I will explore in this paper is that of representing history as a dynamic process, focusing on what the relationship between the videogames industry and audience brings to this process. This paper will focus on how two games – Europa Universalis II (Paradox Interactive, 2001) and Victoria: Empire Under the Sun (Paradox Interactive, 2002) – represent a specific moment: the colonization of Australia. However, I suggest that this analysis is relevant also in a wider sphere, and appropriate to other historical videogames, and to the representation of other moments in time are represented through the videogame medium. The paper will begin by briefly describing the two games, followed by a review of prior scholarship on this genre of videogames. After this background material, the representation of the Australian colonial moment in each game will be discussed, before turning to an exploration of the particular relations between videogame producers and consumers. This final section will first examine particular practice of these games’ communities, the after-action-report (AAR). I will argue that this practice demonstrates that the games are used as counterfactual tools for thinking creatively about history. Secondly, the role that social networking in the form of game forums will be examined, especially the way that these sites are used to discuss particular history moments in terms of authenticity, and how this desire for – and conflict over – what is authentic feeds back into the creation of ‘patches’ and ‘mods’. Finally, the paper will Refereed Proceedings of UNAUSTRALIA 2 The Cultural Studies Association of Australasia’s Annual Conference December 6, 7, 8 2006 http://www.unaustralia.com/proceedings.php discuss the influence that open source software has on the relationship, with reference to the ways that ‘patches’ and ‘mods’ have on shaping the development of the game. Paradox Interactive The company Paradox Interactive is responsible for designing and publishing both the games Europa Universalis II (2001), Victoria: Empire Under the Sun (2002), and many others. Located in Stockholm, Sweden, the company: ‘is focused on delivery strategy games with an in-depth historical context and game experience’ (Paradox Interactive, 2006). The company has achieved considerable success with their relatively small stable of games, in particular the Europa Universalis (2000) and Hearts of Iron (2002) series, both of which garnered substantial critical and audience acclaim despite being considered both extremely complicated and graphically unimpressive.3 Paradox Interactive was able to capitalize on this success to produce sequels of much better quality, having incorporated many suggestions from players’ into the redeveloped games. Players’ of the originals eagerly anticipated these games and promoted the games release among the wider game community, creating further success for the small company. The company then began to diversify, moving into self publishing games (Calvert, 2004), and to the development of Gamersgate – which began operation in April 2006 – an online publishing portal for videogames that began as a digital distribution system for their own games, but quickly incorporated the publication of games developed by other companies. Refereed Proceedings of UNAUSTRALIA 3 The Cultural Studies Association of Australasia’s Annual Conference December 6, 7, 8 2006 http://www.unaustralia.com/proceedings.php Europa Universalis II spans the era of 1420-1820; the main focus of the game is the expansion of the European powers to dominate trade and create colonies around the globe. While technology, budgeting, diplomacy and military concerns are all important in the game, they are ancillary to the concern of colonialism. The player selects a country for which they will play. Initially this is usually one of the European colonial powers: England, France, Portugal, Russian, Spain; however, a key innovation of the game – and one which is marked by many players as vital to its durability – is the ability of the player to select any country. While under the conditions in the game algorithm it is impossible for many nations to win, another innovation of this game is the remarkable flexibility in terms of the setting of goals. Winning the game – becoming the strongest power – is unfeasible for all but the strongest and most dedicated players’, unless they are using the easy setting. Thus challenges are generated through the community by setting goals for smaller nations (e.g. retaining control of Zanzibar if playing as Oman), or placing caveats on the actions of stronger ones (e.g. only to colonize areas that were historically colonized by a particular nation).4 Victoria: Empire Under the Sun covers the period from 1820-1920, and has a similar aesthetic to Europa Universalis II. However, it deals with issues like commerce, economy, diplomacy, technology and political in a considerably more detailed, and complex, fashion. The key difference in the two games lies in Victoria: Empire Under the Sun’s focus on industrialization rather than colonization. This remains an aspect of the game, but the urge to colonize is driven by industry, meaning that the nations of Europe scramble to get control over areas producing essential raw materials (coal, lumber, steel, Refereed Proceedings of UNAUSTRALIA 4 The Cultural Studies Association of Australasia’s Annual Conference December 6, 7, 8 2006 http://www.unaustralia.com/proceedings.php sulphur, etc.). Like Europa Universalis any country can be chosen for play, and the goals can be decided according to the country and the skill of the player. However, it differs in that it has a more formal manner is assigning value to success, through victory points, and unlike Europa Universalis II several non-European nations have a good chance to perform well: China, Japan, and Persia. The countries are ranked according to their total victory points attained during the game, and players’ have developed a loose way of evaluating a game based on the ranking that the country has (thus to finish the game with Brazil in a top 8 position is considered a ‘win’ for that country).5 Past Approaches: Ideology, Allegories, and Algorithms The two games under scrutiny have had little discussion in academia;6 the purpose of this section is to locate the games in broader discussions of videogames, in particular discussion around the representation of history. Most of the work in this genre of games has been on the blockbuster series Civilization,7 which has a similar theme, but is abstract and ahistorical. The analysis of Civilization is constructively divided into three nodes of criticism by Alex Galloway in Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture (2006): 1. The cultural critique: that videogames are too trivial to be discussed seriously (p. 95); 2. The ideological critique: that videogame represent history, or society in a way that demonstrates a particular ideological bias (p. 96); 3. The informatic critique: that videogames are algorithms, a form of information that provides an allegory for the contemporary control society (pp. 102-103). Refereed Proceedings of UNAUSTRALIA 5 The Cultural Studies Association of Australasia’s Annual Conference December 6, 7, 8 2006 http://www.unaustralia.com/proceedings.php In this discussion, I will ignore the first node of criticism and focus on addressing the ideological and informatic critique of historical videogames. Ideological critique A key problem of the Civilization series which is relevant to the discussion of Europa Universalis II and Victoria: Empire Under the Sun is the abstract way that Civilization represents the acts of violence that are associated with