The Australian outback: unexplored, uninhabited, dangerous. You’re an explorer setting out for the first time across the new frontier, a rousing arrangement of Waltzing Maltida playing in the background. Soon enough, you encounter the Aboriginal people. They give you water and are never seen again. Why not? And where is this music coming from? You’re in a video game — the Outback Tycoon scenario for Sid Meier’s Civilization VI, part of the grand strategy genre. Games in this genre (GSGs) commonly use historical elements, from using historical polities for in-game empires (like the Civilisation franchise) to starting in a historical setting (like various franchises from Paradox Interactive such as Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis).
I played a game of the scenario to source an example event. This is one of two I got mentioning Aboriginal Australians, though which group exactly is unclear.
The Outback Tycoon scenario is a game mode where the player controls an Australian colony. The player explores and settles Australia, with events that affect units left in the Outback. Some events do mention Aboriginal Australians already living on the continent, but they select randomly and may never appear — in a game I played they appeared once. They are nowhere else in the game, except in pieces of text that the player must choose to read. Ironically, the player can enact a policy called Terra Nullius in the scenario, which is the colonialist assertion that Australia was nobody’s land — indisputable in this scenario. So why is there hardly any mention of the Aboriginal Australians? There’s a conflict between the nature of gameplay and the history represented. It would not be ‘fun’ for the player to participate in nearly wiping out Aboriginal populations, so they are ignored. Instead the game presents a whitewashed version of colonialism.
The locations that Europa Universalis IV categorises as populated by the vaguely termed “Natives.”
Other historical GSGs also have problems with representing conflict. The Crusader Kings franchise takes place around the time of its titular conflict. While the Crusades were indeed a historical event, the notion of such religious warfare takes on a white supremacist meaning in the modern day. Europa Universalis IV, set between 1444 and 1821, tackles colonialism. Some historical New World ‘nations’ are represented, but many are thrown under the banner of ‘native.’ Natives are either left to assimilate into the colony’s population for a ‘native assimilation bonus,’ or rise up in a ‘native uprising’ which is affected by the ‘aggressiveness’ and ‘ferocity’ of the natives. To prevent this, the player can use an army to ‘attack natives,’ which removes some of the native population of a province. There is no acknowledgement of colonial atrocities, just a number on a screen decreasing, distancing the player from what is happening.
How conflict is represented in mass media is important because it influences how people think about the subject. The historical grand strategy genre faces the problem of representing conflict in a palatable way, which is often achieved by ignoring or glossing over problematic elements. A studio could of course not make games with these conflicts, but people want to play historical grand strategy games, so players should ask questions about how conflicts can be better portrayed.
As someone who has never played this type of game I found this post fascinating and had no idea that the historical scenarios they’re intending to imitate are being portrayed in this way. I agree with your statement at the end about these representations influencing how people see these historical events. I would argue that the makers of video games have a stronger obligation to try and present history in an accurate way (especially if they are purporting to through the use of real historical events) because of the visceral and immersive nature of the games potentially making their narratives feel more like reality than your average textbook. Especially with a lack of easily available evidence from both sides, it is important that these easily accessible replications of history do not come to be considered more real than the actual events to those who play them.