Civilization, colonialism, and the misunderstanding of history

The his­to­ry of the world is a com­plex sys­tem. It is dif­fi­cult to explain to a lay­man the nuances of world pol­i­tics today, but it has to be almost impos­si­ble to explain the polit­i­cal sys­tem of ancient or medieval coun­tries to some­one with­out any knowl­edge about the coun­tries them­selves and pol­i­tics in gen­er­al. A lot of his­tor­i­cal games face that prob­lem, but none more than those that claim to rep­re­sent some kind of pos­si­ble or at least alter­na­tive his­to­ry. They have no other choice than to break those del­i­cate, com­plex sys­tems down to their basics. They have to gen­er­al­ize – to dumb down, if one wants – in order to fit such a sys­tem into the tight gir­dle of a work­ing game­play mechan­ic, or just to be more fun. While occa­sion­al­ly, like Europa Universalis, games stay rel­a­tive­ly true to their ori­gin in human his­to­ry, they risk los­ing a greater tar­get audi­ence in favor of a small­er, high­ly ded­i­cat­ed crowd. The broad audi­ence is served by other games, those that sac­ri­fice accu­ra­cy for acces­si­bil­i­ty. The ones that have a big name in front and a big name behind them, like Sid Meier’s Civilization VI. That is per­fect­ly fine for build­ing up inter­est or just for the fun of it. What’s not so fine how­ev­er is that gen­er­al­iza­tion always leaves peo­ple behind; those that aren’t pre­sentable, those that seem neg­li­gi­ble or sim­ply those that can­not speak for them­selves. With Civilization VI, rep­re­sen­ta­tion is an issue. An issue that has to be bro­ken down to be fixed in the future.

What do you know about colo­nial­ism? If you are white and live in the United States of America, you prob­a­bly know that you would not be there if not for colo­nial­ist English peo­ple tak­ing the land from indige­nous peo­ple. South America and Africa were taken as well, by dif­fer­ent European States to dif­fer­ent extents. That’s the colo­nial­ism we learn about in school. You prob­a­bly know less about the Japanese colo­nial expan­sions into Korea, Taiwan and unto var­i­ous Asian island states in the early 20th cen­tu­ry. You know that the Aztecs were extinct in the course of Spanish colo­nial­ism in South America, but did you know that the Aztecs them­selves among other native tribes expand­ed their ter­ri­to­ry through col­o­niza­tion? Maybe, maybe not. Civilization is, in that regard, like that text­book from school: It shows the European con­quest for colonies as we know it as a set­ting for pirate games and action archae­ol­o­gist flicks. Nuances and dif­fer­ent ori­en­ta­tions of sim­i­lar sys­tems are left out, for the sake of a huge Euro-American tar­get audi­ence.

And yet, colo­nial­ism has always been a big thing in the Civilization series. The 1994 spin-off Colonization dealt with the strug­gle of dif­fer­ent fac­tions set­tling in the newly dis­cov­ered Americas while the Civ IV add-on of the same name port­ed the refined mechan­ics of its base game into much the same sce­nario. Both at least fea­tured the exploita­tion of native work­ers in some ways. Civilization V pro­vides a ded­i­cat­ed sce­nario about the con­quer­ing of the “New World”, com­plete with cus­tomized nations that have to work towards dif­fer­ent vic­to­ry con­di­tions. While the native peo­ples have to defend their land and accu­mu­late as much faith points as pos­si­ble, the European intrud­ers win by ship­ping enough trea­sure back to their monarch, whether by trade or by sword.

Interestingly, Civilization VI does not fea­ture such a sce­nario (for now; expan­sions and addi­tion­al maps are a sta­ple in the DLC pol­i­cy of Firaxis). Still, the under­ly­ing struc­ture as well as the choice of playable nations fea­ture many strong ref­er­ences to Western colo­nial­ism – much to the dis­ad­van­tage of that movement’s vic­tims. Let me show you why.

I do strug­gle with the denom­i­na­tion of “coun­try” and “nation” here; that is because Civilization uses them inter­change­ably, togeth­er with “state”, to des­ig­nate every playable party in the game. Whether ancient Greece, medieval Germany or 16th cen­tu­ry Aztec empire, they all func­tion the same way, with cen­tral­ized gov­ern­ments much like modern-day France and armies of iden­ti­cal types. The assump­tion that every state sys­tem works kind of in the same way makes sense today, but is wrong from a his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive. It’s a very mod­ern view, one that is coined by actu­al­ly hav­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of some­thing like cen­tral gov­ern­ment or sta­t­ic bor­ders. Before effec­tive com­mu­ni­ca­tion was invent­ed, most­ly before the indus­tri­al­iza­tion took place, it was hard to rule from one place because the folks on the other end of the ter­ri­to­ry might not even have known who the cur­rent lord was. Some German rulers, before there was such a thing as a unit­ed Germany, trav­eled through their ter­ri­to­ry all year to exert state author­i­ty every­where. Some peo­ples that are depict­ed as uni­form nations in the game, like Norway, actu­al­ly con­sist­ed of indi­vid­u­al­ly gov­erned tribes, some­times loose­ly bound togeth­er by a com­mon over­lord. Indigenous tribes with theo­crat­ic gov­ern­ing struc­tures like the Aztecs will have had a dif­fer­ent bal­ance of power between sec­u­lar and reli­gious gov­ern­ing struc­tures than Rome would have had. Yet it does not mat­ter in the game, because they all have a cap­i­tal and they all gath­er cul­ture from (most­ly Western) pieces of art. So if I use terms like nation, coun­try or state, I use them as the game does, to denote playable par­ties.

First of all, there are cur­rent­ly 23 of those nations in the game, includ­ing all paid DLC packs so far. Of those 23, eleven are Western indus­tri­al nations, while only four are coun­tries that were direct­ly hit by colo­nial­ism: the Aztecs, India, Brasil and the Kongo. A lot of those Western nations fea­ture traits essen­tial to their colo­nial con­quest as advan­ta­geous for the play­er. British colony cities receive a com­pli­men­ta­ry Redcoat unit to repel bar­bar­ians and wage war. Spanish mis­sions receive a bonus in faith pro­duc­tion when not built on Spain’s home con­ti­nent, and Spain’s need for a trea­sure fleet makes them an early naval force com­pared to other coun­tries. There is only one bonus for oppos­ing colo­nial­ism in the entire game. Fighting India makes attack­ers suf­fer from increased war weari­ness, mean­ing fewer ameni­ties and growth in cities. This bonus stems from Mahatma Gandhi’s leader abil­i­ty “Satyagraha”, mak­ing it a direct defense mech­a­nism against colo­nial­ist forces (in real­i­ty, the British Empire).

This imbal­ance is a prob­lem, because it gives even more power to the colo­nial­ist states in the game. Civilization VI is a game that incor­po­rates a lot of his­tor­i­cal facts and per­sons into its con­cept; yet it is not a game about his­to­ry. It is a game about cre­at­ing our own story with tools that are famil­iar to us from his­to­ry and which, in the best pos­si­ble sce­nario, let us recre­ate some tiny part of his­to­ry all by our­selves. In this, it is much more an ahis­tor­i­cal game than it would ever dare to admit. It gives count­less pos­si­bil­i­ties to rewrite his­to­ry, yet impedes those pos­si­bil­i­ties by lim­i­ta­tions that seem to be his­tor­i­cal. There are some things you are just not sup­posed to do with cer­tain nations; say, win a dom­i­na­tion vic­to­ry with Gandhi or go to space with Montezuma. You can still do it, of course. It is just way more con­ve­nient to use their nation­al traits and abil­i­ties for some­thing else.

For most nations with mil­i­tary poten­tial, it is con­ve­nient to make use of colo­nial­ism. That goes down to the sim­ple deci­sion after con­quer­ing a city: should you raze it to neu­tral­ize the pos­si­ble dan­ger of a recon­quest or assim­i­late it into your empire, adjust­ing it to your playstyle with build­ings only pro­vid­ed by your nation? Most of the time, the lat­ter will be the sen­si­ble choice. Why burn a city if its inhab­i­tants can work for you? There is no indi­ca­tor in game to some­thing like slav­ery, much as there is no unrest or rebel­lion if you choose to make the con­quered city work for you. People in Civilization VI are not even a resource like they are in some ear­li­er games of the series, where they could be sac­ri­ficed for pro­duc­tion (through slav­ery, even in name) or revolt against an unloved monarch. With no need to look out for your cit­i­zens, there is no need to think about them, no need to acknowl­edge them. Cities in Civilization VI are grown by num­bers, not by humans.

And with­out humans present, no one can be hurt. There are sev­er­al poli­cies in the game that are direct­ly derived from Western colo­nial­ism. ‘Colonization’ makes set­tlers eas­i­er to pro­cure, while ‘Raj’ gives bonus resources for every city state under the player’s rule. There are more, and all of them are bonus­es for the leader that choos­es them. That isn’t the prob­lem. The prob­lem is that there are no draw­backs. There is no option for land to go bar­ren if overused. There is no rebel­lion mech­a­nism in city states if they are drained for resources. Declaring a war for con­quest of land is actu­al­ly some­thing that makes other lead­ers hate the play­er less in com­par­i­son to declar­ing a war with­out giv­ing a rea­son (What other rea­son would there be for an unpro­voked war?).

What Civilization VI does not under­stand – or refus­es to acknowl­edge – is that his­to­ry is dialec­tic. All the great inven­tions, the Heurekas and Inspirations the game tells us to be the dri­ving fac­tor behind the thriv­ing of nations are inher­ent­ly and only good in the game, when they were not in real­i­ty. The Enlightenment gave rise to move­ments for equal­i­ty, for sci­en­tif­ic wis­dom, yet sci­en­tif­ic pseudo-facts were man­u­fac­tured for enlight­ened peo­ple to jus­ti­fy hold­ing slaves and seg­re­gat­ing peo­ple of color. The indus­tri­al­iza­tion made liv­ing in Europe and America as com­fort­able as never before – in the long run. Before that, it drove mil­lions of work­ers into unem­ploy­ment and star­va­tion. Obviously, Civilization VI only tells one half of the story.

First of all because it is able to do so with­out break­ing its own nar­ra­tive, its approach to fun. Since there are no peo­ple to be hurt, there is no harm in not men­tion­ing the dark­er side of progress. And since draw­backs aren’t fun, from a game­play per­spec­tive there is no sense in includ­ing them. The first Colonization took a very sim­i­lar route in not includ­ing slav­ery as a mechan­ic. Interestingly though, the last two games before VI, Civilization V and Beyond Earth, fea­tured some small instances to improve on this dual­i­ty. Building oil rigs for exam­ple, decreased local health and hap­pi­ness in both games. In Civilization VI, they only pro­vide bonus resources, no strings attached. Is it more fun to be able to plas­ter the map with tile improve­ments than to watch out for tac­ti­cal fac­tors? I don’t believe so, but it seems Firaxis says oth­er­wise.

Secondly, the thought that progress at any cost might not be the epit­o­me of human achieve­ment is very far off from the world­view the Civilization series pro­vides. In Civ, great nations lead by great men (and some women) rise to rule. More specif­i­cal­ly, they rise to reach our era, the infor­ma­tion era. Of the five ways to win the game, two are exclu­sive­ly won in our time and age. Barbaric dom­i­na­tion vic­to­ries are pos­si­ble with medieval weapons, but con­quer­ing space requires tech­nol­o­gy. ‘Prospering’ (as the game calls the process of win­ning through score on the last day of the match) means being the great­est nation by the time every­thing up until today is played and done. We are the epit­o­me of great­ness in Civ VI, and after us there is prob­a­bly more great­ness, but still done by peo­ple like us. Basically, the ulti­mate goal of Trajan and Mvemba a Nzinga is to become games jour­nal­ists bent over a tiny screen.

Such a view is cer­tain­ly not uncom­mon. Every era’s inhab­i­tants tend­ed to think they were at the sum­mit of human suc­cess and that it could only go down from then on. The impor­tant thing is: Sometimes it did. How much wis­dom was lost when a great empire broke down, its lan­guage almost lost, its libraries plun­dered? The mid­dle ages lacked tech­nol­o­gy that was present more than a mil­len­ni­um ear­li­er. Aquaducts and roads built by the Romans were used for cen­turies, but no one cared how they could be main­tained. In Civilization, progress can never be lost, much like it can never be neg­a­tive. From ancient times onward the player’s nation rises until it achieves its peak.

Take won­ders, for exam­ple. A world won­der, once built, can never be destroyed by any­one, except if it is hit by a direct nuclear strike or the city that built it gets erad­i­cat­ed. Both cases are incred­i­bly rare, almost non-existent, in an aver­age match of Civ; col­o­niz­ing, as said before, just makes much more sense. The Oracle of Delphi and the great Lighthouse at Alexandria, if built early on, will sur­vive for 4000 years. No army can be brought to grind them down. Lead pro­duc­er Dennis Shirk gave a rea­son for this when asked in an inter­view with PC Games N, fore­see­ing pos­si­ble moral qualms play­ers could have:

Wonders are the one thing that we never want­ed to dam­age or destroy. I know hor­ri­ble things can hap­pen to a won­der in the real world, but it’s one thing we want­ed to shield peo­ple from: hav­ing smok­ing ruins of the Pyramids. We imag­ine that every­one in the world has such respect for a won­der that they wouldn’t destroy one.

This is an inter­est­ing mechan­ic to exclude from the player’s grasp, espe­cial­ly in light of the many other moral­ly ques­tion­able deci­sions one can make. Holy wars, much like colo­nial wars, are not only pos­si­ble, but give bonus­es to the play­er who leads them. Forcing peo­ple into one’s own belief sys­tem is a vic­to­ry con­di­tion, much like killing every human on the map is. Yet destroy­ing art­works is taboo, even when Civilization claims to be a his­tor­i­cal game in a world where some won­drous con­struc­tions frankly were – or are still being – destroyed, or crum­bled all by them­selves. It is a restric­tion that does not tie into what the game actu­al­ly wants: to give the play­er free­dom to reshape his­to­ry. It does how­ev­er tie into the over­all pre­oc­cu­pa­tion of the game towards what play­ers might want. Sid Meier once said that what’s not fun has no place in his games, but what is fun and what is not for dif­fer­ent kinds of peo­ple is some­thing that should not be gen­er­al­ized. I, for one, find it fun to learn about his­to­ry while I play. Many peo­ple do, I imag­ine, and it is not a far off thought when play­ing a game that is about his­to­ry, albeit loose­ly. But how can they when his­to­ry is so mis­rep­re­sent­ed? More impor­tant­ly, if some­one does not know that Civ tai­lors his­to­ry to its lik­ing, would they notice? Most like­ly not. Civilization VI, like for­mer titles of the series, goes great lengths to be taken seri­ous­ly, to pro­vide in-game infor­ma­tion about the world we live in. The entire in-game ency­clo­pe­dia, titled Civilopedia, is full of biogra­phies or his­to­ry book excerpts. Much like I learned about William Wallace when I was play­ing Age of Empires II as a child, some­one might hear about Persia or Harald Hardrada or the col­o­niza­tion of the “New World” the first time by play­ing Civilization. The devel­op­ers had to be aware of that, or there would be no rea­son to include such bio­graph­i­cal infor­ma­tion. And yet this infor­ma­tion is not unbi­ased; the seem­ing­ly neu­tral Civilopedia is filled with influ­enc­ing phras­ing and left-out facts. Again colo­nial­ism is a prime exam­ple with its perk-filled mechan­ics; but it pays to have a look at anoth­er mis­rep­re­sent­ed group in the game that so much wants to be for every­one. It pays to take a look at how women are rep­re­sent­ed in-game.

Do you know who invent­ed the com­put­er? Alan Turing and his col­leagues maybe, with his enigma-deciphering machine in the early 1940s? Maybe you even heard of Charles Babbage, whose “Difference Engine” made in the 1830s actu­al­ly was the first mechan­i­cal com­put­ing machine. But do you know peo­ple that were part of both inven­tions along­side them? Most peo­ple that know Alan Turing prob­a­bly have never heard of cryp­tog­ra­ph­er Joan Clarke or any­one else on the cryp­tog­ra­phy team Turing was part of. More peo­ple know of Ada Lovelace, some­times con­sid­ered the first pro­gram­mer ever, but few know that her code was inte­gral to Babbage’s inven­tions. Neither Clarke nor Lovelace would ever have a chance in the race for the title of ‘par­ent of the com­put­er’ for most peo­ple, and nei­ther do they in Civilization VI.

There is a sys­tem in Civ VI that lets play­ers and oppo­nents recruit so-called Great Persons to fur­ther enhance their empires. There are Great Scientists, Merchants, Engineers, Prophets, Admirals and Generals along­side an espe­cial­ly large ros­ter of Artists in the form of painters, musi­cians and writ­ers. The sys­tem goes back to the 1994 title Sid Meier’s Colonization – a spin-off to the orig­i­nal Civilization. In there, found­ing fathers could be recruit­ed by all four includ­ed European nations that brought spe­cial traits if they were given a seat in con­gress. Not being a real­ly fleshed-out sys­tem, those peo­ple could all be hired sev­er­al times by dif­fer­ent fac­tions, so in extreme cases there were four George Washingtons in play. Almost all of those found­ing fathers were – hence the title – male, with some strange inclu­sions like Pocahontas sprin­kling the selec­tion. The stand­alone add-on to Civilization IV in 2008 dealt with the same colo­nial­ist sce­nario and was titled with the same name as the game just men­tioned. In it, the found­ing father sys­tem was refined, mak­ing each FF unique.

The term ‘Great People’ was coined by the fifth part of the main Civilization line. Civ V intro­duced great per­son­al­i­ties of his­to­ry as bonus units to be earned through pro­fi­cien­cy in their respec­tive fields. Oddly enough, the game went back on the unique­ness of the per­sons. Every Great Scientist did exact­ly the same thing, as did every Great Merchant, and so forth.

Civilization VI now gives Great People back their unique abil­i­ties. Everyone has perks that are loose­ly based on their real-life field of work, with Carl Sagan help­ing the space tech­nol­o­gy for­ward and Levi Strauss bring­ing spe­cial trousers to the pop­u­la­tion, increas­ing ameni­ties. But this focus on rep­re­sen­ta­tion and unique achieve­ments is under­mined when tak­ing a look at the pre­sen­ta­tion of female Great People. Think back to the com­put­er case. In regard to com­put­ing tech­nol­o­gy, two researchers made it into Civilization VI: Alan Turing and Ada Lovelace, both giv­ing the same boost to the tech tree. Appropriate selec­tion, cor­rect? Yet, Turing is clas­si­fied as a sci­en­tist, while Lovelace is depict­ed as an engi­neer, hint­ing at a less aca­d­e­m­ic, more mechan­ic field of work. Further, the rep­re­sen­ta­tion in their respec­tive Civilopedia entry could not dif­fer more. Alan Turing, praised for his advances in com­put­ing tech­nol­o­gy, receives a point­ed and laud­able intro­duc­tion in a sin­gle, short sen­tence.

Alan Mathison Turing is today con­sid­ered the “father” of both the­o­ret­i­cal com­put­er sci­ence and of arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence.

Ada Lovelace how­ev­er lacks praise all togeth­er. Her full bio­graph­i­cal entry most­ly men­tions her rela­tion to the dif­fer­ent men in her live – father, hus­band, friend – with­out even includ­ing her actu­al fields of work, save for a dimin­ish­ing state­ment about her achieve­ment in com­put­er sci­ences, call­ing it her only other “achieve­ment to civ­i­liza­tion” apart from hav­ing chil­dren.

The only legit­i­mate child of the poet Lord Byron (who aban­doned his wife a month after the birth), Ada Lovelace began a life­long friend­ship with Charles Babbage, a pro­fes­sor of math­e­mat­ics at Cambridge, in 1833 AD, when she was but 17 years old. Their rela­tion­ship seems to have been a pla­ton­ic one, for they soon com­menced a volu­mi­nous cor­re­spon­dence on math­e­mat­ics, logic, and all man­ner of schol­ar­ly top­ics. In 1835 Ada mar­ried William King, ten years her senior and soon Earl of Lovelace. She would bear three chil­dren.

Her only other sig­nif­i­cant con­tri­bu­tion to civ­i­liza­tion result­ed from her efforts as a trans­la­tor for Babbage.

Why does Lovelace’s entry hit such a neg­a­tive tune? If the devel­op­ers looked down on her achieve­ments, but still includ­ed her into the game, does that leave any other inter­pre­ta­tion than to appease to a wider audi­ence by just putting in ‘some’ women?

The selec­tion of recruitable women is small in the first place, of course, com­pared to the men. Of the 18 Great Engineers in Civ VI, 16 are male. And it is not that there aren’t any more women in human his­to­ry that could have been includ­ed. We know today that a lot of genius female minds were sup­pressed or ignored, for­got­ten by his­to­ry because the men of their time want­ed them to be for­got­ten. Have you heard of Marie Tharp for exam­ple, who was cru­cial to Alfred Wegener’s suc­cess in prov­ing his the­o­ry about plate tec­ton­ics? (https://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​v​E​2​F​K​0​B​7​gPo)? Cases like Tharp are com­mon, female minds for­got­ten behind male col­leagues who may or may not have deserved to take the lion’s share of fame. And even actu­al­ly famous women of his­to­ry can have a hard time in Civilization VI. Blatantly miss­ing from the selec­tion of Great Scientists for exam­ple is Marie Curie, who basi­cal­ly dis­cov­ered radi­a­tion with her col­leagues.

Maybe there was not enough room in the game after care­ful­ly choos­ing the most impor­tant sci­en­tist there are, who hap­pen to be most­ly male, one might say. But why then is Marie Curie, hold­er of mul­ti­ple Nobel Prizes, miss­ing from the ros­ter of Great Scientists, while some­one like Hildegard of Bingen made it into the game? Hildegard’s advances in blend­ing mys­ti­cism with sci­ence did lit­tle to fur­ther the under­stand­ing of sci­en­tif­ic fields from today’s per­spec­tive, betray­ing the under­ly­ing mes­sage of every other advance­ment found in Civilization VI. Without doubt Hildegard was seen as an impor­tant researcher in her time, when sci­ence and reli­gious mys­ti­cism did not exclude each other and were some­times even the same thing. And from the view­point of his­to­ri­ans, look­ing at events and advance­ments not from our per­spec­tive but in their respec­tive time peri­od is how it should be done. It is how those events have to be eval­u­at­ed, not by today’s moral stan­dards and knowl­edge foun­da­tions, but by those of their own time. Yet this is not what Civilization VI does, what it preach­es. As I said, what­ev­er hap­pens in the course of Civilization VI’s time­line inevitably leads up to today’s glory, every­thing I do as a play­er makes sense when I look back from my ignit­ed moon rock­et. By the game’s own def­i­n­i­tion, Hildegard of Bingen should be part of a his­tor­i­cal cul-de-sac, a reli­gious fig­ure lead­ing to cul­tic devel­op­ments, not to the space age. But that’s what she does. And with glar­ing white spots in places where impor­tant his­tor­i­cal, espe­cial­ly female, fig­ures should be, the inclu­sion of pseudo-sciences into the sci­en­tif­ic sys­tem of the game does more harm than it adds to the mechan­i­cal finesse its sub­sys­tems.

It is almost not sur­pris­ing any­more that this under­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the impor­tance of women in his­to­ry also found its way into the tech­ni­cal aspect of the game. While the char­ac­ter model of Great People dif­fers to a cer­tain extent and even includes female char­ac­ters and peo­ple of colour, the por­trait in the games user inter­face is always the same, and more impor­tant­ly: always male. While vari­a­tions in the model are a very nice touch and are to be praised, most play­ers might not even notice them. Since Civilization VI is some­thing of a “Grand Strategy” game, the stan­dard way to play is nor­mal­ly to put the cam­era as high as pos­si­ble to get the best overview. It’s almost impos­si­ble to make out sin­gle unit’s mod­els from that per­spec­tive. The user inter­face how­ev­er stays ever vis­i­ble, and with it the sta­t­ic model of a beard­ed man hold­ing a beaker. In pol­i­tics and eco­nom­ics, one might call it Tokenism – includ­ing a few diverse peo­ple for the sake of not being accused of racism, sex­ism or sim­ply not car­ing.

And even if that was never the intent of Firaxis, it’s impor­tant to call it out. Civilization VI still has all the chances in the future, with at least one big game-changing add-on on the hori­zon. By call­ing out their fail­ings to the devel­op­ers, play­ers and press might have a chance to make games more diverse, more open to every­one. I urge Firaxis to not make colo­nial­ism great again. Their approach to strong female lead­ers like Cleopatra of Egypt and Tomyris of Scythia is com­mend­able, and by devel­op­ing it into more sub­sys­tems of the game Civilization VI can become so much more than a time-devouring, ahis­tor­i­cal behe­moth.

Pascal Wagner

About Pascal Wagner

Pascal Wagner studies Cognitive & Cultural Linguistics and German Law in Munich and loves to write about cultural phenomena in video games and indie games especially. You can find him on Twitter as @indieflock or contact him via email (pascal[at]indieflock[dot]net).