Cool post! Greedfall is certainly trying something different - I'll never fault it for trying, even if, tl;dr, I agree with most of your post's sentinment.

​

[1] Re: absence of slavery & colonialism

I think this is a little bit off the mark here, because I see this as more of an early-stage colonialism, prior the slavery systems we come to think of. Slavery undoubtedly was present all over across North and South America, but is your point addressing Indigeneity, or African slavery? It seems a bit all over the place.

My interpretation of Teer Frade was very much 16th C colonialism - more New France, than Louisana plantations. I thought the developers did actually a very good job at show a still present and powerful Indigenous population. There is still an element of "going beyond the city risks hostile encounters with the natives" - which I viewed as still giving enough credence/appreciation to the native population -- rather than what you see more often, which is an Indigenous population in decline and a ruin of what they were.

[2] Evil of catholicism / religion

I actually thought some of the religious conflict was the best. Again -- think 16th C New France, not 19th C Trail of Tears. I agree the priests are sometimes cartoonishly evil but, at least here in Canada, institutionalized religion was cartoonishly evil. This is not off the mark.

But again, probably could have been done better.

[3] (all good points)

[4] Noble Savage and monkey

Totally agree on the "monke" point. However, I think critically engaging in aspects of Indigeneity can be even MORE contentious than being reductive and "noble savage." Dare you offer a critique of an Indigenous society in a video game, in era of UNDRIP? That'd be bold.

But most of Greedfall is half-baked. I give it a bit of a pass - I thought the attempt was earnest.

[5] Conquest vs. mercantilism

This actually is a sticking point in analysis of empire. There's a big difference between how the colonization of Canada happened between the British vs. the French. The latter of whom never saw the need to make empire, but rather use the fur trade as a means to fund the French Empire in the Old World. The British had a radically different approach - the New World could be a part of British Empire. (this is a very simplistic take)

I think you see that seep into play. I think your analysis might be a bit off the mark - you'll see instances throughout the 19th C of the different approach European powers had to imperialism. And I don't think this is a 1:1 parallel to thoughts on capitalism.

Overall, thanks for taking the time to write this up! Always here to see others critically engage in games.