Why are video games always so anti-empire?

the rebellion is the bad guy

name 7 games. Please.

Are those better?

Yes

Why don't Empires just become Non-Empires?

Why don't Empires just become Non-Empires?

They do.

No they aren't.

Non-Empires in the time of Rome

Scythians who went around pillaging everything within thousands of miles of their homelands. Their worship sites can be easily identified by the vast quantities of corpses buried there from captured slaves. Celts who were prolific head hunters and took pride in their collections of human skulls. Germans who were like the Celts on crack, the reason the Romans first got involved in Gaul in the first place was the Celts saying "bro help these guys are literally demons from hell save us." Then of course there were the Semites who all practiced child sacrifice.

There were only two moral groups in the entire world, the civilized Romans, and the civilized Iranians. Both empires.

Tribes can be shitty, but all empires are cunts.

live in a tribe

get hunted for sport by some other tribe and/or sacrificed to the gods

live in an empire

don't get hunted for sport, human sacrifice banned, stable and relatively society

"wah empire bad" is retarded nonsense. The barbarians all without exception deserved everything that ever happened to them.

Empire = tyranny. Empires need powerful armies and powerful armies allow the state to quash internal rebellion and rule without fear. Empires also rule over large diverse populations which are unable to band together to rebel and demand rights.
Republic = rule by free men. Typically small, wealthy, urban. They are actually unusually strong per capita, for example the city of Venice could dominate the Mediterranean with its navy while large land empires like the Byzantines and Ottomans struggled to do so. Republics attract talent and create unprecedented amounts of wealth, see the dutch Republic and the early USA.
There are some exceptions in history. The reason the British empire worked out so well is because it was a purely naval empire. The lack of an army prevented the British crown from subjugating its people harshly the way continental European countries could. This led to a political order in Britain that favored individual rights freedoms and limited government, while France Germany and Russia all experienced absolute monarchy at some point (Russia still effectively does to this day since it was never disarmed).

Don’t want to be a slave

Get a torturous death than lasts days.

I would take getting hunted or sacrificed than being crucified any day

just don't be a criminal lmao, it's that easy.

b-but I'm a nigger I have to commit crime

get crucified faggot

Because it's 10x easier to create a game with the already established infrastructure of an empire and make the player feel like a hero by overthrowing the evil king or whatever

It's significantly more difficult to justify and rationalize and hero-icize fighting for the already established winner

just don't be a criminal lmao, it's that easy.

Or not wanting to be a slave

Every time an empire protects or spreads civilization that civilization is coming from free republics preceding the empire. Empires are horrible at innovating. The roman empire served to protect and spread Greek and early roman culture and accomplishments, but innovations in science and tech grounded to a halt; scientific progress would actually start again in medieval Europe which made a lot more progress than the Roman empire. For example medieval Europe invented eyeglasses, hourglasses and mechanical clocks while the Roman empire in the area of science is only famous for killing Archimedes and Hypatia.
The same could be said for China. Most of the famous philosophies and ideas from China e.g. Confucius, Daoism, I Ching, Sun Tzu come from pre-Qin China. A period of rapid technological progress occurred later in China during the Song era, which was by far the weakest dynasty that actively cut down its own military power, this is not a coincidence.
Tldr republics create civilization, empires are the jars trapping and preserving their fruits until they break.

Yeah, you become a slave by being a criminal retard. Again, just don't do crimes

b-but I want to

Then get crucified retard.

Absolute brainlet just thinks the Romans were crucifying people for no reason.

Every time an empire protects or spreads civilization that civilization is coming from free republics preceding the empire.

That's not even close to true.

>live in an empire

>don't get hunted for sport, human sacrifice banned, stable and relatively society

Did Akkadian empire not practice human sacrifice? Genuinely don't remember.

Yeah, you become a slave by being a criminal retard.

Or you were part of a captured population from a military conquest.

Or you were part of a captured population from a military conquest.

Shouldn't have been born as a barbarian, better luck next time.

Or someone with power decided he doesn't like you one day and manipulated the system. Or any other number of things. Slavery existing at all is just retarded.

Slavery existing at all is just retarded.

Slavery has existed for literally all of human history and has been practiced globally.

It is. Army based land empires can't invent anything of their own. See the Islamic caliphates, Mongols, Turkmongoloids and Russmongoloids. The so called Islamic golden age was done by Greeks and Persians doing their thing. It ultimately didn't last because the Islamic world fell apart, because empires don't last. Mongols couldn't build their own weapons, they hired Persian engineers to build trebuchets to break down Chinese city walls and hired Chinese engineers to build trebuchets to break down Arab city walls. Russians always lived off European inventions. In WW1 they couldn't produce airplanes because all their engines were made by Germany. In WW2 they completely relied on lend lease. If the Russian empire or USSR took over all of Europe they would preserve the European culture but they could cause its spiritual death, there would be no more advancements, just like in post Augustus Rome.
The reason why western European civilization flourished was because no land empires was able to conquer all and there always remained pockets of freedom sane people could flee to. Whether that was Venice, the Netherlands, Britain or America.

Or someone with power decided he doesn't like you one day and manipulated the system

Has there ever been a society where this wasn't a problem?

An interesting pattern with empires is that they always cause internal stagnation which leads to barbarians catching up with them and eventually defeating them. This is because barbarians are more free and therefore their society is more dynamic and more capable of evolution. This happened to countless empires but the most notable is how northern Europeans went from being inferior barbarians to mogging southern Europe completely over the course of 2000 years.

The so called Islamic golden age was done by Greeks and Persians doing their thing.

Neither of which were republics. Alexander spread Greek culture across the world; Macedonian Greek culture, which was not a free republic. Cyrus spread Iranian culture across the middle east; Pars was not a free republic. On and on.

Your ideas are simply not realistic.

In WW1 they couldn't produce airplanes because all their engines were made by Germany.

Germany wasn't a republic either. This is just retarded.

"muh free and just republics" regularly got shat on and eliminated by ruthless totalitarian shitholes.

You dudes arguing against slavery forget that it was a major accomplishment in human rights. Before slavery, outcasts, criminals and captured people were outright killed. Being a slave meant that you had value, so much so that buying or selling yourself was prohibitively expensive for 99% of the people. There's no timeline wherein salvery didn't exist ever, and we magically arrived at the moral arrangements that we have today.

This happened to countless empires but the most notable is how northern Europeans went from being inferior barbarians to mogging southern Europe completely over the course of 2000 years.

But that's complete nonsense since the Empire fell and the northern Europeans set up their own empires and kingdoms. There was no free and republican society except in southern europe.

before slavery

There is no such thing as before slavery. It has existed as long as people have, in every place people have existed.

Not all that is old is automatically good. Tried and true can also be terrible until a species accumulates enough wealth (free time is wealth too, and especially so enough time for philosophers) to see that some fundamentals can be greatly improved.

This is why you allow the least terrible means for potential abusers.

Alexander

A perfect example of an empire that spread the civilization created by free Greek city states like Athens. Alexander's empire itself created very little of its own, and Greek influence on us today is not because of Alexander, but because of Romans and medieval Europeans being interested in ancient Athens.

Germany wasn't a republic either

Compared to Russia it was a lot more free and equal. Also, the German empire was a land empire built over the achievements of German free cities and republics that had almost 1000 years of history of freedom and independence until then.

eliminated by ruthless totalitarian shitholes

How are imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union doing today?

there were the Semites who all practiced child sacrifice.

Literally didn't happen

Not all that is old is automatically good.

Society now is better off without slavery; society then would not be. There's a reason everyone everywhere had slaves, and now we do not. Industrialization is the answer, not philosophy.

>things can be improved somewhat

but I ate breakfast

Tiresome.

society then would not be

You don't know. And I don't know. I think it could have been but it wouldn't have been as economically and militarily successful, thus it would've been conquered and made more savage by their more savage neighbours. Also it's not just industrialization. It's more of a mistaking consequence for cause. The same chain of thought that eventually birthed industrial revolution has birthed arts and cultural improvements in the minds of the populace that lead to them spurning ideas like slavery.

that had almost 1000 years of history of freedom and independence until then.

You mean "existed under literally the Holy Roman Empire" as in they weren't free and independent in reality.

A perfect example of an empire that spread the civilization created by free Greek city states like Athens.

But they didn't. They spread Macedonian culture, a culture the Athenians considered subhuman. But no one cared what the Athenians thought, since the Spartans destroyed literally all the relevance they once had.

Greek influence on us today is not because of Alexander

Exactly, because our Greek influence comes from writings completely disconnected from Alexander's spread of Greek culture.
Industrialization is the cause. You can cope and rationalize and lie, but industrialization happens and slavery ends. That's it. Full stop. The need for manpower decreases and thus the demand for slaves ends.

northern Europeans set up their own empires and kingdoms

The holy Roman empire granted an unprecedented degree of autonomy and freedom to its subdivisions. Its emperor was elected and had very limited power. Charles V simply wasn't a tyrant the way Augustus, Diocletian, Napoleon and Hitler were.

The holy Roman empire granted an unprecedented degree of autonomy and freedom to its subdivisions.

"oh wow the duke in charge of this region has more rights than he would in another country, we are so free right now!"

1/3 of the entire country dies because following the wrong religion is a matter of life and death

They could be improved by: reintroducing slavery

Slavery no longer exists because there is a conscious effort to stop it.

The banning of slavery is more of a "system" than slavery is a "system".
Because slavery is just the strong telling the weak "do what i tell you or i beat you up", and you need a system to prevent that.

If nobody stopped it, slavery would still exist, as it still does today everywhere it's not actively stopped.

Lesser men spit on the legacies of their betters behind the dulling gauze of peace which those same men crafted for them

The untermensch must be put in irons to ensure the prosperity of mankind

the system developed the exact same way slavery developed. either both of them are systems, or neither of them are.

slavery is just the strong telling the weak "do what i tell you or i beat you up

anti-slavery is the exact same thing

ww2 made everyone believe that dictatorships and eugenics was bad even though they're tried and true systems of governance.

cause the vast majority of games are from japan and america

HMMM, i wonder what kind of history these countries have with empires

Japan

literally still has an emperor

America

is the most powerful empire in human history

Because basically the only way to get an empire is by invasion. Which means murdering people and stealing their land and freedom. It's evil by default.

There's a massive chasm between tribe and empire.
What you're describing is called a city.

You will never be a Roman

Which means murdering people and stealing their land and freedom.

It's evil by default.

Cyrus the Great founded the Achaemenid Empire. The Jews, who never got along with literally anyone in all of history, regarded him as a hero for his conquests and he is the only gentile ever referred to as messiah in the entire Bible.

Cities are just as depraved as tribes, they simply have more people.
Good.

the system developed the exact same way

No, because slavery was just what happened when the strong encountered the weak. No considerations about right or wrong, or laws or state was required. But such things were necessary to abolish it.

Which means murdering people and stealing their land and freedom.

This process is made inevitable by basic laws of physics. The only difference is between those who can and can't do that. If a polity A would refuse to expand because it's le evil, eventually it will just get mogged by a polity B which won't.
If you don't like it, go complain to whatever cunt designed this reality.

Skyrim
FTL

wow 50 years of church bad posting nobody realizes the anti imperialist undertones

Play better games

muh aspian way

It doesn't matter if you were an empire or not people have always used extreme cruelty on their enemies until recent history. ALSO this happened when Rome was still a republic. At least roman religion and culture justified violence and slavery, now we live in a culture of cognitive dissonance where every nation acts like they don't got shit on their hands while utilizing slaves in other countries and butchering people for moral reasons.

Empires embody order, ambition, prosperity, a monoethnic population, heterosexual marriage, a strong military presence to protect their people/interest.

a monoethnic population

Well obviously the subhuman slaves from defeated/annex nations don't count toward the population.

Made by Russians so it doesn't count

All long-lasting empires were successful at integrating conquered populations

They did in every empire that actually existed though.

cherry picking

That's like asking why whodunits always take the side of the detectives instead of the murderers.