I definitely feel like the author was trying to write a very different article. An article about the way that Meier's western-centric view of history caused th

I definitely feel like the author was trying to write a very different article. An article about the way that Meier's western-centric view of history caused the system he implemented to have interesting systematic biases that limit the set of behaviors that can be simulated in interesting and unexpected ways, Zizek-style, would have been interesting. But this isn't that article; mentioning the lack of dark ages and the enlightenment grand-narrative view of progress as a game mechanic doesn't deliver, since it's crit 101 stuff that anybody would immediately notice. The author should have probably recognized that the article wasn't the one she intended to write, & eliminated the points that didn't add to its organic form, rather than trying to force it into the intended form. But, its flaws don't detract enough to justify not posting it or reading it.