I really don't think there was cynical decisions during the development of the game by ES. I understand why they made the choices they made. Take for example the generic unit lines. Of course it would have been ludicrous to have unique lines and skins for each civs, both in terms of gameplay and dev resource. But nonetheless, the fact remains that all unit lines are exclusively European. The underlying message, however completely unintentional, is that European culture is the standard and others are just deviations from it.It's not an excuse in this case, because I'm not sure how much AoE II has to excuse. It certainly provided an overview of historical conquests through rose-tinted spectacles, but I don't think it was done cynically. While I agree the game was very Euro-centric, it made some efforts at presenting other perspectives, notably with the Montezuma and Saladin campaigns. I'd be curious to hear any indigenous Mexican and Kurdish takes respectively on these representations. It will also be interesting to see if AoE IV further widens victory conditions, similar to the Civilisation series, for example, where cultural and religious victories are also possible. This might reduce the emphasis on 'colonial' conquest. I imagine AoE IV villager skins, if there are even vills/workers, will vary according to civ location, and this is fine. I'm surprised it wasn't introduced already with the expansions.
I must make it clear, it was never ES or anyone's intention to willingly say that Europeans are the default, the gold standard. Of course not. But it is an unfortunate byproduct of a mix gameplay and design decisions.
As for AoE4, no matter how much they change up the formula, it will remain that the default for civilization is to clash. Default gameplay in AoE2 tells you that the only victory can be achieved by defeating your opponent. The default development for civilization is towards military, economy and trade are nothing but tools to improve your military.
It's perfectly acceptable as a gameplay mechanic, but if you step back and study AoE2 from a political point of view, the thesis of the game is : civilizations are made to fight. A prosperous empires is a conquering empire. And even games like civilization, which have other victory modes like religious of cultural, still convey the idea that civs are in competition. Cooperation is only made to further one's goal, and there can only be one winner. Deeply rooted in the genre is the idea that clash, whether direct or indirect, is inevitable. It is even to be desired.
I was indeed more aggrieved by the french one, maybe because it hits closer too home. But it's also because, out of all the ones you mentioned, it's the one that I feel has the most damaging potential. That stereotype was frequently used in 2003 by American and British politicians to fiss the French for not going to war in Iraq (guess who was right in hindsight).All that being said, stereotyping British, French, German, and American people is not going to perpetuate war centuries later.
Out of curiosity, were you more aggrieved by my use of cultural stereotypes for comedic effect in general, or more by my specific use of a French stereotype?
The stereotype is obviously a minor part, but it contributed to notably deteriorate relations between France and the US, as well as gave way for anti French sentiment in the US. It's a revisionist view of history that flatters nationalism ("they would be speaking German if it weren't for us") as well as nourishes distrust in the future ("can't count of them for future wars, they will surrender as usual").
Deep trends in society are hard thing to change, and relationship between countries are very fragile things. No one is going to war over these stereotypes of course, but it can be paving the way towards distrust between countries, which unfortunately is not a pathway with great perspectives.
Now French stereotypes are far less damaging that stereotypes vs Arabs for example, they are for now rather limited. But I wanted to highlight that even amongst the "acceptable ones" you used as example, there is still potential for real life consequences.
Everything is political. Every word has a meaning. Every action has consequences.
Now to go back to AoE2 : I don't think anywhere there are egregious stereotypes being thrown around, and as you pointed out the Saladin campaign was pretty well handled, really props to ES for that. But as DER pointed out, even using the word "Saracens", the very word the Catholic Church used to categorize the enemy, is something that should be noted and criticized.