Fair warning: This post is going to deal with some unpleasant issues, such as the Holocaust, concentration camps, and so forth.
I’ve been playing plenty of Hearts of Iron 2 over the years, and as my last post said, I’ve been spending time with Darkest Hour over the weekend. It’s a lot of fun! And yet I am constantly reminded of what I regard as a significant shortfall in the game – the absence of atrocities. From Paradox’s own forum: Short version is No Anything Nasty, No Talking about why there’s Nothing Nasty.
Now, if you are hesitant, I can understand where you are coming from. Videogames are not exactly renowned as an especially thoughtful medium, certainly not one which is ready to tackle weighty issues like the most horrific crimes in human history. As an aside, I would question how they ever can become that if we don’t start taking some faltering steps in that direction. Nonetheless if there is hesitation or concern I am, as I say, understanding of this sentiment. We are the medium of grisly chainsaw deaths, where a gunshot to the gonads is rewarded with an amusing animation and as often as not some sort of bonus, a medium where very few games even conceive of avoiding violence, let alone using non-violence as a primary arbiter of solving problems.
So yes, I can see where the concern would come from. I have concerns myself. I’m not confident that too many developers could do something as unpleasant as World War 2, the real unpleasantness of it I mean, in a way that is anything other than an appeal to prurient sadism or rubbernecking. And, let’s be honest here, in other games how many of us really have acted like genocidal maniacs in games where it’s possible? I’ve blown up stars because it’s easier to do that than to mount a regular invasion of a solar system. When abstracted -or when not based in recent historical events – players are given leeway to commit acts so overwhelmingly evil that the inhabitants of the 40K Universe would balk. Allowing the player to engage in such actions will mean players engage in such actions.
But here’s the thing: Hearts of Iron deals with a very specific period of history, involving very specific actors, whose choices had wide-ranging effects. Nazi Germany was not a fighting power who happened to devote some effort to exterminating millions because it sounded like a good idea at the time – it was a core ideological conceit of the state and it had a significant impact on their conduct of the war effort itself. However insane their policies, however divorced from reality, they nevertheless existed and were consequential. When things began to go badly on the Eastern Front for the Third Reich, they still devoted an enormous effort of industry and infrastructure to the extermination of ‘untermenschen’. They shipped tools and talent to the camps rather than to the front. Imagine a Germany where antisemitism never escalated beyond the norm of 1930s Europe. The Jewish scientists never fled to England and America, and suddenly the Nazi regime didn’t kill or exile all the people responsible for developing the atomic bomb.
My point is this: You cannot separate World War Two from its atrocities. Well, you can if you have a narrow-focus view. An FPS through Operation Overlord isn’t going to turn up too much of the truly nasty stuff, because the truly nasty stuff wasn’t happening in Northern France, and that is a completely fair choice for developers to make. But a grand strategy game which avoids doing it is capitulating, both in terms of not including something vital for understanding what the war was and factors which influenced how it played out, but because it ends up making the Nazis (and the Empire of Japan) seem like, well, a bunch of invading Germans (Or Japanese). They are militaristic, nothing more, and nothing within the game indicates that they are functionally different from anyone else. I believe that this approach actually whitewashes the Nazis to some extent because it divorces them from their gravest crimes, which were far worse than simply waging wars.
In Paradox’s defense, there are European governments who would pitch a hysterical fit about a game where you could click a little button that said “Exterminate the Jews” or you got a big spreadsheet of undesirable elements and could choose whether to exterminate, sterilize, herd in ghettos, levy additional taxes, and so on. Additionally you can drop nukes on people, and that certainly does have an effect on manpower, indirectly suggesting massive deaths. As I’ve said myself I’m not sure such a thing could be done in entirely good taste and, even if it was, many players would most probably approach it with less than noble intentions themselves. Nonetheless I feel it is even more tasteless to act as though it never happened, and that it is detrimental to anything attempting to simulate WW2 on a grand scale.
Interesting perspective. You’ve got a point; many forms of media have dealt with this subject in a way in which it portrays it yet doesn’t really go overboard (the sub-plot in Shutter Island jumps to mind). And it is a bit silly to try and cut that part of history out just to make the came a little cleaner – especially when holocaust deniers are still active.
The other thing that comes to mind is playing through Warcraft 3 Frozen Throne. Arthas is, at this point slaughtering his own people with no Stratholme-esque moral dilemmas (oh, they’ll turn into zombies if I don’t kill them now…and they do). The player is acting as an evil character and can do nothing to stop it without simply quitting the game; he has to kill his own men and the mercenaries he hires or he simply can’t move forwards. It wasn’t a particularly fun part of the game for me; I wanted to NOT have Arthas go down into the dark side. But, then again, that’s what made Arthas’ lore so compelling.
Perhaps that’s an interesting topic: when does a game “cross a line” so to speak, in that it is really encouraging the player to do things are are really wrong? Was it wrong of the Protoss fleet to purge Mar Sara from orbit, slaughtering thousands of innocent colonists just to catch some zerg in the conflagration? Tassdar apparently thought so.
I don’t know…maybe it could have been better approached in this case, in an RTS, by a disconnected news feed that the player sees but cannot influence, or other NPCs that are controlling the death camps that the player has no control over. Or, better yet, the player can have the option of diverting resources away from death camps towards the front at some political cost…I don’t know. It seems realistic that at least some German commanders had qualms about what their maddened leader was doing.
As an unsettling historical aside, the 1930s US was not entirely immune from the eugenicist train of thought. A case of involuntarily sterilizing mental patients and other invalids went all the way to the Supreme Court (Buck v Bell) and the institution actually won the right to ‘purify the gene pool’. No death camps, but still eerily close. And we never paid back those Japanese we threw in jail for no reason. An effective wartime tactic, to be sure, but they deserved at least compensation for lost property, time, and damages while they were stuck in jail, and they never got it until like 10 years ago or something.
Anyway, I hope my rambling response was half as interesting as your post lol. Maybe not. Oh, well lol.
Very interesting post in my opinion, Bamos! And yes, there’s a whole very interesting field here that I didn’t even touch on which you brought up, with more individual stories such as Arthas’ as compared to the more broad brush stuff of a Grand Strategy game or some such. I think it’s actually somewhat easier to do things with that (Quite aside from the fact that it’s total fiction) purely because we can see the motivations and whatnot. I didn’t like what Arthas was doing, but I understood why he reasoned it was necessary and can see why it’s not completely clear-cut.
And yes, it’s quite worrying how plenty of other countries did their own unpleasant things prior to, during, and even after WW2 (Tuskagee comes to mind…). Of course my predictable response is to say that including such unpleasantness on all sides would help teach people about this reality.
I just dont understand why I cant be allowed to do whatever I want in a game. I mean, I would understand it better if ALL murder and killing in games and film were banned.
But as it is now, I can shoot people in the face, spray down civilians in modern warfare 2, kill other teams “civilian” units in RTS games etc etc.
It just seems hugely hypocritical that im not allowed to commit war crimes, I want to feel evil sometimes when I play. The whole moral system is fubar, sex and drugs are considered more horrible than murder, killing Nazis is ok, (those guys had families too), but its not as accepted to kill Africans in resident evil, because hey, we all know Africans never committed war crimes (LOL, Africa is the mother of war crimes), you get my point? Either its ALL ok, or Nothing. Hypocrites.
Politicians and moralists should stay at home starring into a wall, leave my simulated evil alone, and if you are such lousy parents that you cant control what your kids play then maybe have an abortion next time. RANT!