Godwin's Law
When I started this blog, I talked about how it was nessecary for a game to be ethical. When I wrote those words, I thought I would be talking only about ethics in game sales and pricing, not the actual content of the game itself. Thankfully very little such content makes it to the shelves (there are truly horrible games out there, although I will provide citations for this claim so that they gain no more exposure than they need to), but there is one example that I would like to discuss (without taking to strong of an opinion on it) of a game handling a controversial topic.
Hearts of Iron IV is a game made by Paradox Development Studios, whom I have discussed a significant amount in the past (including my discussions on DLC policy through the examples of their games Europa Universalis IV and Stellaris). In the vein of their other historical games, it's a World War II simulation game that focuses primarily on the military strategy and diplomatic actions of the various great powers of the world between 1936 and 1948.
This, of course, is a time period wrought with controversy. The sheer number of potential historical landmines on which one could tread is nearly beyond counting. This leads to a great challenge in developing a game: to what extent does one represent what historically happened and to what extent does one avoid causing unnecessary offense and harm?
One example is the German flag. Historically, the German government during this period would have used the swastika-emblazoned flag with which we are familiar for most governmental purposes. However, the display of that flag will offend (with very good reason) a number of people, and furthermore is illegal in a number of countries as a result of denazification policies. Therefore the developers of the game have a decision to make: do they use the more historically accurate flag, or do they swap if for another standard at the cost of some accuracy?
In the case of Hearts of Iron IV, the makers of the game chose the later option. The flag displayed for Germany in the game is a German battle standard featuring a black cross on a red background with an Iron Cross featured prominently. It narrowly avoids offence while also being historically accurate (it was indeed a card used by the Germans during this time, if not the primary one).
The game has also managed to skirt around larger sources of controversy. World War 2 is well known as a time of horrible atrocities too numerous and too terrible to list. The game gets around the thorny issue of how they are portrayed by simply not portraying them. There is no way, in game, to kill or intern large numbers of civilians, and this is very much an intentional decision. Moreover, I think that this is a decision with which I entirely agree. Leaving such an option in the game would leave open the opportunity for psychopaths and racists to enact their twisted fantasies will adding nothing to the experience of the mentally sound player. This idea (that any controversial action added to the game should only be included if it adds to everyone's experience) is an excellent benchmark for how we can go about deciding on what controversial historical events to include in games.
Hearts of Iron IV is a game made by Paradox Development Studios, whom I have discussed a significant amount in the past (including my discussions on DLC policy through the examples of their games Europa Universalis IV and Stellaris). In the vein of their other historical games, it's a World War II simulation game that focuses primarily on the military strategy and diplomatic actions of the various great powers of the world between 1936 and 1948.
This, of course, is a time period wrought with controversy. The sheer number of potential historical landmines on which one could tread is nearly beyond counting. This leads to a great challenge in developing a game: to what extent does one represent what historically happened and to what extent does one avoid causing unnecessary offense and harm?
One example is the German flag. Historically, the German government during this period would have used the swastika-emblazoned flag with which we are familiar for most governmental purposes. However, the display of that flag will offend (with very good reason) a number of people, and furthermore is illegal in a number of countries as a result of denazification policies. Therefore the developers of the game have a decision to make: do they use the more historically accurate flag, or do they swap if for another standard at the cost of some accuracy?
In the case of Hearts of Iron IV, the makers of the game chose the later option. The flag displayed for Germany in the game is a German battle standard featuring a black cross on a red background with an Iron Cross featured prominently. It narrowly avoids offence while also being historically accurate (it was indeed a card used by the Germans during this time, if not the primary one).
The game has also managed to skirt around larger sources of controversy. World War 2 is well known as a time of horrible atrocities too numerous and too terrible to list. The game gets around the thorny issue of how they are portrayed by simply not portraying them. There is no way, in game, to kill or intern large numbers of civilians, and this is very much an intentional decision. Moreover, I think that this is a decision with which I entirely agree. Leaving such an option in the game would leave open the opportunity for psychopaths and racists to enact their twisted fantasies will adding nothing to the experience of the mentally sound player. This idea (that any controversial action added to the game should only be included if it adds to everyone's experience) is an excellent benchmark for how we can go about deciding on what controversial historical events to include in games.
Comments
Post a Comment