Poll: Would a game where you played a nazi/terrorist be acceptable?

[Doom972]

I have no problem as long as it's presented in a intelligent manner. For example a lot of 'Nazis' were really nice guys and weren't really into all the evil shit that was going on mostly behind their backs. No one sets out to be muahaha evil, they just sometimes find themselves tricked into it.

Unacceptable for me. Don't mind if other like that sort of thing as long as it's not in my face.

You already played a terrorist in Spec Ops: The Line. It's all in the context.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

OT: If it's pulled off well, I think the premise could be good.

A person who bombs a building full of non-combatants isn't fighting for the cause freedom, but for the cause of creating terror - which is why he' called a terrorist, not a freedom fighter. Some organzations seem to think that instead of actually fighting their so called "opressors" for freedom, they can achieve their goals through terror. It has nothing to do with a point of view.

So when Barrack Obama orders drone strikes that kill civilians, that makes the US government terrorists? Or when we try to assassinate a foreign leader? Or torture foreign nationals in secret CIA funded prisons? Or do we get a by because something something terrorism something?

When we nuke entire cities of civilians? When we firebomb refugee districts as hundreds of thousands of unarmed noncombatants as they burn to a crisp and those who hide in shelters from the raging inferno slowly die of carbon monoxide, with women smothering their children to avoid the pain? We're the good guys right? When we overthrow governments and support the torture of civilians?

It's all relative - Freedom fighters, armies, terrorists, governments. You think they woke up one day and thought hey lets go kill some civilians, that will be fun. They did it because we directly or indirectly do the exact same thing. The founder of the modern terrorism movements (Sayyid Qutb, who taught Ayman al-Zawahiri who taught Bin Laden,) was tortured in such a facility in Egypt. They would starve dogs, and then release them into his cell and watch as they tore at him. They would pull them off and nurse him back to health and then release them again, over and over.

We prop up and fund dictators all over the Middle East, and helped them with their reigns of terror and then we act like it's surprising that the civilians they/we tortured are now trying to the same thing back to us. They see their responding violence as just. They see it as tit for tat. They see it as their only out, their only reprisal to our indiscriminate violence.

When did he order a drone strike on civilians? Drone strikes are usually used to make precise attacks on high priority enemy targets to avoid harm to civilians.

 

[Doom972]

Unacceptable for me. Don't mind if other like that sort of thing as long as it's not in my face.

You already played a terrorist in Spec Ops: The Line. It's all in the context.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

OT: If it's pulled off well, I think the premise could be good.

A person who bombs a building full of non-combatants isn't fighting for the cause freedom, but for the cause of creating terror - which is why he' called a terrorist, not a freedom fighter. Some organzations seem to think that instead of actually fighting their so called "opressors" for freedom, they can achieve their goals through terror. It has nothing to do with a point of view.

I was just pointing out that such labels are incredibly subjective. Besides, the Israelis are that last people I want to hear labeling others acts as unjustified terrorism.

And I was pointing out that they're not as subjective as you seem to think. And I'm not going to get trolled into that conversation - sorry, not going to bother justifying my country's right to defend itself for you. It's self-explanatory, as it is for all other countries.

 

[Floppertje]

company of heroes has a full on german campaign, C&C generals has you playing as the GLA, Red Alert has you playing as the russians (who are depicted as kinda evil, especially when yuri got involved)

 

[Sixcess]

Since I am a National Socialist myself (or a Germanian Nationalist as I sometimes call myself) I would cheerish the moment to play as those I look up to since I believe the 3rd Reich was a paradise to live in. A pro-white state that acted FOR the people and was a rolemodel in programs like childsupport (getting money for having children) and animalrights (which are still unequaled to this day if an article I read 6 months ago is correct).

Oh yes, a paradise... asuming you weren't a Jew, a communist, a trade unionist, a homosexual, a gypsy, a 'degenerate' artist, or anyone else on the very long list of people the Party didn't like.

Between 1933 and 1939 the Nazi Party did achieve a great deal in rebuilding Germany (although there's a case to be made that the great depression was coming to a close and recovery would have come quite soon, regardless of who was in power) but the new Germany was built on thuggery, criminality, terror and murder, even leaving aside that in the long term it made war inevitable - a war that almost entirely destroyed Germany.

And on-topic, this is exactly why such subject matter would have to be handled with extreme care. It'd be far too easy for such a game to be seized on as pro-Nazi propaganda.

 

[Legion]

Would I find it acceptable? Sure, although it's highly unlikely I'd like it or be interested in it unless it was created exceptionally well.

As for whether or not it'd be acceptable to the general public or the classification boards, then in a lot of cases, no, probably not. Games are still largely seen as a sad thing for little kids, so if one was made it'd no doubt be used as an example of "brainwashing children into thinking being a terrorist/Nazi is okay" or something similar.

 

[Random berk]

Playing as a Nazi- a properly fanatical SS officer- I don't think a game like that would be a good idea. A game about the Wehrmacht soldiers on the other hand... I might play that. It could be a kind of reverse Band of Brothers. A company of German soldiers, all highly patriotic and committed to their duty, tasked to help repel the Allies in 1944-45. It could include some of the major battles of the Allied push through Europe, Normandy, Bastogne, back as far as Berlin, with the player forced to retreat as the German army is pushed back. Along the way they could come across things like the concentration camps and other examples of Nazi brutality that they had no idea was going on due to their lack of experience in the field, and it would erode their patriotism and belief in their own morality over time. With some good writers it could be a decent game. Depending how they handle it they could even implicate the player to a degree. If the main characters were likeable, it might make the player question their views of morality as a black and white, simple concept.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Unacceptable for me. Don't mind if other like that sort of thing as long as it's not in my face.

You already played a terrorist in Spec Ops: The Line. It's all in the context.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

OT: If it's pulled off well, I think the premise could be good.

A person who bombs a building full of non-combatants isn't fighting for the cause freedom, but for the cause of creating terror - which is why he' called a terrorist, not a freedom fighter. Some organzations seem to think that instead of actually fighting their so called "opressors" for freedom, they can achieve their goals through terror. It has nothing to do with a point of view.

I was just pointing out that such labels are incredibly subjective. Besides, the Israelis are that last people I want to hear labeling others acts as unjustified terrorism.

And I was pointing out that they're not as subjective as you seem to think. And I'm not going to get trolled into that conversation - sorry, not going to bother justifying my country's right to defend itself for you. It's self-explanatory, as it is for all other countries.

You know what, let's avoid that conversation. This isn't the R&P forum.

 

[doomspore98]

Maybe playing as a german soldier? other forms of media, like Das Boat sort of painted those soldiers in a sympathetic light. A nazi though, I'm not sure. Even if I did let it get published, the moral outcry would probably be so loud, it wouldn't even get off the ground

 

[CriticalMiss]

I think it could be rather interesting playing as a Nazi provided they didn't just create a character who was bloodthirsty and gloried in the death around him. Not every soldier in the German army was 100% in agreement with old Adolf's views, so maybe such a game could highlight this with scenes that show that. A lot of them were just fighting for their country rather than to exterminate the Jews.

It will never be published though, the German government are already rather sensitive about anything with Nazis in (kind of understandable) and it would be like throwing a bucket of petrol on the 'videogames are evil' fire. "Not only are they murder simulators, they're training kids to be Nazis now!" said crazy-religious-wacko-against-gaming #265,401.

 

[spartan231490]

Free expression is always a good thing, censorship is always bad. Therefore all forms of expression on all topics with any content are acceptable.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

When did he order a drone strike on civilians? Drone strikes are usually used to make precise attacks on high priority enemy targets to avoid harm to civilians.

All the time.

We have killed 391 ? 780 civilians by mid range estimates in Pakistan alone, and that number includes 120 children. Which coupled with the CIAs confirmed kill listing of 14 terrorists, puts the rate at between 50:1 and 25:1. Which is to say 50 civilians killed for every terrorist killed. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?_r=2& http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

And we don't even just target residential areas where terrorists might be. We bomb funerals with mourners, and we shoot rescue workers arriving on the scene after drone strikes have occurred. Yes, we kill foreign EMTs, firefighters and paramedics for trying to save lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACounting%20Drone%20Strike%20DeathsSUMMARY.pdf

The UN launched an investigation to determine if the US drone strikes on civilians constitute war crimes. It will never declare that of course because we have veto power over the UN. But it's pretty telling.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24/un-expert-investigates-us-drone-attacks-targeted-killings-that-involve-civilian/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312411432248495.html

 

[chocolate pickles]

I'm not talking about games where you played as them in multiplayer only, with the only difference between them being their appearance, but a fully-fledged game where you played as a Nazi/terrorist. You would hear the story from their point of view, understand their motivations, reasons for their actions and be forced to fight the morally correct opposition

I think your crucial mistake here is implying that there is a "morally correct" position in war. Sure, the Nazis were the aggressors and the Allies entered the war (mostly) in response to this (well, the Americans waited a few years until Pearl Harbor before they decided to be heroic).

But the average Nazi footsoldier? He probably "believed" in his cause, he was probably conscripted or at least had been under a lot of pressure to sign up, and he probably thought he was fighting for his homeland and his people (and on the Eastern Front, in earnest defence against the looming Red Menace). Nothing so immoral about that.

And conversely, the Allies did plenty of immoral things too. Not many people would find enjoyment in firebombing civilian Dresden, or putting American Japanese into internment camps.

The narrative that there are "good guys and bad guys" in war only works within the context that the winners write the history books. Most of war is just senseless killing and any right or wrong is completely subjective.

TBH, i wasn't really thinking about the ethics of war when i wrote 'morally correct'. I just wanted a term to generalise all the opponents of terrorism and the Nazis. Apologies for the confusion

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

When did he order a drone strike on civilians? Drone strikes are usually used to make precise attacks on high priority enemy targets to avoid harm to civilians.

All the time.

We have killed 391 ? 780 civilians by mid range estimates in Pakistan alone, and that number includes 120 children. Which coupled with the CIAs confirmed kill listing of 14 terrorists, puts the rate at between 50:1 and 25:1. Which is to say 50 civilians killed for every terrorist killed. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?_r=2& http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

And we don't even just target residential areas where terrorists might be. We bomb funerals with mourners, and we shoot rescue workers arriving on the scene after drone strikes have occurred. Yes, we kill foreign EMTs, firefighters and paramedics for trying to save lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACounting%20Drone%20Strike%20DeathsSUMMARY.pdf

The UN launched an investigation to determine if the US drone strikes on civilians constitute war crimes. It will never declare that of course because we have veto power over the UN. But it's pretty telling.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24/un-expert-investigates-us-drone-attacks-targeted-killings-that-involve-civilian/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312411432248495.html

Ugh, so the U.N will criticize our drone strikes, but they did nothing about the carpet bombing in Vietnam. I mean back than we were using chemical warfare, and INTENTIONALLY targeting non combatants.

 

[cathou]

Panzer general 2 had the nazi scenario where you could actually won WWII by invading oak ridge and get the US prototype of the atomic bomb

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

If it was a good game, absolutely.

In fact, a game centered around a German soldier with no idea of the crimes Hitler is committing could be fascinating.

Have him be fighting for his country and his people. Have him see Hitler as the great man that saved his country from starvation after those bastard Allies tried to starve everyone.

Have him become less and less sane as the game goes on, climaxing with the defense of Berlin. Having effectively lost it, he still believes in his country and thinks that if they can just win out today, victory will be theirs.

The last moment of the game will be him holding out against the whole of the Russian army in some bombed out building and in his last seconds alive, realizing the terrible things his Fuhrer has done and simply walking out into the bombardment to end it once and for all.

Or something like that.

 

[Darknacht]

Lots of games allow for you to play a terrorist they just call the terrorism collateral damage, or necessary evils.

Unacceptable for me. Don't mind if other like that sort of thing as long as it's not in my face.

You already played a terrorist in Spec Ops: The Line. It's all in the context.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

OT: If it's pulled off well, I think the premise could be good.

A person who bombs a building full of non-combatants isn't fighting for the cause freedom, but for the cause of creating terror - which is why he' called a terrorist, not a freedom fighter. Some organzations seem to think that instead of actually fighting their so called "opressors" for freedom, they can achieve their goals through terror. It has nothing to do with a point of view.

I was just pointing out that such labels are incredibly subjective. Besides, the Israelis are that last people I want to hear labeling others acts as unjustified terrorism.

And I was pointing out that they're not as subjective as you seem to think. And I'm not going to get trolled into that conversation - sorry, not going to bother justifying my country's right to defend itself for you. It's self-explanatory, as it is for all other countries.

So, you recognize Palestine's right to defend itself from a hostile Israel as self-explanatory?

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Ugh, so the U.N will criticize our drone strikes, but they did nothing about the carpet bombing in Vietnam.

The UN never does anything about anything. And like I said, we have veto power. And I'm sure we vetoed any statement the UN tried to make that was vaguely anti Vietnam war back in the 50s 60s and 70s. Just as I'm sure the UN probably pushed to make a statement about it at least a few times.

I mean back than we were using chemical warfare

I don't really see how chemical weapons are magically worse than any of our other weapons of war. Tiny pieces of exploding shrapnel can go everywhere slicing into a person in a dozen different places and leaving them to bleed out is ok. Dropping firebombs that heat the air to thousands of degrees, and are so strong that they create their own wind systems like a hurricane or a tornado but made out of flame, is also ok. But using an agent that causes vomiting, difficulty breathing and closing of the throat is so unthinkably terrible that chemical warfare must be banned? I mean of course unless it's chemical agent that causes temporary blindness, difficulty breathing, mucosa buildup, and extreme pain; in which case it's totally ok to use on uppity civilians.

and INTENTIONALLY targeting non combatants.

Firstly it was never any more a policy in Vietnam than it was in any previous wars. The mining of Haiphong harbor and the bombings(Christmas and otherwise) were more intended to target factories and shipping than civilians. Obviously that doesn't work, but no one gives a shit or bothered to listen to the USSBS at the end of WW2.

And if you're talking about attacking civilians like the Mai Lai massacre or other various incidents(of which there are many,) it was never authorized on a high command level. It was grunts and lower ranking officers acting on their own. And we already are on that same level in Iraq/Afghanistan. Google '360 rotational fire.' And even when it wasn't 360 fire, our troops would still unload on a building that would often have civilians still in it along with insurgents. And we also used mortars in civilian areas(although I believe that we put an end to that practice a few years ago.) And we aren't without our own massacre scandals either. We had a whole squad rape some girl and then murder her and her entire family. They only got caught because they were bragging about it back at the base.

 

[Jakub324]

didnt the chinese army release its own version of call of duty where you join the PLA and shoot the evil americans?

Yeah, but the Chinese aren't terrorists or Nazis.
OT: Maybe. I think it would have to be morally grey and have some kind of message. A message of similar strength to that of Spec Ops: The Line.
Even then, the game would be stepping into a shitstorm of controversy.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

a fully-fledged game where you played as a Nazi/terrorist. You would hear the story from their point of view, understand their motivations, reasons for their actions and be forced to fight the morally correct opposition

forced to fight the morally correct opposition

morally correct

They thought they were morally correct.



--
I would play a game like this as long as it wasn't going about it in a stupid way like Naughty Bear. 'Haha let's kill Jews' would not slide in my book. As long as it's going about it in a believable manner then I'd be psyched to play a game like this.