• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Who is the enemy in video games - a discussion

the8thark

ZD Champion
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Location
Australia
Both the Nazi reigm and the Communist regimes of the past have murdered millions of people. Though there are many games where killing Nazis is the main point of the game. However there are few games where killing Communists is the main point of the game. I can't even think of any game where Communists are the enemy.

Those who reply to this arguement by saying Nazis are worse are actually factually incorrect. From my rough memory, the Nazi regime killed over 6 million people and the Communist regimes have killed over 20 million people. I don't remember if the 20 million figure is only Soviet Communism or if it includes Chinese Communism and the smaller COmmunist states as well.
I am not condoning either regime though. Both inflicted unspeakable horror on humanity.

I just think certain groups in society have a hatred of what the perceive as far right extremism and want to attack them through the means of video games. It does not fit their agenda to realise that both the Nazis and Commnuists both have very far left ideals and neither of them valued liberty, freedom of speech or any of the pillars of western modern societies.

Games of these types often take a western centric approach. As in the American or British (usually) side is the side of the player and is portryed as the hero and the opposing force is the evil that must be stopped. In reality that's not always been the case. The west have done some terrible, unspeakable things also. More recently, Wikileaks have exposed some of these crimes that the US and other western nations have done. Crimes that western governments want swept under the carpet.

There is a different type of enemy in some video games. Far Cry 5 is a good example of this. Rednecks from the bush are the enemy now, suppoedly from some cult also. Some people found this offensive as they didn't like white Americans being the enemy in a video game. To them it's ok for white Americans to kill everythnig else but when they are the target in one game, all hell breaks loose.

There is a great movie parallel that really gave me quite some perspectiveon this. Flags of our Fathers vs Letters from Iwo Jima. Two different sides of the same story. Of cause we all know that the Japanese war machine had to be stopped, but the average Japenese soldier was a person too, with feelings, hopes and dreams. They didn't want to be in the war, but they were conscripted. Seeing their side was just so amazing. Of cause the movie was hollywoodised but the main points were still there.
On the German side you had the Wehrmacht and the Nazis. Most of the Wehrmacht were conscripts who were not full of hatred, but they had to fight or they were shot by the Nazis.

This is a very narrow minded view of good vs evil. In reality us vs them would be a better way to describe it, though that would not be as politically motivated. The good side is always us, no matter which side your on and the other is the enemy. Video game developers tend to forget this. Western developers keep portraying the "west is the best" narrative and the Asian developers just steer clear from these type of games entirely. The Asian developers prefer narratives where who was good and who was evil is not clear cuut and is still up for debate. Take the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms and Dynasty Warriors as an example. We have Cao Cao, Sun Quan and Lui Bei. The book Three Kingdoms has us believe Lui Bei was the good of the three, but historically speaking, all three were as blood thirsty as each other. There was no clear good side there.

Also there are very few games developed about a conflict where historically your side lost. As in very few US developed games about Vietnam and very few Asian developed games about WW2.

This also applies to science fiction games too. In most of them, the humanoid creatures are the good side and the weird non humanoid looking creatures are the evil that need eradicating. On a galactic scale, the developers believe we are the better species, which might not the true at all.

In conclusion I do think most video game developers resort to a default of our side as good and their side as bad, and refuse to try and understand the other side of the conflicts. A lot of the time it's politically motivated or just a symptom of our snowflake culture.

It takes real guts to admit that at times your own side was on the wrong. It takes even more guts to impliment this truth into a video game.
 

Dizzi

magical internet cat....
ZD Legend
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
some times i do think umm why are we killing the aliens?? theyve not done owt to hurt us....
 

Castle

Ch!ld0fV!si0n
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Location
Crisis? What Crisis?
Gender
Pan-decepticon-transdeliberate-selfidentifying-sodiumbased-extraexistential-temporal anomaly
Agreed. Nazis became fiction entertainment's punching bag on the presumption that nazis were so heinous that no one could ever have a problem with wholesale slaughtering them. The reason why the stormtroopers and the empire in Star Wars are patterned after nazis is because Lucas didn't want his movies coming off as too violent because nobody could disagree with killing nazis for the same reason Nazis are the bad guys in two out of four Indiana Jones movies. Interestingly enough, Soviets did feature as the villains in one of the Indiana Jones movies. You know, the one we don't talk about.

There is a dangerous problem with this approach, however. For one, it trivializes nazis. It turns them into cartoons and in effect trivializes what they did as well. Sure, what the nazis did was terrible and many of them did so willingly and had inexcusable motivations. For many others in Hitler's Germany it wasn't that simple. It makes people forget that nazis were actual people, real human beings like us who actually committed those unspeakable acts. It makes us begin to perceive them as some sort of unrelatable other and therefore in our minds it becomes easier to distance ourselves and our own human nature and behavior from them. When that happens, it becomes woefully easy for people to go around ignorantly accusing anyone they simply disagree with of being this gross caricature. Bigots have a nasty habit of caricaturizing the subjects of their hatred to dehumanize them and make them less relatable and therefore more acceptable targets of their scorn. We see this with racist stereotypes like blackface, and especially with literal drawn cartoons.

And wouldn't you know it? There appears to be a rise in ignorant fools going around screeching accusations of "LITERAL NAZI!!" at everything that disagrees with them.

It's the same reason why extraterrestrials are so often the bad guys in fiction. They're literally not human. At least aliens aren't something real that is actually known to exist and even most of even the most insane bigots wouldn't go around accusing the targets of their hatred of being from outer space.
 

the8thark

ZD Champion
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Location
Australia
@Castle

I agree with you 100%.
I also have a first hand source on the subject. As in somnoe who has literally talked to Nazis and Soviet Communists. My 90 year old Grandmother did that in the war. The Nazis kicked her and her family out of Poland and they had to move to Germany. Also post war they were in East Berlin so direct contact with Sovoet Communists. She was not a soldier in the war but she knows what it was like on the homefront at the time and how little freedonm the general populations had at the time. Post war she emigrated to Australia obviously as that's how I was born here in Australia.

Over the years she has talked about her times back then, and the conclusions she made were it was equally as dangerous being in Nazi Germany or in cold war Soviet Union. Not just Russia but the entire Iron Curtian. From East Berlin all the way to Moscow and beyond.

Castle - to reply to you directly, I think it's people treat Nazis the same as aliens in games, from a development standpoint. As in they treat both Nazis and aliens as something less than human. They don't realise that even the humans that partake in the most inhumane actions, are still human, no matter how bad their crimes are. Hating Nazis because they were Nazis is actually a dangerous line of though as you correctly identified. It's better to hate no person but hate their actions. This way we have a better frame of mind and can work towards making sure that these inhumane actions are stopped. Be it Communists, or ISIS members, or violent dictators or cult/gang members or whoever, the more we can do to stop this kind of selfish, ultra violent behaviour from occuring in society the better.

Those who shout out "You are a literal Nazi" to anyone they do not like, have zero idea if what the Nazis did and zero respect for those who fought the Nazi regime to protect our freedoms.
I feel this is the issue. A certain group of people find it easier to hate certain groups of people, calling them evil. It's easier to say they are evll and we can't be evil because we are not them. It's much harder to admit the truth and say anyone can be good and anyone can be evil. They refuse to entertain the potential that they or the people and/or nations they associate with have the potential to be evil. Only when they can accept this, can the issue start to be slowly worked on.

This is why I like games that are about the main character struggling with what to do. Should they act all good and help everyone or should they act in a more evil selfish way and do whatever it takes to profit from their own actions. It's something every single person struggles with every single day. Of cause not on the extremes. We are not about to kill anyone. But imagine the following scenario.
"Should I buy thsi bar of chocolate for myself or should I spend the money on something for a friend or samily member or donate the money to charity."
We are talking like $2 here. Not much money. But the selfish vs good choice is there. If we can promote doing the right thing for these seemingly trivial issues, then when it really matters, we already have the right attitude and will put others first.

Also as an aside I think society in general finds it very difficult to be nice to people they personally do not like. Well a person or a group they like. A revenge culture. I hate you so I can't be nice to you. I don't mean turning the other cheek, I mean a fair go. This includes fair justice and doing the time for the crimes.

I think freedom of speech is a big issue here too. I hate you so I want to silence you. That as we both know leads to all kinds of bad things. The better way to go is - I will hear you out and afterwards I will hold your speech to account.

I've gone a little offtopic here. @Castle I totally agree with you. It's something we need to deal with as we are trivialising what they did almost a century ago due to desensitising ourselves through the continuing slaughter of them in games were we treat them as less than human scum that are only bullet sponges getting in the way of whatever objective the game wants us to achieve.
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Hating Nazis because they were Nazis is actually a dangerous line of though as you correctly identified. It's better to hate no person but hate their actions.
This thread is a dumpster fire. Just apologists/extreme centrists *****ing about Nazis getting targeted as enemies in fictional media (or the real world for that matter) though I guess this isn't surprising.

Just look at what happened when Wolfenstein II came out in 2017


People are representative of their actions and beliefs. Hating and ****ting on Nazis isn't dangerous, but allowing their ideas of creating a white ethnostate through genocide, mass deportations and racial segregation to proliferate and frolic certainly is as evident by the most deadliest terrorists attacks in recent history. Terrorist attacks that didn't get treated as such because of this nonsensical view that Nazism is a legitimate harmless idea worthy of discussion.
 

the8thark

ZD Champion
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Location
Australia
Terrorist attacks that didn't get treated as such because of this nonsensical view that Nazism is a legitimate harmless idea worthy of discussion.
This is the whole debate of Nazis vs Nazism. Ie hate the actions of the person and not the person themselves.
Your image is showing the worst of both sides. Both sides hating on each other and totally ignoring the actual issues at play. Both the developers advertising the game on twitter as well as those replying playing the victim mentality game.

Also this whole topic is not about hating Nazis being depicted as the enemy in fictional media. It's about Nazis being over represented here. I'm not saying Nazis shouldn't be depicted as the enemy. I just feel there should be some more diversity in who the enemy is. Be it Communists or random terror groups or evil aliens or whoever, a little variety is always a good thing.
 

Deus

~ ZD's Pug Dealer ~
ZD Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Gingerblackmexicanjew
I don't have a problem with Nazi's being used as villains. I think they make very good enemies in media. Some of the best in fact. They have a logo recognised by all, they wear cool uniforms and of course their leader has a very distinct look and is very well known. You don't need to add backstory if you've got Hitler as a villain in your game because everyone knows it. Its like when you had Ganondorf in TP, he didn't need a massively fleshed out backstory because everyone knows Ganondorf and he has a automatic villainous prescence to any Zelda fan. Just like Hitler has to any western child because they are taught about the horrors of Nazism in schools.

Nazi does seem to be losing its meaning these days though. And the only true Nazis seem to be the ones that appear in things like Wolfenstein. In real life many people or groups being labeled as Nazi's do not believe in national socialism or even the supremacy of the Aryan race which are prerequisites of being a proper Nazi.

Over the past few years calling someone 'Nazi' became the new calling someone a 'witch'. In the olden days 'witch' was the worst accusation you could make of someone and they could be executed for it. A person thought of as a Witch would certainly be in low standing. And people started calling those they disagree with 'Nazi' in an attempt to discredit them. To make people not want to listen to what they said. People were automatically disgusted by the thought of a Nazi and that name calling kind of worked for a bit however it has backfired on the users really. The term has become so overused now it's lost its meaning as the radical left, who are often vocal in the mainstream media just use the term for anyone to the right of Stalin and Pol Pot.

I do wish that communism was as generally disliked and seen in the same light as Nazism. Communism is kind of seen as the cool totalitarian regime. If you are American or British neither you nor your ancestors had to suffer under it or fight against it. But likely your ancestors fought against Nazism.

I am sure you have seen many who shamelessly wear shirts with communist logos and figures on them but not many would be seen out with a swastika on their arm or their phone case even though the Nazi regime killed less people.

This would also be why commies are not often the enemies in games. Their presence just doesnt evoke the same feeling in the player. They don't give off that evil presence that Nazis do.
 

Deus

~ ZD's Pug Dealer ~
ZD Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Gingerblackmexicanjew
People are representative of their actions and beliefs. Hating and ****ting on Nazis isn't dangerous, but allowing their ideas of creating a white ethnostate through genocide, mass deportations and racial segregation to proliferate and frolic certainly is as evident by the most deadliest terrorists attacks in recent history. Terrorist attacks that didn't get treated as such because of this nonsensical view that Nazism is a legitimate harmless idea worthy of discussion.
It is very much worth discussing or else you will never be able to change their minds. Refusing to do so will ensure their beliefs are never challenged and therefore remain their beliefs.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Gender
Feel free to use what pronouns you want. I use both sexed pronoun sets interchangeably.
I can't wait to see how this conversation goes once someone notices how many Nazis are on Israel's Righteous Among the Nations list.

People today seem to have forgotten an important fact about the Nazis: They were a political party. Like modern political parties, there were quite a few members of it who did not necessarily agree with all of the ideology. The most famous example, and one I hope everyone on here recognizes, is Oskar Schindler. Schindler was an active member of the party, including doing active espionage, since 1939 but first started active work that benefited Nazi goals in 1936. He was a member of the Nazi party until its end. And he is far from the only active Nazi on that list.

If we're discussing the Nazis, it helps to keep in mind that talking about them as though they were some monolithic group with a singular opinion does a serious disservice to the Nazis who risked death, and worse, to protect Jews.
 

Cfrock

Keep it strong
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Location
Liverpool, England
Ok, ok, I know. But just bear with me. The reason this post is so ****ing big is because I think people are making points in very bad ways that obfuscate what they mean and invite unintended interpretations. Half of what I say below is nitpicking the way people have made points, not the points themselves. The other half is me engaging with the points being made. I don't intend this as an attack on anyone and if it comes across as that then know that is not my intention, except in one very obvious case. Very obvious. You'll ****ing know. I just read this thread and ****ing knew some posters would get accused of a certain viewpoint and I feel it may be helpful to indicate some places where I think that comes from and how it could be avoided.

I'm gonna arrange this in sections according to which specific post I'm replying to, and I'll include a tl;dr at the start of each one so you can get the gist without going insane.

---

tl;dr Most games using Nazis are based on a specific historic event which lends itself to a specific moral portrayal. Most video games depicting that event are not aimed at an audince seeking a deeper narrative experience. There is no political motivation for this, only the nature of video games as games, first and foremost.

Though there are many games where killing Nazis is the main point of the game.
This is important to a lot of what follows. Games involving the Nazis are either set during World War 2 or in alternate histories in which the Nazis won World War 2. If there are games outside of the context of World War 2 that use the Nazis as enemies, please tell me because providing those examples will strengthen and clarify your point. I don't see Nazis in video games all that often. Unless the game is related to World War 2 in some way, Nazis seem to be absent. I don't often find them used outside of that historical context, so some example of such would go a long way towards demonstrating their over-saturation. Right now, it's not a convincing statement.

However there are few games where killing Communists is the main point of the game. I can't even think of any game where Communists are the enemy.
I can think of Freedom Fighters and Call of Duty: Black Ops off the top of my head. Black Ops 2 has a mission in which you fight the Soviet Union alongside the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The Homefront series has you fight North Koreans. There are a wealth of Real-Time Strategy games that have you fight the Nazis or the Soviet Union, like Red Orchestra or Company of Heroes. The Sniper Elite games let you fight Nazis or Soviets. Command and Conquer: Red Alert has you fight Communists. Hearts of Iron lets you fight Nazis or Communists. Any game set in Vietnam has you fight Communists, like Battlefield Vietnam, Conflict: Vietnam, Men of Valor, Shellshock: Nam '67, or Vietcong. My issue with this point is that you clearly haven't done any research before making this statement. If you did, then you'd know there are a wealth of games which have you kill communists. I don't know if there are more than those where you fight Nazis, but there are a hell of a lot.

Those who reply to this arguement by saying Nazis are worse are actually factually incorrect. From my rough memory, the Nazi regime killed over 6 million people and the Communist regimes have killed over 20 million people. I don't remember if the 20 million figure is only Soviet Communism or if it includes Chinese Communism and the smaller COmmunist states as well.
You say the Nazis being worse is "factually incorrect" and then proceed to give us your "rough memory" instead of the facts. That's bad practice.

The 6 million figure you attribute to the Nazis is the number killed in the Holocaust. The total number of men, women and children killed by the Nazis is much higher, since every single civilian and military death caused by the Germans during World War 2 is on their hands. The Soviets killed by the Nazis alone adds ~8 million to that figure.

The death toll under the Soviet regime is estimated at around 20 million. For Communist China it's estimated at around 65 million. 2 million for North Korea. 1 million for Vietnam. 2 million for Cambodia. Across Eastern Europe, Africa, and Afghanistan it's estimated at around 4.2 million.

It is factually incorrect to say the Nazis killed more people than Communist regimes, but you could have at least spent a few minutes getting actual figures rather than basing your point on your "rough memory".

I just think certain groups in society have a hatred of what the perceive as far right extremism and want to attack them through the means of video games.
I want to stress this point: You are talking about literal Nazis from World War 2. They are not perceived as far-right extremists, they were far-right extremists. I understand that you are not trying to defend or apologise for the Nazis, I do understand that and I am not accusing you of doing so. My point here is that this is a poorly constructed argument because it can lead to that conclusion being drawn. You've shifted the focus of your argument here — I recognise that — but by doing so with no segue or natural flow your argument can be seen as Nazi apologism. You need to watch out for that kind of thing.

What you're addressing here is the way many people are called Nazis or white supremecists when they demonstrate anything right of centre, or even when they raise issues the left has deemed taboo, like how HBomberguy called JonTron (an ethnic Persian) a white supremecist because JonTron pointed to FBI statistics on crime rates broken down by race. JonTron did not advocate for an ethnostate, he did not call for action against any racial group, nor did he claim any race was inferior or worse than any other. He pointed to statistics and then offered no comment on what they indicate or how they should be used to address societal problems. The same statistics are used to demonstrate the consequences of the systemic disadvantages black communities in America face. The statistics alone don't make a point, and JonTron offered no point when he presented them. Any interpretation of what he was saying is pure projection because he didn't say anything. The kind of person who leaps to these labels might enjoy a video game that lets them kill actual Nazis, but I don't know if that's actually the case. Wolfenstein 2 sold much worse than its predecessor, even after Pete Hines explicitly positioned it as the game for those angry about Trump to find some release.

It does not fit their agenda to realise that both the Nazis and Commnuists both have very far left ideals and neither of them valued liberty, freedom of speech or any of the pillars of western modern societies.
Emphasis mine. This is a point I need to talk about. The Nazis were not far-left. I'll say it again: The Nazis were not far-left. To say so demonstrates an almost total lack of knowledge about what they did, what they stood for, or how they used political rhetoric. It's about the most ignorant thing you can possibly say about the Nazis. This thread cannot be on this forum with this point going unaddressed.

Hitler spoke of socialism and ideas associated with it in speeches, but he abhorred it as an actual political idea. The Nazi's use of the term 'socialist' was nothing more than a means of manipulating ordinary Germans into supporting them. Socialism was gaining support all over Europe in the early 20th Century. The Nazis used it to rise to power while viewing it not only as foolish, but dangerous to them. Within months of coming to power, Hitler's Nazis made the German Social Democrat party illegal. He broke apart trade unions. He had the actual socialists in his party, like Otto Strasser, kicked out. Many were arrested. Some were killed. The Nazis established total state control over just about every aspect of German society. The anti-capitalist rhetoric of socialism was repurposed to attack Germany's Jews, turning Socialist class warfare into Fascist race warfare. They viewed any notion of the redistribution of wealth as being "Take from the Jews, give to the Party". They operated a police state predicated on racial purity. The Nazis were not far-left. They were entirely, unambiguously far-right in every facet.

If the word "Socialist" in the Nazi Party's full name makes them far-left the I beg you to consider if The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is or is not a Communist dictatorship.

Games of these types often take a western centric approach. As in the American or British (usually) side is the side of the player and is portryed as the hero and the opposing force is the evil that must be stopped.
By "Games of these type" you seem to mean games which feature Nazis as the enemy. Again, games which feature Nazis as the enemy are set during World War 2 or in alternate histories in which the Nazis won World War 2. Of course the American, British, French, Canadian, Anzac, etc., forces are portrayed as the heroes. World War 2 was the last war fought by humanity that can be said to have a moral motivation. I am not naive enough to suggest it was solely a moral crusade, but no war since has motivated as many people from as many parts of the world to make the choice to stand and fight what they genuinely and wholly perceived as gross evil. It's the last war in which it can be said there is a clear 'good' side and a clear 'bad' side without controversy. Portraying the war in such a way is natural, fitting, and not inaccurate. Video games are not as well equipped as movies, novels, or theatre for exploring the human nuance of a war because a video game is always going to have to reconcile its narrative themes with the fact that it is a game, a finite system of rules and conditions in which a player attempts to reach a win-state. The player is going to have to spend most of their time doing something, and if you're game is about World War 2, the player is going to be fighting the enemy. In World War 2, the Nazis were unambiguously the clear enemy.

To illustrate my point here more clearly, Rhianna Pratchett faced continuous problems writing the Tomb Raider reboot. She wanted to explore Lara's need to kill within the narrative, as killing, even in self-defence, is not easy and takes a toll on most people. She spent a lot of time working on that specific aspect of the story, only for her work to get mostly swept away under the game's need to include action gameplay. The result is Lara Croft struggling with the ramifications of her first kill, then all but immediately getting over it and becoming a one-woman army. It's jarring and the game fails to explore the issue in any great depth specifically because of the medium requiring actual gameplay. If Rhianna had been writing a movie script, the whole thing would have been done differently and she would have been able to achieve her vision more fully.

Certain game genres, or perhaps more specifically certain games, don't lend themselves to nuanced, introspective examinations of the human propensity for evil. I'm not saying it's impossible, or that games are necessarily bad at it, just that video games are not well suited to it, in general terms. Most World War 2 games just want the player to feel awesome by participating in simulations of historic battles. Nothing more. They aren't trying to examine the humanity of all participants and games which reduce the player's interactions with the world to firing guns and throwing grenades have very little room to actually do so because of those limited interactions and the overall purpose of the game.

In reality that's not always been the case. The west have done some terrible, unspeakable things also. More recently, Wikileaks have exposed some of these crimes that the US and other western nations have done. Crimes that western governments want swept under the carpet.
It's true that Western nations have their share of blood, lies, and atrocities on their hands, but my issue here is that you've been talking so far about the Nazi regime. What relevance does Wikileaks have to that? In what way do the actions of, say, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan influence the portrayal of soldiers fighting a war forty, fifty, sixty years before? Should a World War 2 game portray American soldiers as morally ambiguous because Hilary Clinton deleted a bunch of emails or because the CIA sold weapons to Iranian terrorists to supply Nicaraguan guerillas with cash to fight a civil war? Again, you've shifted topic here without any clear segue and it muddies your argument. By tying this point to a discussion of the portrayal of World War 2, it can be construed as you defending Nazis on the grounds of the West being worse, or at least equally bad. I know you are not defending the Nazis. My point, again, is that this is a poorly constructed argument because it can easily lead to the wrong interpretation of what you're saying.

Far Cry 5 is a good example of this. Rednecks from the bush are the enemy now, suppoedly from some cult also. Some people found this offensive as they didn't like white Americans being the enemy in a video game. To them it's ok for white Americans to kill everythnig else but when they are the target in one game, all hell breaks loose.
This is a point I don't fully agree upon and my reason for that is that most of the uproar around Far Cry 5 was manufactured by Ubisoft themselves as a marketing ploy. I'm sure there are people out there who were sincerely upset that a major triple-AAA game made white Americans the antagonists, but a lot of these kind of comments came from 4chan. It's been known for years that Ubisoft literally pay people to make threads on 4chan about upcoming games, specifically trying to incite this kind of vitriolic, political reaction because it leads to angry people making more threads about the game than would otherwise exist. After Far Cry 5's announcement, it was impossible to go to almost any board on 4chan without seeing posts about the game, many of them with copy/pasted text, many posted at literally the exact same time on multiple boards. My point here is not that Far Cry 5 was not viewed as offensive by some, but that I personally question how much of that outrage was genuine.

Of cause we all know that the Japanese war machine had to be stopped, but the average Japenese soldier was a person too, with feelings, hopes and dreams. They didn't want to be in the war, but they were conscripted.
Conscription is an issue which could be used in a game to provide a different view on events like World War 2 without needing to make major alterations to game design to accommodate a more nuanced story element. Something as simple as a World War 2 game in which the protagonist is conscripted. They still fight, all the gameplay an audience would expect could remain, but the story and character could address an issue often overlooked. Similarly, a Vietnam game which made an explicit point of the Draft could allow for a deeper, more nuanced story while retaining the gameplay most players would be looking for. But would this game find the audience to appreciate and engage with that? Simply put, fans of more story-driven experiences are not going to give a war game much of a chance based on first impressions.

This is why Spec Ops: The Line didn't succeed. The players who wanted military action were put off by the emphasis on narrative and morals, while players who wanted challenging stories were put off by the third-person shooting. This is an example of what I mean when I say video games are not as well suited to these kind of deeper stories as movies or novels. Anyone watching a movie is necessarily looking for a story. Anyone playing a video game might either not care, or be actively discouraged by a story. This is part of why Nazis are so useful as a video game villain; nobody has to think twice about fighting them. Asking a video game audience to think about Nazis as humans is unlikely to be well received because of the nature of why people play video games based on wars.

This is a very narrow minded view of good vs evil. In reality us vs them would be a better way to describe it, though that would not be as politically motivated. The good side is always us, no matter which side your on and the other is the enemy. Video game developers tend to forget this.
I don't think developers "forget this". I think they are consciously aware of what they are doing. Nobody wants to play a game in which they lose. Very few people want to play a game in which they are the bad guy. Take a look at anyone who isn't me talk about Dishonored and its endings. If the player is excessively violent and kills the majority of enemies, they get the 'High Chaos' ending in which Dunwall succumbs to the plague, Emily grows to be a tyrannical despot, and it's implied the Empire crumbles not long after. Almost every player who saw this ending hates it as they feel they were 'punished' for playing the game 'the fun way'. Many complain that their murder sprees were committed to remove traitors from the throne and restore stability, and that essentially messing everything up was an insulting way for the game to end. They resent being made into a bad guy. They resent 'losing'. This is only one example but I think it illustrates what I'm getting at here.

Most people play games to achieve something positive. Most people play games to feel positive about themselves. Games are cathartic, and many people play them as a means to relax. A game designed to make players feel bad about themselves, or about historical events, isn't going to be well received by most players on those grounds alone, that it made them feel bad. That's not what games are for in the minds of many. Developers want their players to feel good, and so will consciously avoid portraying the hero in a less than shining light. I think this applies extra when considering games based on real history, history many players may get genuinely offended over if portrayed a certain way. A game suggesting the Nazis were not pure evil, or suggesting the Americans were not heroic in World War 2, would be an example of this, I feel. These are concepts so ingrained in culture, and that video games are not the best equipped medium to challenge, that most developers make a deliberate choice not to try.

Western developers keep portraying the "west is the best" narrative and the Asian developers just steer clear from these type of games entirely. The Asian developers prefer narratives where who was good and who was evil is not clear cuut and is still up for debate.
Have you ever played... any JRPGs?

I say that as a joke, but the point is real. There are thousands of Japanese video games that feature clear cut, black/white morality. The Legend of Zelda is one of them, the series this entire forum is dedicated to. The main villain is literally the embodiment of endless hatred and malice, nothing but pure evil. Castlevania, a multi-generational struggle to keep the forces of evil at bay. Dragon Quest. Fire Emblem. Advance Wars. Onimusha. Again, this point you've made screams of a lack of research and ignorance on the subject matter. It's as though you can't recall any Asian games that deal in moral clarity so dismiss the idea that some exist entirely.

Also there are very few games developed about a conflict where historically your side lost. As in very few US developed games about Vietnam and very few Asian developed games about WW2.
I mentioned some above, but there are a ton of games about the Vietnam war. So many. I don't know if you've personally played any, but it seems as though you haven't based on your, again, all too eager jump to saying few exist.

As for Japanese games about World War 2, Capcom's 1942 and its sequel jump to mind. After some Googling I found the Steel Knight games on the SNES (Super Famicom, I suppose), Barbarossa, also for the SNES, and Daisenryaku, a series that has been running since 1985. Not all entries are about World War 2, but many are. There are others, some developed in Japan, others published by Japanese companies. I have two points I want to make here. First, is that, again, my main issue here is the lack of research before making blanket statements phrased as facts. It's bad practice and makes for a weak argument that is easy to undermine. Second, it's not surprising that Asia makes fewer World War 2 games than the West, considering their role in the event was far from auspicious, to put it mildly. Japan in particular has been actively lying about its role in World War 2 since it ended, so it's no surprise they shy away from it in their media, or that when they do address it they focus primarily on the Americans, refelctive of Japan's attempts to endear and involve itself with America for decades. That second point doesn't go against what you're saying, I just think it's worth pointing out that, for the Japanese at least, there's more than just bias at play.

This also applies to science fiction games too. In most of them, the humanoid creatures are the good side and the weird non humanoid looking creatures are the evil that need eradicating. On a galactic scale, the developers believe we are the better species, which might not the true at all.
I don't agree with this entirely. There are plenty of examples of games which use aliens as generic monsters, but there are also plenty of games that portray aliens in a very positive light. Mass Effect leaps to mind with the Elcor and Hanar. Pretty much any Star Wars game, too. I'd say that the use of aliens in fiction is pretty much spot on with the use of humans in fiction. Ultimately, you can depict either as sympathitic or monstrous, it depends on your goals. Both are used prominently in all sci-fi media to the point I'd say it's not entirely fair to say aliens are used to portray humans specifically as "the better species".

In conclusion I do think most video game developers resort to a default of our side as good and their side as bad, and refuse to try and understand the other side of the conflicts. A lot of the time it's politically motivated or just a symptom of our snowflake culture.
I disagree with this conclusion. I don't think it's politically motivated in almost any case. An argument can be made by someone who isn't me that 'internalised politics' influence developers, but I think the bottom line is games are designed to be won and most people play to feel like a winner. It's that simple. There is no political agenda behind it. You make the player the good guy and the player will be more likely to enjoy your game. Basic narrative conventions going back literally thousands of years say the good guy should win in the end. So developers make games in which you play the good guy and you win, not to make some political statement or to reinforce a cultural paradign but because it's just the easiest way to make your player like your game.

This is a very nitpicky post (and that is going to continue below) but, honestly, I just couldn't let go of how much I feel everything above this conclusion doesn't feed into it. There's so much you said based on nothing, so much you could have found out with the minimum of research, and the whole thing could have been constructed in a way that made your point much more clearly. This is going to come up later, but you also waver on your conclusion. Here you say your point is that video games should explore the moral nuance around the concepts of 'good' and 'evil', 'good guys' and 'bad guys', yet in a later post you say your point is that developers should use groups other than the Nazis more often. I think this is indicative of the lack of focus on display here. You can do a better job of making clear what you are trying to say. As I noted a few times above, it's easy to read this as Nazi apologism. I know that it isn't, but it's not hard to read it that way.

It takes real guts to admit that at times your own side was on the wrong. It takes even more guts to impliment this truth into a video game.
To hit that last point once more, in the context of a post mainly talking about the Nazi regime, saying it takes guts to admit your side — as in the West — was wrong takes on a meaning I know you did not intend. I understand that you mean more games should have the player's moral position be more ambiguous, or challenge the idea that a given group is 'good', as it opens up the possibility to explore those concepts in a more involved and deeper way. It's just that, in the context of the full post, it's easy for some to read that the wrong way.

---

tl;dr I think it's important that we depict the Nazis as evil, and that we share stories of the unwilling Nazis and those who resisted. However, I don't think video games are the medium best suited to the latter. The frivolous use of Nazi as a smear in contemporary discourse is not the result of typical depictions of the Nazis.

Nazis became fiction entertainment's punching bag on the presumption that nazis were so heinous that no one could ever have a problem with wholesale slaughtering them.
Does anyone have a problem with slaughtering actual, literal Nazis? Is it a "presumption" that the Nazis were "heinous"? Is it in any way surprising that a group who gassed 6 million people to death on the basis of their ethnicity and waged war across all of Europe for their own glorification became the template for fictional villains in the post-war years? Cultures process events by telling stories about them, humans have done this for thousands of years. There's a reason entire cities being wiped out in a single explosion is almost entirely exclusive to Japanese fiction, for example. The societies that fought the Nazis were always going to tell stories about them for years, as a means to understand how Nazism could happen, why it was important to fight it, and to remind later generations of the lessons learnt without giving a history lecture.

A lot of works of fiction after the war were trying to make sense of and come to terms with what had happened. Later creators used Nazi stand-ins as a means to teach a generation with no first-hand experience of them why they were bad. The Empire in Star Wars, for instance. Voldemort in Harry Potter. Europe has been experienceing what is known as The Long Peace since 1945. It's been over seventy years since World War 2 ended. There hasn't been a major war between European nations since. Before World War 1 they happened all the goddamn time. Europe has been at peace for an unprecedented peroid of time. We are now on our fourth generation who were not alive while the Nazis ruled in Germany. Our fourth generation who have not needed to fight some war. If we don't have stories about the Nazis, or Nazi stand-ins, there's the real possibility that Europeans will no longer understand why they are so reviled. Why almost the entire continent and wider world rose up against them. They didn't become "fiction entertainment's punching bag" as a means to defame them or because it was simply easy and non-controversial, they became the punching bag because we need to learn and remember the lesson of that war. Too many people died for that lesson for us to go easy on them. Nazis deserve to be immortalised as the short-hand villain. Call me melodramatic, but Western cultures need that.

There is a dangerous problem with this approach, however. For one, it trivializes nazis. It turns them into cartoons and in effect trivializes what they did as well.
I disagree, I think it does the opposite. It presents the Nazis and their idealogy in ways that various audiences can digest and allows them to recognise why that ideology is a bad one. It contextualises the Nazis for an audience that has no first-hand experience of the reality. I've never known anyone who watched Star Wars as a child and didn't think fascism was reprehensible. Nor have I ever known anyone who read Harry Potter and thought Voldemort had some good ideas. Again, telling stories about the Nazis is important on a cultural level and plays a pivotal role in defending us from that ideology rising again.

Sure, what the nazis did was terrible and many of them did so willingly and had inexcusable motivations. For many others in Hitler's Germany it wasn't that simple. It makes people forget that nazis were actual people, real human beings like us who actually committed those unspeakable acts. It makes us begin to perceive them as some sort of unrelatable other and therefore in our minds it becomes easier to distance ourselves and our own human nature and behavior from them.
This is where I think you're deviating from the video game focus of the thread. As I sdaid in the above section, I think video games specifically are not well suited to exploring this aspect fo the Nazis. Movies and novels do a much better job. The German film Downfall is a particularly fantastic movie on this subject. It's about the final days of the third reich in Hitler's bunker. It doesn't make the Nazis sympthetic, but it shows them as human, and it's more chilling for it. I've not seen Das Boot myself but I have heard tell that it humanises the German submarine crew the film is about. @Kerest mentioned Oskar Schindler, and Schindler's List is another great movie on the subject of the Nazis who were pure evil. The Book Thief tells a somewhat similar story, of a German man and wife who take in the daughter of Communists and later a Jew fleeing persecution during the war. There have been a handful of films about Sophie Scholl, an anti-Nazi activist during the war who paid for her resistence with her life.

We have stories of the Nazi party members who defied Hitler's vision, of those German who resisted, who saved lives at the risk of their own. Many more will be told, and they should be told. I just don't think video games is the medium which should tell them. Again, not because I think it can't, but because I think it doesn't lend itself to doing it in a way that resonates as it should. Perhaps I'm simply not creative enough to envision how a game would approach such a theme. How would Schindler's List play as a game? Would it ever have the impact of the movie? While I would never criticise someone for trying, I do think that, to some extent at least, an artist should try to match subject with medium. I think this subject — the Nazis who weren't evil — doesn't match well with this medium — video games.

It makes us begin to perceive them as some sort of unrelatable other and therefore in our minds it becomes easier to distance ourselves and our own human nature and behavior from them. When that happens, it becomes woefully easy for people to go around ignorantly accusing anyone they simply disagree with of being this gross caricature. Bigots have a nasty habit of caricaturizing the subjects of their hatred to dehumanize them and make them less relatable and therefore more acceptable targets of their scorn. We see this with racist stereotypes like blackface, and especially with literal drawn cartoons.

And wouldn't you know it? There appears to be a rise in ignorant fools going around screeching accusations of "LITERAL NAZI!!" at everything that disagrees with them.
I understand what you're saying here, that by continually depicting Nazis as evil leads to a dehumanising effect, with Nazi becoming a charicatured concept that some people use to attack their opponents, and that's why we need more nuanced depictions of the Nazis. Because people are being called Nazis for seemingly anything these days. I... don't know exactly how I feel about this point, but I don't think I agree with you.

I hate how inappropriate labels are attached to people by their political opponents in an attempt to bring them down without engaging with their arguments. It fosters nothing but animosity and the actual arguments aren't being challenged which means no one is evaluating their own positions. This is something I have disagreed with @M107 on in a previous thread, that the best way to combat fascist ideas is to challenge them in public through debate. That's the best way you can explain and demonstrate why fascism is a bad idea and steer people away from it without needing a World War. I really think a World War is a bad thing to have. I think we should do what we can to not have another World War. I know M107 doesn't agree with me because he continued to imply that fascism should be utterly taboo in public discourse a few posts above me and I'll mention this again when I get to his post.

I don't think it's a triviliasation of Nazis that leads to this name-calling, I think it's this name-calling that trivialises the word Nazi. When we have Nazi depictions in media we're seeing what they did, what the believed. It's accurate, if dramatised, with obvious exceptions for things like Dead Snow where they're just zombies. But by calling people Nazis because they think Black Panther wasn't a good movie, or because they don't want Pete Hines to get on a high horse he hasn't earned at E3, name-callers conflate Nazism with trivial things.

The problem I have is that I don't think the solution to these cheap, non-argumentative smears is to play down the actual crimes of the actual Nazis. As I said above, I do think it is important for us to remeber that the Nazis were the bad guys. I also don't think repeating that point with Nazi stand-ins is harmful. The thing about the Nazis is that they were cartoonishly evil. Just... Just think about what it takes to gas six... million... people... to... death. To harvest their hair. To look at Poland and think "We'll just have it." To invade neutral Norway just so you can ship in enough oil to kill Russians by the millions. Jesus, Blofeld is a ****ing child compared to Nazi Germany. They didn't just attack their neighbours or try to take land. They did things that are beyond the comprehension of most people. Is it worth letting that very real aspect of the Nazis go untold just so Sargon of Akkad can have his Twitter account back?

I don't think the name-calling stems from Nazis being trivialised in our culture, I think it comes from people who think they're right not knowing how to engage with someone's ideas and arguments. Look at HBomberguy's recent (deleted) tweet in which he said there's no such thing as a 'moderate' and implied that the left is synonymous with correct and the right synonymous with incorrect. He does that because actually engaging with people is hard and he might have to, God forbid, defend his positions and justify them with actual arguments instead of a stupid bow tie and condescending smugness. He's a coward and that's why he calls people Nazis and white supremacists. He knows that he'd crumble in an actual debate so he hides being his block bots and strawmen. If you changed how Nazis are perceived by our culture it wouldn't change that aspect of his personality, he'd just use a different word. The problem of ignorant name-calling would still persist. And that's why I don't quite agree with you here.

---

tl;dr I think you've spiraled into a host of different topics tangentially related to the central point and it detracts from the clarity. I'm having a hard time envisioning the kind of video game depiction of Nazis you talk about, and I don't think we need to re-think how we portray them in media.

I also have a first hand source on the subject. As in somnoe who has literally talked to Nazis and Soviet Communists. My 90 year old Grandmother did that in the war. The Nazis kicked her and her family out of Poland and they had to move to Germany. Also post war they were in East Berlin so direct contact with Sovoet Communists. She was not a soldier in the war but she knows what it was like on the homefront at the time and how little freedonm the general populations had at the time.

Over the years she has talked about her times back then, and the conclusions she made were it was equally as dangerous being in Nazi Germany or in cold war Soviet Union. Not just Russia but the entire Iron Curtian. From East Berlin all the way to Moscow and beyond.
Your grandmother sounds like a remarkable woman. I'm not sure what point this reinforces, though. You said above that your point with this thread was that more games should explore ambiguous morals, but your grandmother's experiences seem best suited to supporting the idea that the Soviets were at least as bad as the Nazis, which leaves us with the idea that both were just 'bad guys'. It would fit with your later post that says your overall point is that groups other than the Nazis should be depicted in video games, but as I said before there are a plethora of games with the Soviet Union as the bad guys, so it's a conclusion that seems to be derived from a lack of research or knowledge of those games. I'm not trying to say either conclusion is faulty, just that you've provided little meaningful support for either as far as I see.

I think it's people treat Nazis the same as aliens in games, from a development standpoint. As in they treat both Nazis and aliens as something less than human. They don't realise that even the humans that partake in the most inhumane actions, are still human, no matter how bad their crimes are.
I must feel like I'm going over old ground again and again here. I know, I wear myself out, too, sometimes. Most video games aren't looking to tell a deep story, especially games about Nazis which are almost all based on World War 2. I don't think most developers make a decision to portray Nazis as less than human, I think most just need fodder enemies and in World War 2 that's the Nazis. Like I said above, I think most developers don't see any meaningful benefit to doing otherwise and so don't try.

But if we recognise that the humans depicted in such games are guilty of "the most inhumane actions" then what would a developer who wanted to explore these themes do? Yes, the Nazi is human, but he is also, as you say, partaking in inhumane actions. Should we... not fight him? Should we stay our hand and say "I recognise your humanity"? What exactly do you mean here by they "are still human"? My hang-up with this is that I take you to mean that merely being a human makes one worthy of sympathy, that merely being human in some way excuses, or at least lessens, cruel and evil acts. I can't say I agree with that. Humans are as capable of untold cruelty as they are untold generosity. Our humanity, as a concept, might be seen as our capacity to do good, and that by virtue of being human Nazis are capable of good and therefore can't be pure evil, no matter what they do, but I don't know if this is what you mean. In @Castle's post he made the destinction between the 'bad' Nazis and the 'good' Nazis, for want of better terms, but here you seem to suggest that even the 'bad' Nazis should not be viewed as bad, not entirely. I'm not sure if that's what you mean, and, if so, I'm not sure how a video game developer would depict this in a game that has you shooting these people to death.

Hating Nazis because they were Nazis is actually a dangerous line of though as you correctly identified. It's better to hate no person but hate their actions. This way we have a better frame of mind and can work towards making sure that these inhumane actions are stopped.
I'm... mixed on this point. Broadly, I agree that it is a person's actions that should be judged and scrutinised, as actions reveal a person's true character. But for many people, being a Nazi was an action. They chose to join the party, they chose to join the war machine, they chose to watch as Jews died by the millions. I understand that there are complex factors involved and non of us can say for certain that we, too, wouldn't be swept up in the zeitgeist of the time, but these were still actions those people chose to take. I don't know if I can sincerely excuse that.

Those who shout out "You are a literal Nazi" to anyone they do not like, have zero idea if what the Nazis did and zero respect for those who fought the Nazi regime to protect our freedoms.
I'm gonna come across as attacking you here and I don't intend that. My issue here is that you demonstrated a certain ignorance about the Nazis yourself earlier, specifically with the claim that the Nazis held far-left ideals. Again, I want to stress that the Nazis were not far-left, nor did they hold far-left ideals. The party was fervently dedicated to totalitarian control of the entire German society. They were staunch ethno-nationalists and believed labour should be organised so as to produce more for the state, not for the benefit of workers. Nothing about the Nazis was left-wing.

I feel this is the issue. A certain group of people find it easier to hate certain groups of people, calling them evil. It's easier to say they are evll and we can't be evil because we are not them. It's much harder to admit the truth and say anyone can be good and anyone can be evil. They refuse to entertain the potential that they or the people and/or nations they associate with have the potential to be evil. Only when they can accept this, can the issue start to be slowly worked on.
It feels like you're making a fairly specific point in a very vague way. Who's "they"? Are you talking about a specific group or are you talking more abstractly? I'm projecting things onto this paragraph and I'm not sure if what's in my head is what's in your head. Generally, though, I agree. As I said in my reply to @Castle (I don't know if this is going to Alert you for every time I tag you. if it does, I hope you don't freak out at 15,000 alerts), the kind of smear tactics you allude to here are indicative of an unwillingness or inability to engage with an actual argument. It's easier to dismiss your opponent as some generic term with purely negative connotations than to talk to them about things you don't like. This isn't limited to the word Nazi but obviously that's what led us all here.

This is why I like games that are about the main character struggling with what to do. Should they act all good and help everyone or should they act in a more evil selfish way and do whatever it takes to profit from their own actions. It's something every single person struggles with every single day. Of cause not on the extremes. We are not about to kill anyone. But imagine the following scenario.
"Should I buy thsi bar of chocolate for myself or should I spend the money on something for a friend or samily member or donate the money to charity."
We are talking like $2 here. Not much money. But the selfish vs good choice is there. If we can promote doing the right thing for these seemingly trivial issues, then when it really matters, we already have the right attitude and will put others first.
This example feels particularly weak considering how heavy the topic of the thread has been so far. It may have been a better choice to use an example from a video game to tie it into the overall topic and possibly suggest ways in which a game could explore the themes you've mentioned previously. I've had a bit of a tough time envisioning a game that depicts Nazis without defaulting to ones I've actually played, which are almost all first-person shooters. Because of that I can't quite see how such themes about moral ambiguity and the humanity of the Nazis could be approached in a meaningful way.

Also as an aside I think society in general finds it very difficult to be nice to people they personally do not like. Well a person or a group they like. A revenge culture. I hate you so I can't be nice to you. I don't mean turning the other cheek, I mean a fair go. This includes fair justice and doing the time for the crimes.

I think freedom of speech is a big issue here too. I hate you so I want to silence you. That as we both know leads to all kinds of bad things. The better way to go is - I will hear you out and afterwards I will hold your speech to account.
You say it yourself in the full post that you're going off topic, but you're just riffing at this point, like you've got a lot you want to say and not enough time to say it. Again, the issue is a lack of focus. I don't exactly know what you mean with any of these point here, and it may have been best to not bring them up at all until you found a way to relate them to the central point.

It's something we need to deal with as we are trivialising what they did almost a century ago due to desensitising ourselves through the continuing slaughter of them in games were we treat them as less than human scum that are only bullet sponges getting in the way of whatever objective the game wants us to achieve.
Going back to what I said above, I don't think the trivialisation of the word Nazi, or the Nazis as a group, is caused by media depictions of Nazis as one-note bad guys. I think depicting the Nazis as clear villains is accurate and important. I don't think it's worthwhile to go easy on them in the interest of ending some name-calling that will continue no matter what. I also don't think more nuanced depictions are necessary to recognise that not all Nazis were like that, though I again would lean towards movies and novels as the more appropriate media for sympathetic depictions of Nazis as those media can better explore the ideas and nuance than a video game can, or perhaps more accurately than a video game will.

---

tl;dr You don't understand centrism. You don't understand this thread. You lack any self-awareness. You know literally nothing about terrorism. You live in a fantasy world. Your ideas on combating fascism will literally kill people. Stop.

This thread is a dumpster fire. Just apologists/extreme centrists *****ing about Nazis getting targeted as enemies in fictional media (or the real world for that matter) though I guess this isn't surprising.
Emphasis mine. What in the world is an "extreme" centrist? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't help but read this as you believing a centrist is someone who stands in the middle of both left and right on each and every issue. If that is the case then, please, I implore you to understand that 'centrists' are not people who think both sides should be placated. Centrists are people who have left wing views on certain issues and right wing views on others. The term centrist comes from where these people land on a political compass, i.e. in the centre.

Let me give an example I hope will illustrate my point. There's a cartoon that leftists share amongst themselves to mock centrists that reveals their gross ignorance of political discourse. It has a group of Klansmen on one side holding signs saying "Kill all Blacks" and on the other side a group of black people holding signs saying "We want civil rights". In the middle is a guy holding a sign saying "Compromise?" I'm sure you've seen it on Twitter or elsewhere.

The mistake being made here is the belief that a centrist wants to compromise between both groups, perhaps by giving black people some civil rights and only killing some of them. This is so patently absurd that if this is how you view centrists then God help you. Centirsts take sides. Centirsts would either stand with the group of black people demanding their civil rights, or stand with the Klan demnding their heads. They aren't literally in the centre. A centrist is someone who supports universal healthcare but want tighter immigration control. Left wing on one issue, right wing on another. A centrist is someone who wants free university tuition for all, and supports the right of citizens to own guns. Left wing on one issue, right wing on another. Centrists pick sides. The thing that makes them centrists is that they don't always pick the same side. What the hell is an "extreme" centrist? Would you even be able to explain to me what that means without sounding ridiculous?

As for the part about this thread being complaints that Nazis are enemies in video games, you are the exact reason I even replied to this because I knew you would accuse @the8thark and @Castle of being Nazi apologists. This thread is not complaining that Nazis are enemies in video games. The thread is asking if the continual depiction of Nazis as enemies is having a negative effect in the world. I personally don't think it is. Castle and the8thark do. Congratulations, you missed the point entirely.

And then there's you're little aside about Nazis in the real world being targeted. Again, no one is complaining about that. The mention of real world accusations of Nazism is in relation to people being called Nazis for things that are utterly unrelated to Nazism or even right-wing politics. Congratulations, you missed the point entirely. Instead of making any kind of honest attempt to understand what has been said in the thread and asking questions to clarify points you don't quite understand you instead did the exact thing that was singled-out as a negative consequence of media depictions of Nazis. Congratulations, you played yourself.

Holy God. It's not often I see a single sentence that makes my head spin so much.

Hating and ****ting on Nazis isn't dangerous, but allowing their ideas of creating a white ethnostate through genocide, mass deportations and racial segregation to proliferate and frolic certainly is as evident by the most deadliest terrorists attacks in recent history.
Emphasis mine.

Not even close. I know you have a thing for pretending terrorists are mostly white but there are a few things you absolutely refuse to understand. I'll go through them.

1. Terrorism is a very specific thing. It is the use of violence and threat against civilians to achieve a political aim. School shootings, for example, do not qualify as terrorism because they have no political aim.

2. When white people do it it is called terrorism. The attack on the Christchurch mosque in New Zealand is called a terrorist attack, precisely because it was the use of violence, against civilians, for a political aim. No one pretends it wasn't terrorism. No one.

3. All of the deadliest terror attacks since 9/11 have been committed by Islamic factions against other Islamic factions in Islamic countries. In 2017, 95 people in the USA died as the result of a terrorist attack. You know how many died in Iraq? Of course you don't. It was 6,476.

In 2016 it was 12,207. Pakistan had 1,113. Nigeria 2,165. Somalia 1,583. Turkey 1,006. The USA? 68. The only year the USA had more deaths due to terrorism than a plethora of African, Middle Eastern and Asian nations was 2001. I'm sure you remember what happened that year.

I don't single-out Islamic groups to make some blanket statement, though I'm sure you'll still decide I'm racist no matter what. I mention it because you seem to have this thing for wanting to connect terrorism with white people, with the far-right, with these Nazis you think are committing the "deadliest terrorist attacks in recent history." I'm here to tell you that your entire view of terrorisim is so ignorant that you have nothing to offer to the conversation. If you think neo-nazis and far-right extremists are the worst terrorists then you don't know a thing about terrorism. Stop talking about it.

Terrorist attacks that didn't get treated as such because of this nonsensical view that Nazism is a legitimate harmless idea worthy of discussion.
Christchurch is regarded as a terrorist attack by ****ing everyone. If you honestly believe otherwise then seek professional help. Seriously. No one is claiming it isn't a terrorist attack because the guy wasn't a Muslim. No one thinks Timothy McVeigh wasn't a terrorist. No one thinks Ted Kacczynski wasn't a terrorist. What are you even talking about?

No one thinks Nazism is harmless. Even actual neo-Nazis view it as harmful, they just see it as harming people they want harmed. You think making it illegal to talk about far-right views publically will make it go away. You are ****ing delusional. One of the most constant lessons of history is that when you try to suppress something, you make it stronger. The reason why is because those who believe an idea that they are forbidden from having go underground, they form their own groups away from the eyes of the public and they radicalise in their little bubble until they decide to do something about the problems they percieve. That is how you get a Christchurch shooting. Your way of dealing with bad idealogies will literally get people killed stop thinking this way you are not helping anything.

Jesus. ****ing. Christ. You seem to operate under the belief that allowing someone to say soemthing right wing will instantly turn everyone who hears it right wing. How little faith in humanity do you have? You know what actually happens? They get told why they're full of **** and to go **** themselves. I've already talked to you about the BNP and how allowing them on national television is the direct cause of their demise as a far-right party. Ever heard of Enoch Powell? British politician, gave a speech in the 60s about immigration. It's called the "Rivers of Blood" speech. It ended his political career. This is what happens when right wing views are aired in public. The public rejects them. You would rather silence right wing voices so you can live in the fantasy world that everyone thinks the same way you do. Then you'll act surprised when a gunman murders a bunch of innocent people in cold ****ing blood. Get a clue. Stop calling people Nazis because they don't have the same 5-year-old understanding of the world you do.

---

tl;dr I think Wolfenstein 2 was unnecessarily politicised. The thread feels unfocused due to a lack of concrete central point.

Both sides hating on each other and totally ignoring the actual issues at play. Both the developers advertising the game on twitter as well as those replying playing the victim mentality game.
I don't know if I agree that the developers are playing a victim game, but they are playing into the political climate surrounding the game's release. That's where a lot of the upset around Wolfenstein 2 came from. While Wolfenstein has always been about fighting literal Nazis (up to and including Hitler) it's always been very over-the-top and pulpy. It was never trying to be a serious war story. Wolfenstein 2 was heavily politicised, though, as if it were some important piece of media about fascism. Pete Hines's self-rightousness at E3 was pathetic. "Nazis are bad", way to break new ground politically. It's that attitude I think a lot of people were upset over, like they were doing something new and brave.

Also this whole topic is not about hating Nazis being depicted as the enemy in fictional media. It's about Nazis being over represented here. I'm not saying Nazis shouldn't be depicted as the enemy. I just feel there should be some more diversity in who the enemy is. Be it Communists or random terror groups or evil aliens or whoever, a little variety is always a good thing.
I don't disagree with this, it's just not the conclusion you laid out in your OP, though the OP does have a lot that feeds into this, particularly at the start. This is a big part of why I feel as though the topic was unfocused. It's as though you got sidelined while trying to make this point in order to make a different point you also feel strongly about. Things like this are what i think contributes to the way in which some people read the post as something it isn't.

---

tl;dr Communists suck but some people think they might not so the idea hangs around. Nazi means something specific and shouldn't be used frivolously.

I don't have a problem with Nazi's being used as villains. I think they make very good enemies in media. Some of the best in fact. They have a logo recognised by all, they wear cool uniforms and of course their leader has a very distinct look and is very well known. You don't need to add backstory if you've got Hitler as a villain in your game because everyone knows it. Its like when you had Ganondorf in TP, he didn't need a massively fleshed out backstory because everyone knows Ganondorf and he has a automatic villainous prescence to any Zelda fan. Just like Hitler has to any western child because they are taught about the horrors of Nazism in schools.
This is part of why I think most developers don't give much thought to trying to add nuance to their depictions of the Nazis. Pretty much everyone already has such a strong idea of them in their mind that you don't need to do much in order for them to be an effective villain in a video game. Challenging that idea, particularly in a game most people will likely be playing to just shoot bad guys, is unlikely to go down well with the bulk of the audience I think.

In real life many people or groups being labeled as Nazi's do not believe in national socialism or even the supremacy of the Aryan race which are prerequisites of being a proper Nazi.
This is the problem with calling people Nazis for not wanting paper straws or for wanting Western storytellers to acknowledge the sacrifices and bravery of those who lived under the Nazi regime by saving the lives of Jews and then posting about it on a Zelda forum. It ignores what Nazism actually is. It's a specific thing, not an umbrella term for right wing. It's the people using the word in such a reckless and carefree manner who are, in my view, trivialising the Nazis. It's born not only fro the ignorance of Nazism but the ignorance of not wanting to engage with ideas or arguments.

I do wish that communism was as generally disliked and seen in the same light as Nazism. Communism is kind of seen as the cool totalitarian regime. If you are American or British neither you nor your ancestors had to suffer under it or fight against it. But likely your ancestors fought against Nazism.
I think a contributing factor to why Communism isn't viewed universally as a bad thing is because the underlying ideals are not inherently bad things. Nazism is about racial purity and complete state control. Communism is, ostensibly, about egalitarianism and wealth equality. In that regard it has similarities with other, more palatable political theories and it leads many to say that if Communism can just be done 'right' then it'll work. In contrast, there is no 'right' form of Nazism. It is the dominance of one race over all others with suppression of freedom and social coercion at every level.

This would also be why commies are not often the enemies in games. Their presence just doesnt evoke the same feeling in the player. They don't give off that evil presence that Nazis do.
I agree to a point. What I would say is that the Soviets specifically kind of fit the bill better than just Communists. There's associated iconography, an overall aesthetic, a historical conflict within living memory. Hell, the Soviet Union was still standing when I was born, though not for long (you're welcome everyone). I don't think it's any surprise that the majority of the time Communists are the enemy in a video game it's specifically the Soviet Union.

---

God. I'm sorry.
 

Castle

Ch!ld0fV!si0n
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Location
Crisis? What Crisis?
Gender
Pan-decepticon-transdeliberate-selfidentifying-sodiumbased-extraexistential-temporal anomaly
The thing about the Nazis is that they were cartoonishly evil.
Nazi Germany was not cartoonishly evil. It was humanly evil. Cartoons didn't do those terrible things. Human beings did.

Jesus, Blofeld is a ****ing child compared to Nazi Germany.
See? Now you're comparing Nazis to Blofeld, a literal cartoon villain. There is no comparison between these two things. To make such a comparison is disingenuous and dare I say disrespectful.

Blofeld didn't extort world governments, carry out clandestine assassinations, maim and torture innocents and carry out terrorist acts because Blofeld doesn't exist. Blofeld is a work of fiction. Nazis did exist and they really did do all those terrible things they're said to have committed. To compare what someone or something actually did to something that happened in a game of make believe is at the very least bordering on problematic or even outright dangerous when suddenly people cannot discern a distinction between the two.

Then, as I have already stated, it becomes all too easy for some people to continue to play make believe and ascribe the terrible things someone actually did to someone who has not done such things and never even intends to.

I don't think it's worthwhile to go easy on them
I also don't think more nuanced depictions are necessary
For the matter, and because this is a major point you continue to bring up @Cfrock , I am not suggesting we "go easy" on nazis nor do I think "more nuanced depictions" are necessary. Nuanced depictions of nazis are fine, I suppose, like your aforementioned examples of Das Boot and Schildler's list are two I'm most familiar with, but I am in no ways demanding that every depiction of nazis in fiction explore their humanity or downplay what they did.

All I'm saying is that depicting nazis as human punching bags that the same sort of unspeakable things they inflicted upon others can be done to just on the general unspecified basis that their ideology is terrible trivializes them. The resulting dehumanization of nazis as caricatures then makes it easier for bigots to personify others as nazis simply for not agreeing with them.

Naturally, being bigots, this is what nazis and those who follow their ideology did (and do). Putting nazis on the receiving end of their self same bigotry might seem like some sort of karmic justice, but it really only helps us feel better about the awful things they did. Unfortunately, the practice has somewhat dire repercussions.

To my point that this dehumanizing and trivializing of nazis is used by bigots to caricaturize people they disagree with as nazis, granted I haven't the time to read your entire post right now but nowhere did I see you refute the point that trivializing nazis in fiction or in history has this effect on people. You claim that depicting nazis as they have been in fiction is acceptable and that video games aren't the medium for more nuanced depictions, which seems to simply be a matter of personal preference since I haven't read where you have backed up those claims, but I will disagree with you on them - especially on the matter of video games being some sort of seemingly arbitrary exception.

It is generally understood why bigots caricaturize the subjects of their hatred. If simple observation of history is insufficient then one may delve into the mountains of psychological research done on the matter. The act of dehumanizing makes the hatred and violence directed at them more palatable because it bypasses human empathy by creating the perception that the subjects are not human. You can't empathize with it if it's not human. It may as well be a dog or a cockroach or an alien from outer space. This is why racist stereotypes exist. The bigot can even blanket this caricature over anyone who even remotely resembles aspects of the caricature. This is how we end up with numbskulls on twitter accusing Jewish people of being nazis :fpalm:

If some of your points have been lost on me @Cfrock then I'm sorry. I simply lack the time right now to give this discussion the attention it deserves. I'll review it more carefully later. You likely will have responded by then anyway. :D
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
A centrist is someone who supports universal healthcare but want tighter immigration control. Left wing on one issue, right wing on another.
Right. All without failing to see the contradictions inherent in holding both of these view points at the same time, and how healthcare and immigration are intermingled with each other. You'd make it easier for 'natural' citizens to get healthcare but you'd deny or make immigrant families jump through hoops to get that same healthcare and would be completely content with that decision. For example, Sally is an undocumented immigrant who has tuberculosis, but because of tighter immigration control her chances of treatment are jeopardized by threat of being handed over to immigration enforcement. Thus, she refuses to seek treatment which not only risks her own health but that of the entire population. That's the compromise. That's the point of this image that you're referring to.

Centrists might support civil rights, but would still think it's OK to allow the KKK to exist who will work to undermine those civil rights and ultimately intimidate and harass people of color. Then those same centrists want to act surprised when a KKK member shoots up a mosque or church.
 

Deus

~ ZD's Pug Dealer ~
ZD Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Gingerblackmexicanjew
Centrists might support civil rights, but would still think it's OK to allow the KKK to exist who will work to undermine those civil rights and ultimately intimidate and harass people of color. Then those same centrists want to act surprised when a KKK member shoots up a mosque or church.
Those people are entitled to believe what they want, so long as they don't harass or murder anybody they aren't doing anything. There are laws against those things. Remember Islam teaches homosexuals should be stoned. Not extremist Islam. Regular old Islam followed by over a billion people. And they don't all go out stoning gays even though that is what they believe the punishment should be.

The state should never have a say over what people are allowed to think. That is just fascism rearing its head again. And if they can do it to one group they can do it to anybody. It must not be tolerated even against groups we don't like.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Gender
Feel free to use what pronouns you want. I use both sexed pronoun sets interchangeably.
Centrists might support civil rights, but would still think it's OK to allow the KKK to exist who will work to undermine those civil rights and ultimately intimidate and harass people of color. Then those same centrists want to act surprised when a KKK member shoots up a mosque or church.
You realize this is almost, word-for-word, a common argument that was once used against African Americans gaining equal rights, right? Just change out "Centrists" for "Liberals," "KKK" for "n******", "people of color" for "white women," and "mosque" for "home." Then you'll have the same exact argument my racist grandpa used to make.

Is this really what modern liberalism has come to? Slapping fresh coats of progressive paint on old racist arguments?
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
You realize this is almost, word-for-word, a common argument that was once used against African Americans gaining equal rights, right? Just change out "Centrists" for "Liberals," "KKK" for "n******", "people of color" for "white women," and "mosque" for "home." Then you'll have the same exact argument my racist grandpa used to make.

Is this really what modern liberalism has come to? Slapping fresh coats of progressive paint on old racist arguments?
Pretty much just the opposite. You do realize that reactionaries inverse actual happenings as a gaslighting tactic right?

I didn't drive into the back of your stopped vehicle because I wasn't paying attention. You just backed into me. Remember?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom