Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

"Should Actors Play the Roles of Racists, Slavers and Nazis?"

I've read these articles before, and I vehemently disagree. Won't get into details, but essentially there are good people and bad people. History itself is neutral, but people can warp it and use it for good or bad. This applies to basically every other medium or hobby. Wargaming has helped me learn so much about geography and history and has led to a lifelong love for learning about languages and cultures of other countries which has led to greater empathy and understanding when I deal with people who aren't native to my region.

Aye, if I'm playing an East Front game I know the SS is Nazi. How do I know that? Because I read the history. The game didn't make me know the SS was a Nazi organization. It merely pointed me to the books that told me. I also know that not every German was a Nazi or anti Semite. If it were not for a game I may not have known any of this. So, should the books be banned since they were the pregenitor of the game? The written word as history is what made the games possible in the first place. If I read a book about slavery am I guilty of promoting slavery?

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

An interesting article that recently appeared on The New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/styl ... SdJWTwuWdU

It is worth noting how the "Scramble for Africa" is basically the theme of the second expansion for Paradox's "Victoria 2" (titled "Heart of Darkness") - and how at the time no one objected.

Personally, I just hope that we are not entering in a #metoo (*) movement towards boardgames and wargames - both tabletop and digital. It would be retrograde, damaging and, IMHO, futile.

Please, let's keep the discussion civil and apolitical, as mandated by the forum rules.

(*) Just to be clear, I support the #metoo movement for women's rights.

warspite1

So Victoria 2 was binned because of the subject matter.

I am not a huge fan of censorship – and certainly not in the exploration of history - but I can certainly understand why this game – the way it appears to have been described – could be seen as less than ideal for gaming in the 21st Century.

So what’s the difference between playing the Germans in World In Flames or the Japanese in WITP-AE and the Belgians in Victoria 2? Well in neither WWII game are the Axis players rewarded for atrocities committed or how quickly and efficiently the Final Solution can be implemented. In other words, the games are focused on the military angle.

Yes Victoria 2 apparently had rewards for ending slavery and penalties for atrocities but presumably players can also choose to forego the rewards and take the penalty as there is likely to be other knock-on events.

I think one of – if not the - biggest problem with all these types of thing is the unknown of who decides what is acceptable and what is not?

Is it beyond the realms of imagination that in future some self-important, ignorant career politician would demand the banning of, for example, all US Civil War games – even those that concentrate solely on the military aspect – on the basis that ‘surely no one would want to play the ‘evil’ south’ and if they did then they must obviously be an inherent racist…..’.

There is nothing that politicians and preening self-promoting 'celebrities' love more than a cause. But only if that cause is an easy target. Middle-aged wargamers with a military history fixation are about as easy a target as they can get [;)]

And apologies if that moved into the political arena but let's be honest, the motivation for this type of thing is political first and foremost.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
RFalvo69, the way you phrased your question is inherently illogical.

Your pleas to keep the discussion apolitical while giving two examples of politics cited makes it difficult to understand what the bounds of the discussion are to be. How can we be apolitical if you avow your support for the (political) #metoo movement and decry the politics inherent in a political (Nazi) party?

As I pointed out, I don't feel the need of a #metoo movement *in games*. And I posted my message after a movement of protest *actually caused the cancellation of a game*. We are not talking about hypotheticals: it happened.

No. I want for my freedom of choice *in gaming* to be preserved: if a game offends me it is up to me to vote with my wallet and maybe sink it - not to some "concerned citizens" who probably never even read the rulebook.

I mentioned the #metoo movement for women rights only because I felt the need to underline how we are applying the concept to different fields - one of which I support. End of the story.

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes Victoria 2 apparently had rewards for ending slavery and penalties for atrocities but presumably players can also choose to forego the rewards and take the penalty as there is likely to be other knock-on events.

How can you separate Victoria 2 from the likes of games that are all about murdering people. At least Victoria 2 does not reward people with real world money for playing a game based solely on murder: "Epic makes ‘Fortnite’ biggest esport in the world with $100 million in prize money"

Censorship in this case is based only on popularity.

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
No. I want for my freedom of choice *in gaming* to be preserved: if a game offends me it is up to me to vote with my wallet and maybe sink it - not to some "concerned citizens" who probably never even read the rulebook.

I totally agree and feel the same way. Why not just say this instead of some convoluted allegory expressing why your discussion of a political movement that you support had any relevance to this point?

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


I totally agree and feel the same way. Why not just say this instead of some convoluted allegory expressing why your discussion of a political movement that you support had any relevance to this point?

I think he was trying to be very careful walking in a minefield. At best just avoiding some BS on this forum, and at worst preventing the "Lets get him fired" mentality that these "do-gooder" parasites often have.

So, let me see if I understand the POV of those would-be censors.

We can't play wargames from *anywhere* that are depicting conflicts dated pre-1850. Because those may portray some benefit to the global and pervasive practice of slavery.

We can't play the Southern Confederacy in the US Civil War because of their espousal of States' Rights and the ongoing practice of slavery. We can't play the Nazis in games set in WWII. We shouldn't play the Japanese either. Or the US, what with firebombing of German and Japanese cities. The British? Don't make me laugh-see my explanation for the US. Plus, much of the British commonwealth was built upon the practice of slavery-see Jamaica and the West Indies. So no Commonwealth forces.

We probably shouldn't play anything Communist, whether that's Stalin's Soviet Union or more modern China in a Segue to the Korean War. Same with NVA in Vietnam.

We probably shouldn't play any country on Earth because of inherent racism at some point or the other in their history.

And war as a concept and practice is a terrible venture that isn't appropriate to discuss, play games with or practice. We should go into the next war blind, deaf and naive and learn nothing from history other than that which the liberal MSM squeals at us incessantly.

I've heard iterations of this story off and on for 30 years. Always by those that think their political torch du jour is the most important thing ever and that those who think differently should be silenced, banned or cut off.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

So, let me see if I understand the POV of those would-be censors.

We can't play wargames from *anywhere* that are depicting conflicts dated pre-1850. Because those may portray some benefit to the global and pervasive practice of slavery.

We can't play the Southern Confederacy in the US Civil War because of their espousal of States' Rights and the ongoing practice of slavery. We can't play the Nazis in games set in WWII. We shouldn't play the Japanese either. Or the US, what with firebombing of German and Japanese cities. The British? Don't make me laugh-see my explanation for the US. Plus, much of the British commonwealth was built upon the practice of slavery-see Jamaica and the West Indies. So no Commonwealth forces.

We probably shouldn't play anything Communist, whether that's Stalin's Soviet Union or more modern China in a Segue to the Korean War. Same with NVA in Vietnam.

We probably shouldn't play any country on Earth because of inherent racism at some point or the other in their history.

And war as a concept and practice is a terrible venture that isn't appropriate to discuss, play games with or practice. We should go into the next war blind, deaf and naive and learn nothing from history other than that which the liberal MSM squeals at us incessantly.

I've heard iterations of this story off and on for 30 years. Always by those that think their political torch du jour is the most important thing ever and that those who think differently should be silenced, banned or cut off.

There's also the point that wargames can be a valuable tool for the exploration of history. Did the Confederacy have no chance, as proponents of the "Lost Cause" have argued, or did they throw away golden opportunities such as the aftermath of Chickamauga? Could the Allies have invaded Japan and obtained a surrender with casualties fewer than the atomic bombs? (Some 40 years ago, the Smithsonian was urged to display an estimate of 50,000 fatalities for a conventional invasion in its display of the a-bomb missions, a preposterously low number.) If we can only play politically correct games, we'll be mostly playing science fiction. (Which isn't bad of itself, but we'll have to give up a lot.)

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

How do you define racism anyways?

I refer you to a dictionary

Is it the definition of old or is it the newfangled 'definition' whereby anybody can be called a racist for anything at all?

Start discussions about definition of words (you did that). Smack newfangled with the dictionary, big and hard one preferred. In forums, Twitter, and the likes, link to Wikipedia like I do here. It may prove to be useless against stubborn forum moderators and administrators who think/claim that mention of spanking is worse than mention of killing and wars, and is something sexual related

I'll show them, as soon as my temporary ban (30 days) is up and can post again

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes Victoria 2 apparently had rewards for ending slavery and penalties for atrocities but presumably players can also choose to forego the rewards and take the penalty as there is likely to be other knock-on events.

How can you separate Victoria 2 from the likes of games that are all about murdering people. At least Victoria 2 does not reward people with real world money for playing a game based solely on murder: "Epic makes ‘Fortnite’ biggest esport in the world with $100 million in prize money"

Censorship in this case is based only on popularity.

warspite1

There are a couple of things here:

a) How can I separate them? I didn't make any mention of games like Fortnite. What in my post makes you think I have?

b) Censorship is based on popularity. Yes and that was exactly one of the points I made. You try and get a politician or 'celebrity' to stick his/her head above the parapet and ban GTA or Fortnite. It isn't going to happen - but military wargames? Yeah, easy target, less popular and so no problem.

The wall thread was closed up, wow. This one has been allowed legs to run? confusing policy.

ORIGINAL: Zap

The wall thread was closed up, wow. This one has been allowed legs to run? confusing policy.

warspite1

But we are wargamers and this article is about an aspect that genuinely threatens the future existence of the wargames we play. It would be really interesting to hear Erik and co's take on this subject too.

Guys?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

b) Censorship is based on popularity. Yes and that was exactly one of the points I made. You try and get a politician or 'celebrity' to stick his/her head above the parapet and ban GTA or Fortnite. It isn't going to happen - but military wargames? Yeah, easy target, less popular and so no problem.

China has banned a number of popular games. Don't know is Fortnite among them, but some other big names certainly are.

[edit]
In USA there has been several attempts against Grand Theft Auto series and those have failed spectacularly.

ORIGINAL: Zap

The wall thread was closed up, wow. This one has been allowed legs to run? confusing policy.

i'm keeping an eye or 2 on it and tbh have copied most of the edits also, just in case admin wishes to close it and see what was written first time etc as per normal, as everybody who's comments so far knows better and the rules in full

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: warspite1

b) Censorship is based on popularity. Yes and that was exactly one of the points I made. You try and get a politician or 'celebrity' to stick his/her head above the parapet and ban GTA or Fortnite. It isn't going to happen - but military wargames? Yeah, easy target, less popular and so no problem.

In USA there has been several attempts against Grand Theft Auto series and those have failed spectacularly.

warspite1

Exactly.