The ethical considerations of playing COH2

Lol, killed because he is a Jew. Stalin killed Trotsky and killed a bunch of senior officials and the military - because he was paranoid and afraid of a coup, although there was no Trotsky conspiracy.

You also ignore the fact that the Holocaust is not the murder of Jews. This is the murder of all those races that were considered inferior: Belorussians, Russians, Ukrainians, Polyaks, Gypsies were also killed. The Encyclopaedia of Genocide estimates the number of victims of the Slavic genocide, the citizens of the USSR, at 15.5–19.5 million people. Rummel believes that about 3 million Ukrainians died, about 1.4 million Belarusians, about 1.6 million Russians (not counting Soviet prisoners of war). The historian Bohdan Wytwycky believes that more than a quarter of all victims of the Nazi occupation of the USSR (in particular, 3 million Ukrainians and 1.5 million Belarusians) were destroyed on racial grounds.

So does any of that factor into your morale compass when playing the game?

So does any of that factor into your morale compass when playing the game?

I am Russian - I play for the Soviet Union. It's simple. And I like the look of Soviet tanks and weapons - they are very beautiful.

I am Russian - I play for the Soviet Union. It's simple. And I like the look of Soviet tanks and weapons - they are very beautiful.

This is how i feel when i knock out Soviet armour with my Shermans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WZbnMf13D0

Just like no one plays FPS because they want to shoot up a school. No one plays COH because of WW2.

It is because the mechanics of the games work the best using the human interface for that genre.

FPS move forward and mash shoot button. This mechanic is simple and anyone can immediately grasp the concept. Wolfenstein to Quake to Fortnight everyone gets it and it feels right.

Side scrollers like Mario, work great on keyboard or controller. Move left or right, mash jump button. Hit head or jump and get immediate feedback and interaction with the world.

COH works because WW2 was a clear cut, good vs evil scenario. As said war sucks balls and no one wins. However, the weapons were modern enough to be interesting, but not modern enough to be ridiculous sci-fi garbage. You got guys with rifles. Guys with MGs. Mortars. AT guns. Anyone can figure out what is happening on the screen without reading a manual or having a friend describe that the big orc guys spray juice on people if they are yellow. So in this case teh mechanical interface is not simple. But the pieces you interact with make sense and are not ridiculous. Most of us also grew up with the plastic little green army men so it is ingrained in us

Moving from Lobby to Scrap Yard

@ contributors: This type of thread can produce 'excited' responses. Please try to self-moderate, so that the Moderators do not have to do so for you. .

What are your feelings on playing a game based on a world war were 70-85 million people died?

Do you think it is wrong that you can play as Nazis? When you play as them do you respect them, enjoy them?

Do you think WW2 era Germany has been glamorised in COH2?

How do you feel about the wermacht's actions in real life, does that not put you off playing them?

That reminds me: I want the OKW announcer to say "Honor Guard ready for action" with a fanatical voice again when Obersoldaten arrive (like he did in beta), instead of the lame, neutral "Combat Unit ready" that we get to hear now.

At least let me feel that I am playing cold-blooded aryan hollywood monsters when I play this!

CoH 1 at least made 50% of germans into fat snowmen that looked more like parodies straight out of these wartime disney propaganda movies (see CoH 1 grenadiers and wehr weapon crews). By doing that they made it clear that noone's supposed to like these evil germans. In order not to offend anyone, you better dehumanize ze germans a little bit or make them a bit ugly. That way, everyoe can feel good about themselves. Many games or movies do so . I suppose influential people in media like it when this happens.

Just like no one plays FPS because they want to shoot up a school. No one plays COH because of WW2.

It is because the mechanics of the games work the best using the human interface for that genre.

FPS move forward and mash shoot button. This mechanic is simple and anyone can immediately grasp the concept. Wolfenstein to Quake to Fortnight everyone gets it and it feels right.

Side scrollers like Mario, work great on keyboard or controller. Move left or right, mash jump button. Hit head or jump and get immediate feedback and interaction with the world.

COH works because WW2 was a clear cut, good vs evil scenario. As said war sucks balls and no one wins. However, the weapons were modern enough to be interesting, but not modern enough to be ridiculous sci-fi garbage. You got guys with rifles. Guys with MGs. Mortars. AT guns. Anyone can figure out what is happening on the screen without reading a manual or having a friend describe that the big orc guys spray juice on people if they are yellow. So in this case teh mechanical interface is not simple. But the pieces you interact with make sense and are not ridiculous. Most of us also grew up with the plastic little green army men so it is ingrained in us

Well you say it was a clear cut good vs evil scenario (and to me personally it seems like that) but from what i have gathered from peoples responses that dividing line between good and evil was not as clear as we like to think, from the atrocities of the soviet union to the atomic bombing by America. But i agree, mens fascination with the war stems from playing with soldiers as kids and all the glamorous Hollywood movies we all loved growing up. War is ingrained into us and i guess has been since the dawn of civilisation.

It's war, people die in it, and no one 100% follows the rules of it either. Whoever wins also decides what to do with the loser. Been that way for millions of years.

There is good and bad about all sides, nitpicking one side will most likely skew your thinking exponentially.

No ethics involved when on any side, you can throw flame on people.

Atrocities have been committed in all wars. In WW II, I can point to the Battan Death March, Dresden, Pearl Harbor, what the Soviets did on the Western Front, what the SS did in the occupation of Poland, etc., etc.

There is no right part in murder. The idea there are 'Rules of War'; in which one form of murder is somehow morally justifiable to another is ludicrous.

Personally, I had a great Uncle who went MIA as an officer in the Waffen SS during the Poland invasion, and I had a grandfather who fought in the Philippanes as a Marine, and my stepgrandfather was gravely wounded at the Battle of The Bulge when a Sherman tank right next to him. He died of old age with six pieces of shrapnel still in his back (they dug out about 20 pieces). He could barely walk, but he was an electrician for 30 years and never took a dime of VA money.

The point being, that all of these men were asked to do a difficult job and they did it. With that job came certain responsibilities and consequences.

My favorite book on the matter is All Quiet On The Western Front. Its set in WWI, but was written by someone who was there, and in my opinion, one of the greatest fictionalized accounts of war I've ever seen. There was a movie that was made with the same title starring Ernest Borginine.

In conclusion, I don't think there really is a ethical consideration if you're just fantasizing about being a commander of a military and enjoy out thinking a rival player. If that was the case, chess is racist because a white army is fighting a black army, and the white army gets to go first. xD

In conclusion, I don't think there really is a ethical consideration if you're just fantasizing about being a commander of a military and enjoy out thinking a rival player. If that was the case, chess is racist because a white army is fighting a black army, and the white army gets to go first. xD

+1
Watch this comedy making fun of the logical fallacies in "Woke games":



The only ethical question to worry about;
1)When do games become propaganda?
2)Lazy game design or intentional manipulative?


There is a valid argument the CoH2 Eastern Front campaign plot/story is anti-soviet propaganda.
Maybe not historical inaccurate, but unfortunately the narrative design doesn’t humanize the Russians similar to Band of Brothers did with the Germans (see below).
This perceived "Relic bias" angered a lot of Russian WW2 fans which was hoping for a "neutral" BoB story/plot and not Company of Villains. They then review bombed the game on steam/metacritic..

CoH1 avoided those controversies by staying relatively neutral in the narrative design similar to Band of Brothers.
A few BoB clips where the plot/story tries to humanize the German soldiers as “Brothers in Arms” which fit the CoH brand perfectly;



The next clip could make a great "CoH3" substory that humanize the German fighter pilots:



So to conclude I don’t see any ethical problems with CoH2, except maybe the anti-Soviet story/plot.

mods, this is a troll thread.

Can you delete?

mods, this is a troll thread.

Can you delete?

This thread has already been moved to the respective subforum.

In conclusion, I don't think there really is a ethical consideration if you're just fantasizing about being a commander of a military and enjoy out thinking a rival player. If that was the case, chess is racist because a white army is fighting a black army, and the white army gets to go first.

SJW/cancel culture is going after white Chess and white Jesus. Seriously.

Cancel culture continues with the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) to discuss racism in chess

News story news.com.au JUNE 25, 2020:
https://www.news.com.au/sport/more-sports/abc-is-chess-racist-debate-garry-kasparov-slams-broadcaster/news-story/bf497773690718a9cfca1b2746e3e7b5

ABC is chess racist debate: Garry Kasparov slams broadcaster:
Garry Kasparov, rated by many as the greatest chess player in history, couldn’t believe the ABC was investigating if the game is racist.

We hope it wasn’t, but if this was just an attention-grab then the ABC has us all checkmate.

A radio debate by the public broadcaster about whether chess is racist was not only widely slammed in Australia — including by former international representative John Adams — it even earned the ire of perhaps the best to ever do it.

Garry Kasparov, the Russian who was the game’s number one player for the best part of three decades, couldn’t believe his eyes when he saw news.com.au’s coverage of the debate, which aired on Wednesday.

It came after ABC host James Valentine saw a post on Twitter noting white moved first in the popular board game and thought it was worthy of further discussion.

Fair to say Kasparov didn’t. “If you are worried that the game of chess is racist, please take up Go, where black moves first, instead of looking foolish by wasting taxpayer money at a state broadcaster to ‘investigate’ it!” the 57-year-old tweeted.

It followed Adams’ stern rebuke on Tuesday. “I just received a phone call from an ABC Sydney based producer seeking a comment about the game of chess,” Adams posted to Twitter.

“The ABC have taken the view that chess is RACIST given that white always go first!

“They are seeking comment from a chess official as to whether the rules of chess need to be altered!

“Trust the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster to apply ideological Marxist frameworks to anything and everything in Australia!

“With all the drama resulting from COVID-19, I am amazed that the ABC is broadcasting on irrelevant topics!”

But Cameron defended the topic on Wednesday. “On social media I came across a post from a father about his child who asked ‘why does white have to go first?’ The father, thinking about the question, considered it in the context of these times and the discussion about black and white,” he said.

Valentine added he “never intended” to run an interview on whether chess was racist, but instead to “have a discussion about a discussion”.

He then proceeded to talk about why it was “wrong” that Minties were only available in white. Seriously.

https://twitter.com/adamseconomics/status/1275742951298088960
John Adams
@adamseconomics
24. jun.
DEVASTATED!
@DFA_Analyst
informed me that he has received several e-mails & DMs suggesting that he needs to cease all communication & activity with me IMMEDIATELY!

Why?

Because I am apparently a RACIST given that I didn’t support the ABC’s narrative on chess & race!

SJW's (useful idiots) desperately needs a mirror:

You COMPLETELY miss the point of CoH2. CoH2 is not CallofDuty-esque “boots on the ground and gray morale”, CoH2 is not Wargame:RedDragon pseudo-intellectual RTS. CoH2 is not Starcraft, C&C or any other RTS out there. CoH2 is a place for people to be monsters – the horrible, senseless, uncaring monsters that they really are.

Sturmtiger just wiped 20 guys from rear echelons - and we laugh. Some forum wariours bragging about their top-5 three years ago - and we laugh.

Russians burn down fields with their own troops and we laugh, and ask for more. Polish resistance memebers are gunned down – we laugh. Bugsplat, cheese strats from tournaments , stupid bugs, unknown facts about WW2 and baseless hate for Brits – we laugh. We are mindless “me-too”ism; we are irrational preference; we are pointless flamewars; we are the true face of the CoH2.

What are your feelings on playing a game based on a world war were 70-85 million people died?

• the game gives me joy
  
• I do not have the feeling that playing it does anything good about the past nor anything bad for the future
  
• Sometimes I feel bad when infantry have to rush a flamethrower tank for example
  
• And I feel a bit of satisfaction if I beat players with names like "SS Kampfruppe 5th Reich"
  
• That is about it