Could this idea be offensive?

Hi. I am planning on making a game in which you can play as any country in the world - and take over any country in the world. But could certain parts of this idea be offensive to certain people? For example if someone who is discriminative towards Jewish people deliberately targets countries that generally have a Jewish population.

I am sorry if my idea offends you in person, and if it does, please say, because that's what I came here to find out.

AshJack

 

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games?genre=2 None of those are considered offensive.

Also, if a person decides to play your game the way you describe that makes the player offensive, not the game itself.

 

thank you Tanel!

 

I agree with Tanel. Allowing the player to invade other countries is not offensive. If the player chooses to only invade oriental countries for example because of their ethnicity, they may be acting offensive, but it doesn't make your game offensive.

In comparison, if you make the game about your the UK invading eastern Asia countries because of their ethnicity specifically, that might be found offensive. If you give the players the choice to be offensive or not, then I believe your game would not be offensive.

 

Well considering most of the FPS's out there involved being US troops killing Middle Eastern troops with illustrations, language and voices sounding like Middle Eastern people, your game doesn't sound offensive at all.

 

Not really an offensive idea. I guess an idea is only offensive if you are attacking a certain group, idea and etc. in an explicit manner?

 

This is a silly question: if done by a foreigner it's considered an act of war if done by a national it's considered treason in democracies and juntas / coups in non-democracies. If done via legal channels it's considered elections or succession.

As far as regards to specifically targeting countries because of ethnic, racial, or religious groups it's considered genocidal no matter the majority or minority status of the group that is being attacked. That basically makes all wars genocidal unless the defender has the sensibility to defend and free the oppressed based on innocence rather than attack the oppressors based on various racial and ethnic epithets, which are very offensive because the oppressors are small numbers of people controlling the governments and militaries and small hate groups terrorizing neighborhoods and not the majority of the population that is being treated as oppressors. If there is a long history of tit for tat it's should serve as an indication it's time to grow up because the overwhelming majority were always innocent and in history it is the minority of the powerful and rich in whatever country, regardless of race or ethnic group, that have controlled the government, the economy, and the military and are now long gone. And in cases where government corruption is modern then you have to work within a legal and peaceful framework to challenge the corruption.

 

of course the idea could be offensive.

The test is does a reasonable person find it offensive.

 

I'm sure someone could find anything offensive but probably most people won't care anyway

 

What you've described in fundamentally the same as Risk or plenty of other games, so I think you're safe.

I used to think that this kind of thing was a "dumb question" too, in that on one hand it should almost always be obvious and on the other hand if you have to ask then you know it's edgy in the first place. But lately I've been finding that the discrimination that bothers me is the more subtle kind that people might not even realise they're doing.

 

There is nothing bad about being offensive.

 

Everything is offensive. Don't worry about it.

Also the game you are talking about is basically civilization.

 

Aaand stolen for personal use, well said.

 

Invading other countries is a war-game staple, so it's not offensive per se.

But you still have to be somewhat careful. For instance, in Civilization V, you can play the Germans and take over the world. The Germans are led by General Bismark, and not that other leader. This was very much intentional, as Firaxis could obviously land in some pretty hot water otherwise. Interestingly, destroying specific countries is acceptable for a game, but destroying specific races is not. It's a funny world we live in ...

 

Destroying races is perfectly ok. You know, "Orcs must Die!" and all that. Genocide just isn't ok when it's people who are still around.

 

I'd argue that conquering a nation and genocide are quite different things, and that the latter is much worse than the former on a 'crimes against humanity'-level.

 

It sounds to me you are trying to make something like this :






And I would say it is not offensive. Risk is a game of strategy and there is no "stereotyping" involve in the game. On the other hand, a lot of RTS games in the past had use REAL countries as basis for their game, and some even go as far to stereotype people in it. And they seem to be fine (although not without controversies). What really matters to you is whether the risk of offending the said group (potential legal action / group legal action - eg. Grand Theft Auto fiasco) or potential profit loss from the said group is worth the RISK.

 

Which was especially funny when in Civ 1 the Russians leader was Stalin.

 

In an early play of Civilization V I was ambushed and defeated by Siam. Now, in every game I play, the utter destruction of Siam is my only goal. Is that offensive? Probably not because I have no ill feelings toward ANY cultural group in real life. You aren't making a Nazi Sim with preplanned goals, but you can't stop anyone from playing Germany invading Poland.

 

There is little room for morality in strategic warfare in the real world, so it annoys me greatly that you seem to be putting so much emphasis on it.

 

You use 'little room for morality' and 'strategic' in the same sentence? As if the proper strategy was to abandon morals and hope for superior capabilities? Strategically the are 2 countries, one of which isn't interested in any war but rather in causing problems by proxy so watch your back, with overwhelming capabilities and the rest are kidding themselves; so I'd suggest those that think there is no room for morality in warfare get with the program.

 

If you are going to limit your options by filtering them through morality MORE than your opponent is doing, then superior capabilities are a must.

The appearance of morality, however, is very important at all times. But that's not morality, that's just a strategy.