In Episode 8 of Critical Moves, the hosts dive into one of the most contentious topics in gaming—morality in strategy and war games. From controlling entire nations to making life-and-death choices in survival simulations, Al, Nuno, and Tim discuss where games draw the line between historical accuracy, player agency, and ethical dilemmas.
Here’s what the episode covered:
- Historical War Games & Moral Boundaries: Should you be able to play as the Nazis? Should grand strategy games tackle real-world atrocities, or is it better to keep them abstract?
- Gameplay vs. Ethics: When faced with moral choices in strategy games—like sacrificing civilians for the greater good—do players actually struggle with the decision, or do they just pick the most effective option?
- Games as Teaching Tools: Do strategy games have an obligation to educate players about history, or should they prioritize fun and player freedom?
The episode opened with a discussion on playing as historically controversial factions. Nuno argued that playing as the Axis in World War II strategy games isn’t inherently wrong—it’s just pixels on a screen. He pointed out that war games were originally designed as military training tools, requiring players to think like both friend and enemy. Tim countered that many players don’t have the historical knowledge to contextualize what they’re doing, and developers have a responsibility to provide accurate historical context rather than sanitizing the past. The debate turned to Hearts of Iron IV, which omits explicit references to genocide and war crimes, raising the question: does avoiding the darkest aspects of history do players a disservice?
From there, the conversation shifted to Stellaris and its open-ended approach to morality. Al noted that many players revel in playing as oppressive, genocidal factions in the game, raising the question of whether mechanics like slavery, purges, and biological extermination should be handled with more nuance. Tim argued that when historical context is removed, these mechanics become more like “just another way to win,” which might desensitize players to real-world atrocities.
The group then tackled moral dilemmas in survival games like Frostpunk. Tim and Al agreed that Frostpunk succeeds because it forces players into difficult moral choices, making them feel the weight of every decision. The famous cave dilemma—whether to rescue a group of children knowing it could doom your settlement—was a key example of how mechanics and storytelling can push players to reflect on their actions. Tim emphasized that Frostpunk works because it presents these choices in a way that immerses the player, rather than just being a numbers game.
Nuno brought up Rome: Total War, particularly its infamous “occupy, enslave, exterminate” choices when capturing a settlement. He argued that historical accuracy is essential, and removing references to practices like slavery in ancient Rome would be dishonest. Al noted that unlike Frostpunk, Total War doesn’t try to make players care about individual characters, reducing moral choices to simple game mechanics. Tim suggested that grand strategy games could do more to make players think about the human cost of their decisions rather than just presenting populations as expendable resources.
The discussion moved into more modern settings, particularly Drone Perspective, a strategy game that puts players in the role of a drone operator directing military operations. Al described it as a chilling experience, raising questions about how games depict contemporary warfare. Tim pointed out that while historical war games provide distance, modern warfare games blur the line between reality and entertainment, making ethical considerations even more complex. The group debated whether these games desensitize players to real-world violence or if they could actually increase empathy by showing the consequences of war.
The episode wrapped up with a discussion on what topics, if any, should be off-limits in strategy games. While all three hosts agreed that nothing should be outright forbidden, they emphasized that developers should be mindful of how they present sensitive topics. Nuno noted that modern games sometimes insert present-day moral perspectives into historical settings, like Battlefield V’s controversial portrayal of WWII combatants, which led to a wider debate on creative liberties versus historical accuracy. Tim warned that while games should educate, they must avoid glorifying real-world atrocities or allowing them to be trivialized.
To close out, Al recommended checking out Drone Perspective, while Nuno plugged Word of Command, a strategy game focusing on the personal impact of war.
Listeners can find this episode on Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, or YouTube. For ways to get involved visit the Critical Moves Podcast website.
Next Week: The hosts preview The Most Anticipated Strategy Games of 2025, breaking down the upcoming releases that could redefine the genre. Don’t miss it.
