EG's comment on the article makes a point: "Now does it become OK if millions of people in a game instead die in a purely fictional situation of your making? C

EG's comment on the article makes a point: "Now does it become OK if millions of people in a game instead die in a purely fictional situation of your making? Crawford’s reputation probably hinges a lot on that one screen in “Balance of Power”, for identifying that fictional mass death is fun, so we try to do it a lot in games. Introversion’s “Defcon” chooses a more camp or retro approach to remind the player that millions are dying in a nuclear war in the type of 50s language that inspired “Dr Strangelove”, ultimately making no effective moral point I thought. In “Master of Orion” we bomb planets out of existence. There are also strategic historical games like “Hearts of Iron” where the Second World War happens at a level abstracted from individual tactical unit movements. The paradox being that to exclude crimes against humanity at strategic level is close to denial; to include invites people to use your game to recreate the world’s worst crimes, as well as causing you legal problems in a lot of Europe." Can I recommend a book (although it is a cinderblock of a book): Zones of Control: Perspectives on Wargaming by Pat Harrigan and Matthew G. Kirschenbaum. Parts of it discuss this very problem, with examples from This War of Mine and the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 thing.