The question to me is: do the mechanics really do glorify or merely only depict the violence? And then also, do they give the players some value by giving them

The question to me is: do the mechanics really do glorify or merely only depict the violence? And then also, do they give the players some value by giving them an understanding of the subject matter? I’ve personally spent some time playing the “Distant Plain”, a high complexity controversial depiction of asymmetrical warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq. Having played this with a group of actual war vets, the events in this game gave some good ideas on why this conflict worked the way it did. This was one of the most valuable board gaming experiences in my life, and it went far beyond “winning” and “losing”. It is certainly true what the article points out. But then most games are about depicting or enacting violent power fantasies. I think we’re way past the point where anyone believes that this is “a bad thing”. What would be interesting would be a deeper, more involved academic analysis taking the game mechanics into account and how “overt” the colonialism and the violence is.