THe real question is why? I would rather have some more modern or distant future games.

Yeah, it is sad that people are attacking this game so early in the release cycle. They may be overreacting. I would like to see how well this game does.

Mustin I am buying that game as well.

> It's certainly very bold to allow players to take the role of Franco's side, and that's something I actually find commendable -- nobody would be so daring about World War II.

I confess I haven't played many RECENT computer games covering WW2. But there's nothing unusual about the option of controlling the Nazi side in a WW2 war game or computer war game in my experience. Or are you just referring to things like First Person Shooters? (playing a Nazi killing Allies would be more than a little creepy).

Let's see... the most recent computer war game set in WW2 I have is Korsun Pocket from SSG/Matrix Games. Every scenario in that game gives you the option of playing as the Soviets or the Nazis. That game comes with a copy of an earlier game they did, The Ardennes Offensive, and you have the option of playing as the US or the Nazis in every scenario in THAT game.

i think it's touchy compared to other war games as with ww2, the nazis are obviously evil and lost. with modern war games the middle eastern faction are bad, similar story with east vs. west conflicts. there is usually a black and white moral conflict. but with the spanish civil war atrocities were carried out by both sides with hundreds of thousands of executions carried out by both parties.
if the game makers pull off a balanced and sympathetic view, it could be the first war game to have huge moral dilemmas that truly portray the brutality of war. it is a very, very big 'if'. if it involves you being some super soldier pwning your way through ranks of opposing soldiers then i think it will be an epic fail

Hey, Das Boot did it to movies, why not play a nazi in a game?

Multitudes of WWII multiplayer games excluded.

Im still waiting for the Irish game.

Lethaljim -- I have to take issue with the idea that most conflicts are black and white moral affairs. Hezbollah is releasing a game (or has released) that depicts the US and imperialistic invaders, with them as pious defenders of their homeland. Whether or you not you agree with that assessment, it's one example of how people's worldviews change the way they experience games. For you, the CoD4 conflict might be black and white (or at least, it's portrayed to Western audiences that way), but there's a totally different hemisphere that would argue that there's a lot of moral gray area.

That being said, I don't see why moral gray area should be considered taboo by game makers. Quite the contrary, these are the types of games that devs should be making, and the moral choices that gamers should be exploring.

*an entirely

I guess I should add that I still don't think that games trivialize war so long as you don't actually fool yourself into thinking you're educating yourself on them by playing it. Kinda like Guitar Hero.

I can't speak for The Devil's Backbone (haven't seen that one), but Pan's Labyrinth deals very directly with the Spanish Civil War (other than it being the setting). Then again, Pan's Labyrinth is itself a darker take on many of the themes explored - mainly, life during wartime and how such an existence impacts the innocence of a child - in Victor Erice's The Spirit of the Beehive.

In each of these films, Franco's soldiers are unequivocally marked as "the bad guys." Coming from Erice, a Spaniard, and del Toro, a Mexican who has been very vocal in his thoughts on the interconnectedness of the Spanish-speaking community, this is hardly surprising.

I agree with Jim's sentiment that calling a game's subject matter trivial simply because it is a game is a flawed argument at best. However, with so many compelling fictional anti-heroes to play as, do we really need to start having game players actualize themselves in the roles of real-life monsters? I was a bit shocked - still am - when I learned that the Company of Heroes expansion featured a campaign centered around a Nazi battalion. Obviously a game in which you work in Nazi death camps would be flat-out WRONG, but is it any different to OVERLOOK those aspects of the conflict simply for the purposes of delivering a good narrative? I think the real question is, when does the "you're just playing an anti-hero" defense go too far?

I'm not going to chime in on that one, I just think it's an interesting question to consider. There isn't really even a universal answer; to paraphrase the old cliche, one person's fiend is another person's hero. There are always going to be Nazi sympathizers, supporters of fascist dictatorships, insurgents willing to make their point through the use of terror campaigns. As such, there will always be support for the most unpopular games, films, books, etc.

I think the real problem with "Shadows of War: The Spanish Civil War" is, unlike WWII and the Holocaust, most Americans at least aren't really aware of what went down in Spain during Franco's regime. It may have gotten a brief mention during my high school lectures - who can remember the crap from high school? - but I didn't learn about the Spanish Civil War until I was in college, and even then it was only as it related to my studies in film.

I think that's true for the vast majority of people living in America, a general lack of knowledge of foreign wars. I sometimes wonder how elementary and high school curriculums treat war in Europe. The spectre of war and its effects on the public is a near-constant in European film. Surely such potentially delicate subject matter must be treated differently "over there" than it is "over here."

To say that I think Shadow of War is a bad idea would make me a hypocrite. I don't think it's right to place players in the shoes of history's monsters. But then, can a soldier in Franco's regime who was conscripted against his will really be thought of as a monster? So I'll have to settle for the hope that the game at least treats its subject matter with the proper respect and delivers a historically accurate narrative.

Failing that, I'm an American - give me beer, boobs, big guns and loud booms and you've got my $60 no question. Great commentary as always Jim.

dprime: I'd hardly call myself a pacifist, but I'd like to think that anybody sensible would realize that war, even if "necessary" sometimes, is a very sad and unfortunate byproduct of civilization, and not something that should have ever really happened. When you can't deal with a situation in any other way than killing vast amounts of one another, I'd call that quite self-trivializing.

@orcist
ha my view on the the middle east isnt black and white at all, in fact i was all for the iranian game as it is no worse than what western game makers are producing. i was being sarcastic, but the truth is no one is particularly outraged by games in fictional arabic settings.
but yes i think this game should only be made if it can depict the conflict realistically. and i dont mean realistic by 'omg the explosions are intense', but making fighting not an enjoyable experience. this something which i have never seen in a computer game, but that the best war films pull off. it is a big ask to say the least.

Cry more, spain.