To be fair in Siege it's kinda stupid to see FBI agents fighting against FBI agents
Yeah. You clearly see, even right in the intro after starting the game, that the game's concept was supposed to be a completely different one.
I kinda might don't get the video's premise though, but I disagree. In a war situation there's indeed no difference between a German/Nazi soldier and a British soldier. On an abstract level of course you fight for an ideology, but in the multiplayer situations depicted in games like Battlefield and CoD, it's only about surving/not dying or killing, there is no difference on what side you are. The only difference is the skin of your uniform and the weapons you have at your disposal. The reasons why they fight differ from general's table point of view, but on the lowest level, those people who gets shredded to pieces, it is all the same; it's brutal, horrifying and absolutely traumatic for any individual taking part in any kind of way.
And in regards of playing terrorists, the video's argument is kind of absurd, too. Counter strike, a game where terrorists can win, don't tell you playing an IS terrorist and are about to bomb innocent people. For all Counter Strike depicts is that you want to bomb
something, an inanimate object. And guess what, terrorists aren't the only ones, despite the game being structured that way, who bomb things. I don't how many structures and even civilians the US government has killed and also bombed and they are terrorists in some eyes as well for sure; someone's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter. Now there groups generally accepted as outright terrorists because of their methods, such as those driving into Christmas markets. But Counter Strike doesn't imply such things even in the slightest way; you wear a mask with some character models (same es counter terrorists) and try to make an object explode. I'm not familiar with games though where you indeed play as terrorists and kill innocent people – this might be judged differently from the example of CS. But even in GTA you can kind of play as a terrorist and go full rampage and kill everything "just for the lolz". Which circles back to question if such games in general are problematic.
In general his approach seems to be like: color them all differently but in made up colors with no meaning and let them then kill each other or do a training exercise. This is kind of looking away from the problem, like let's forbid something, make it disappear on a surface level and it surely will go away. Of course there's a differences and increments between trivialize actions by bad people and not showing them. But ideology, that surely can prosper through games, music, peer groups and such, is usually more rooted in other problematic areas like education, family, friends, basically everything that happens before "video games".
The historical argument is also one-sided because it seems like you either make a game historical
or fun to play. You can have a somewhat historical game without sacrificing (too much) of the gameplay, like you can have a somewhat realistic shooter like Rainbow Six opposed to Fortnite. Rainbow Six is, compared to many other shooters, quite realistic, take Raven Shield for example; but having the option to replay a mission, for example, that is obviously totally unrealistic (because you don't have that in real life) doesn't make it an unrealistic game. Yet having no differences in the weapon arsenal and man power in a historical game somehow makes it non-historical? Seems like double standards just to prove your point. Of course Axis and Allies are equal because you want to make your game fun
to play. That doesn't mean it's not historical and thus doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't use historical proven facts (like German uniforms wore that cross).
