Other than that I don't even think FC2 is all that subtle.

Fair point, haha. I don't recall where I read about this, but ive seen the notion brought up in several mediums: it is difficult to break an audiences' tendency to see the protagonist of a story as morally correct, no matter what they do.

It's a problem with all media, but I think film and games are especially dangerous modes for it. Film because of the wide appeal and generally low media literacy. There's a thread up today about people loving Homelander and not understanding that he's the villain.

For games, I think it's even worse because your role in controlling the actions of the main character multiplies the effect. I certainly don't consider myself a racist colonizer but I enjoyed FC2 and I "pulled the trigger"/"clicked the mouse" to kill hundreds of simulated Africans.

I mean, if the main characters of basically any FPS existed in real life, they'd be monstrous war criminals. I'm not claiming either that virtual violence is real or affecting in the way that real violence is, but there must be some psychological effects of inhabiting the eyes and hands of a killer on a mission for so long. It's not an accident that the biggest FPS franchises are military shooters with US military backing.

So... yeah, I think FC2 tried to do some interesting things narratively with making the player the bad guy. You kill for blood diamonds, you play the forces off each other, you "lose yourself" in the mission and go too far to catch the jackal. But ultimately, its much easier to justify the actions of a fictional character in a way that is self-absolving than to sit with discomfort and self-analyze what FC2 is trying to say about you and the larger world you inhabit.