No, and especially not the good ones (and TA / SupCom stand among the best). Good game design prioritizes gameplay over moral or political messages, IME.

> Good game design prioritizes gameplay over moral or political messages

This is tangential to what we're discussing, but TA was politicised:

What began as a conflict over the transfer of consciousness from flesh to machines escalated into a war which has decimated a million worlds.

It didn't take a position on the issue though - if anything it took a cynical "they're both as bad as each other" view, showing hypocrisy on both sides. (I suppose you could argue that's still a political position, but I'd say it's primarily a gameplay decision, particularly in the context of a multiplayer-oriented game, to have two more-or-less equal-and-opposite sides who both carry equal responsibility for the war).

The game was made long before the story. From what I remember (I can't remember where I read this) the story and campaign were fairly rushed afterthoughts, compared to the mechanics and multiplayer.

The story itself was iffy, but the campaign's aesthetic and maps were AMAZING.

I still remember the "defend the harbor" mission where you had one Moho mine and you had the long range destroyers showing up and desperately salvaging the long range Ranger missile ships for minerals because they were utterly nonthreatening but super valuable..

The map with a giant crevasse. The map with a ton of gunships. It was a really solid campaign. It felt like an amazing story even if the writing was simple to the point of parody just because everything was so well designed and fit perfectly together.