I'm not about to get reactionary and claim that these games are all exploitative of the Greatest Generation. Nor do I believe that first-person shooters are "murder simulators" that train people to kill. However, I do think that there's a role for conscience when deciding how to portray actual historical events, particularly when equal time isn't given to both sides of a conflict. Do we want a game to inform as well as entertain? Is it right to feel entertained by a series of events that many consider one of history's great tragedies?

It might be wise to develop a list of pros and cons regarding the morality of making a game based on real-world events.

Pro: A game can teach history. Some might say that by depicting battlefield scenarios as faithfully as possible, a game is educating the playing audience. However, it must be said that unless education is the developer's stated goal, any knowledge passed through the lens of a game is absorbed only to help the proficiency of the player at completing the game, not for any cultural broadening of horizons. This isn't to say that games cannot teach history; in fact, the immersive quality of a game would seem to be a prime element to retaining lessons beyond the running time of a game. As it stands, however, the general consensus must be that these games -- at least the WWII-themed titles -- are meant to entertain as their primary purpose.

Then we get a game like Super Columbine Massacre RPG. The Artist's Statement claims that the intention of the game was to inform and educate the audience by putting them into the role of the two shooters, hoping that by inhabiting their psyches (based on the collected journal writing and assorted paraphernalia left behind), the player will come to a better understanding of what motivated them to commit their brutal crimes. By understanding, a kind of catharsis might help the player confront the apparent senselessness of the event and try to gain some sort of closure. Is that too heady a topic for a video game? That all depends on whether or not you believe in the narrative power of the genre. I submit that it is at very least, a worthwhile endeavor.

Con: Real-world games can be seen as disrespectful to the victims of the actual events. After experiencing a tragedy, survivors go through many stages of coping mechanisms. The eventual goal is acceptance and possibly even forgiveness. Can either of these conditions occur when the inciting incident lives on as a form of entertainment? You would never baldly suggest to someone who has lost a family member in WWII that the war made a great game; at least, I should hope that you wouldn't. But at the heart of it, isn't that what's asserted by franchises like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor? You may play a named character, or play namelessly, but at some point you need to acknowledge that your actions mirror those of actual combatants, many of whom lost their lives.

What's more, you experience none of the actual stress, privation, and horror of being in the combat zone. Shielded as you are, there is no way for you to truly understand what it must have been like to fight that war, frequently scared, wounded, and lost, with no assurance that you'd ever see your family and friends again. You may be playing "just a game", but is it still fun when you consider those who have gone before?