War is not a game...

Super Boy and I had an argument last night, over something many might consider petty. It was about video games, which Super Boy has been exposed to from a young age and enjoys playing in moderation. I, on the other hand, never owned a video game until this year when Super Boy and I bought a Wii, and I don't necessarily see what the allure is. To make matters worse, we don't see eye-to-eye on what games we want in our home, specifically one called "Call of Duty 3."

This video game puts the player in the middle of WWII, sending them on missions with weapons and comrades and enemies and lots and lots of blood.  Unlike many anti-video game people, it's not the blood and violence of the video game I object to, but rather the subject matter: how can people profit off one of the bloodiest wars in human history? Why is WWII reduced to a video game?

And why are we as a society okay with this?

 War is often treated as something remote and sterile in video games, making it more fantasy and fiction than a harsh reality. In addition to treating war as a game, society uses days set aside for remembering veterans and offering thanks as excuses for shopping. Memorial Day? Veteran's Day? They are now more about retail than remembering.

Think about it: would we treat 9/11 in this way? Would our culture look at these video games the same way if you could play the first-person role of a terrorist, or a passenger on Flight 93? Would we be okay if  retail stores offer 9.11% off all patio furniture for three days only? If these suggestions offend you, good. They offend me, too. And the treatment of WWII or any war as a source of entertainment or commerce is no different. I think we need to get our priorities straight.

And, perhaps most important of all, you can't restart the game if you are killed in a real war, and nobody throws a sale in your honor.