“Miller listened politely, but remained skeptical. ‘By making it something people play for fun, they are trivializing the battle,’ she told NEWSWEEK.”

This is obviously bunk. As I like to continually point out, someone in the dark ages was probably saying the same thing about reading. Do I demean the sacrifices of Russian and German troops at Stalingrad by enjoying a popular history by Anthony Beevor? This is patent b*llshit, and it’s hard not to get angry about it.

It’s hard to imagine that the same woman was able to come up with an objection as relevant as this:

“She worries that Six Days, precisely because it aims to re-create the Fallujah battle so realistically, will further desensitize youngsters to the horrors of war. And she’s concerned that insurgents will learn about the operational procedures of American troops.”

Those are fair points… not necessarily realistic ones, but relevant. The route that this information would have to take to get from a North American 360 to useful intel in Iraq would probably be circuitous – but it isn’t impossible. Anthony Beevor wasn’t exactly in danger of spoiling things for Stalin with a book published 60 years later.

The immediacy of modern media presents us with a lot of questions about censoring this kind of game. That said… wouldn’t it be better to see this game done well? Wouldn’t it be better to include the names of real soldiers? All of these things are done by authors regularly, often without the permission of the families of those involved. It isn’t always right… but it could be valuable.

As for desensitization; it’s too late for that now. Video games are a large part of the language of this generation. Everyone needs to get used to this idea, AND LET THE NEW MEDIA PLAY.