War games! They're everywhere. It seems like there's one every other week, and Ubisoft probably accounts for about half of that with its Tom Clancy series. The market has literally been FLOODED with these games, all of which revolve around the same themes. We had WWII, and then Vietnam and the Middle East, and now it looks like North Korea's a new target. So, are too many war games a bad thing, and if so, what needs to happen to keep things from becoming stale, or have we already reached that point? Of course, if you have a bin at home filled with these types of games and you happily swim in them, defend why Splinter Cell 9 is not only inevitable, but absolutely necessary.

Robert: When you take a look at war games, you have to consider two things.
One, how accurately they portray the subject at hand. If you're going to create a war game, then you want to make sure that you capture every single detail that you possibly can. Calling a game Vietcong and then throwing in so many 60's songs and a bland interface does not an experience create. You really need to go deep and get into the mind of a soldier, questioning why he's there and even throwing in some doubt for realism. That's why most of these games don't work, you're just a soldier, going from point A to point B. Very few involve emotion, with the exception of the Medal of Honor games and possibly even Call of Duty.

The second, and most important, is how much fun they are. A game can be as historically accurate as it could ever be, but if the game just isn't that entertaining or finds itself drowned too much in sorrow and grief, really, what's the point? The general purpose of any game is to entertain, even if it's for something like quick play (like the games in Atari Anthology) or to keep you hooked for hours on end (like a lot of Square Enix RPG's). This is where Vietcong also faultered, as the game simply didn't get off the ground in any terms of enjoyment. Call of Duty: Finest Hour, however, was awesome...as long as we're talking about the console editions and not the pitiful N-Gage port that Chris Buffa happily picked apart like Thanksgiving leftovers.

If anything, I find appreciation mostly in Tom Clancy's gaming efforts. Sure, Ghost Recon 2 was a bit of a letdown, but Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow was magnificent, bringing both the excitement of full-on stealth gameplay and some innovative multiplayer action via Xbox Live that warrantied the five star rating I happily awarded it all those months ago. Clancy seems to be putting his full faith in Ubisoft in creating real tactical affairs based on what could or could not be real military-based efforts, and they're paying off, for the most part. And Rainbow Six has somehow moved from the realm of "typical strategy shooter" to one of the deepest multiplayer experiences around. Just ask the Frag Dolls by themselves how many rounds they've played.

I guess the bottom line for a war game for me is this- it's fine as long as it has something to say and gives you the ability to experience it. If it's somewhat of a flat effort slapped together simply for quickie sales to cash in on the US military, it doesn't belong. But if it's something pure, something that absolutely draws you in without remorse or regret, and makes you feel like you're part of the action, then I am all for it. I like playing video games, but experiencing them is another reward in itself.

And this from somebody who initially felt impatient with Splinter Cell. How I was taught patience, I'll never figure out.

Mike: I'm a big proponent of free speech and non-censorship, so my answer is, if developers want to make war games and if consumers want to buy war games, so be it.

I think developers need to be responsible though. Developers need to be careful that these "war games" are telling a story and not insulting another country and/or culture.

Ghost Recon 2 is based in the future, 2012 I think, where we are at war with Korea. Ghost Recon 2 made big news in Korea, and it's banned in that country now. Why? Because it has Americans invading their country and killing them. I love Ghost Recon 2, it may be my favorite online game, but I think it's a bit irresponsible of Ubi Soft to put a "face" on who we are killing. Of course they can get away with it because it was a book...But still, it's really not fair. Could you imagine if a game was developed by a German Company showing an American invasion in which you take control of a German soldier to kill Americans? The outcry would be enormous.

So, being able to stomach a war game is basically subjective based on where you live and what your culture is. I think realistic war games are fine, as are realistic war movies, however I think the fictional war games need to be done responsibly. Not everyone is American.

Steven: I'm split on the topic. On the one hand, there is an inherent understanding that as long as we live in a world of military conflict, that military-themed games will always exist. Among them, World War II is by far the largest conflict and is a huge resource for different types of weaponry, environments, and nationalities. What other war encompasses the frozen Russian Tundras and the dry deserts of North Africa? On the other hand, it seems like members of our generation have killed more virtual Nazis than any single person ever faced in the real war.

Certainly, every conflict leaves some sort of mark in history, but sometimes enough is enough. That's why developers are turning toward the Middle-East, Korea, and Vietnam for more source material. If nothing else, people are getting more than their fair share of history lessons with these games. Then there is the War on Terror and covert-themed games like Splinter Cell. Get tired of those, and the I-War is a reasonably untapped resource in gaming. In a world of conflict, there is never a shortage of game material.

Then again, while playing Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, as waves of realistic-looking Japanese soldiers came running at me with their bayonets, screaming at me in Japanese, I couldn't help wondering whether or not realism might be taken a bit too far. Sure, even with the latest graphics technology, everything still looks rather animated, and the characters will still occasionally do stupid things like shoot at walls or get stuck in corners... but given enough time, with the possibility of photo-realism and advances in artificial intelligence, the looming question is: When is it too real?

Similar controversy surrounds games like Kuma/War, which builds real-life scenarios around news information and photos. Tao-Feng: Fist of the Lotus (however you feel about the game) was a console fighting game that was pulled and re-released because of public outcry against one of its characters quoting the Koran. Yet, would such things be more publicly acceptable if it were in a war game centered on the Iraq Conflict?

Historically-themed shooters like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty consistently get "Teen" ratings, while games like Doom 3 usually get "Mature" ratings due to graphical violence. Take into consideration that historically accurate games have people using weaponry that was used in real life, shooting life-like animated people, in real-life settings and compare them to a game that has you shooting rocket-toting zombie demons on Mars, and it seems like there is a severe discrepancy going on here. Throw in the fact that Rainbow Six games get Mature ratings, while America's Army (a contemporary-themed game with actual military backing) gets a Teen rating and things become even more confusing. What is the criteria that determines that one sort of shooting game is more teenage appropriate than another shooting game? It's not like any of the aforementioned titles have you shooting at cartoons qualifying for comic violence.

Yet, I can't say that for sure either. As more and more of these war games enter the market, as realistic as they become, and as sophisticated as the technology gets - they start to become less real. We're still talking about games, and all the limitations thereof. All the shooting with none of the politics. I don't equate shooting WWII Nazis with shooting humans. I equate video game Nazis more to rocket-toting zombies on Mars. It doesn't bother me when my buddy gets shot in the head in Counterstrike, Battlefield Vietnam, or Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising because while I lose my support game-wise, my friend is still there, either waiting to respawn or typing me messages from the great beyond.

I think there are questions here that stem far beyond whether or not there are too many war-themed games. Personally, I don't think there will ever be too many. It's like saying there are too many war-themed books. War is a setting; the game is there to tell a story or place a person within that setting. Things will work out the same way they always do in the entertainment industry - the best ones are recognized, the less-than-stellar ones are forgotten about. The topic of timing, however, is a different matter.

Chris: I think as long as the game's really good it doesn't really matter that it's war-based, though I have to admit that Ubisoft's entire lineup is getting a little tired. First it was that Rayman company and now it's the one with all the shooters. Plus, I keep getting deja vu every time I play these games. I need something unique, something that doesn't scream "been there, done that."

But sometimes I just ask myself, "How many more Nazis and Vietcong can a man shoot?" It's just the same stuff over and over again. I think that's why I love Halo so much, because you get to kill aliens.