Hey there Dtoiders,

First off I just want to say that I picked up Tom Clancy's HAWX recently and it is awesome. Yes, I know it's not a flight sim, but for me, that's a good thing. Like Yahtzee said in his Zero Punctuation review of Saints Row 2, realism isn't always a good thing. If a game can be made more fun by sacrificing realism, then that's fine by me. Now, I know that lots of people like more realistic flight simulators, and if you like that sort of thing, more power to you, but what HAWX does is truly bring the fighter pilot movie experience into your living room (or studio apartment in my case). The myth is infinitely more fun than the real thing.

Which brings me to my next subject - that of Tom Clancy games in general. I know, after I posted about how much I hate American foreign policy and the culture that supports it in such posts in my blog like "This will possibly be my angriest post ever," I know what you're going to say: how can I stand to play Tom Clancy games?

Well, here's the thing: I have this weird sort of dichotomy with them. I've never read any of Tom Clancy's books, but the games I've come to enjoy a lot. And in real life, I am anti-war and pretty much a pacifist, plus, my political views lean pretty left of the dial (as if you haven't figured that out already). But yet, in spite of that, I like playing the Tom Clancy games. I know that sounds weird, but here's how I see it - just because I play Tom Clancy games doesn't mean I endorse their political content. I also recognize that making war a game is a very, very ancient concept - war as a game has been around since the days of chess and go. So I don't think I'm being a hypocrite by being a Tom Clancy war game player who's against the real thing.

Plus, the storylines of the Tom Clancy games tend to be pretty apolitical. They're more akin to the storylines of games like Call of Duty 4, which is both a good and a bad thing, I realize. By being apolitical they acquire the good and bad points of neutrality and, to some extent, apathy - by being neutral in storyline they can appeal to a broader audience. But neutrality isn't always the right thing to do - if there is clearly moral wrongs being done, it's a necessity, in my opinion, to speak out against them. Especially when you're covering such topics as war and military operations; the Tom Clancy games can be considered guilty of such things as endorsing the militarization of American culture and drumming up support for recruitment by making warfare look cool.

It's important in cases like this to educate gamers that games like those with the Tom Clancy stamp are not accurate portrayals of the real thing. The real thing is long, messy, and constantly shuffles between boring and hellish. There's nothing cool about it. It's also important to note here that while games like this can be seen as endorsing American wars (and perhaps may be construed as propaganda), that our enemy here is not the game but the bomb. Again, war as a game is a very ancient concept, and yes, it's fun, but it's better to educate everyone about how video games and war really compare, and thus have them make their own decisions about such topics (such as if they want to play or not play them), than to blanketly focus on yoinking games like the Tom Clancy series off shelves.

As usual, post your own thoughts!