Not really, having played the side mission in question, there is nothing morally ambiguous about it. You living in a world that's already been destroyed but a nuclear war. So what difference does it make if you set of another off.

I find COD4 more offensive in terms of the lazy stereotyping that all Muslim states are on the brink of failing and they all have maniacal nut job with nuclear weapons waiting in the wings. okay it makes for a entertaining western game. But they surely aren’t going to flocking to the shops in Iraq to go buy it.

The difference is Fallout 3 is off Sci Fi fiction, but COD and other FPS are based events that either have or could happen. Either way neither of these games are in the exclusive club of having a game ending nuclear weapon in your inventory.

If my father had been beaten to death with a hammer I would have a completly different opinion about fictious violence in films. If that had been the case. I doubt very much if I would got to see it based on personal circumstance. However I wouldn't expect the movie company to either censor or cut said scene. If people want to see that, fair enough.

All this talk of social responsibilty, didn't really take in to consideration that people find violence entertaining or that fact that world we live in a brutal and violent world. There are certainly much darker moments in human history that would probably cause more offence than dropping a couple of bombs on Japan.

London had plenty of bombs dropped on us and plenty of people died in London during the blitz. How about we talk about Dresden, Bomber Harris and the Dam Buster and they devastation. How funny it is, out of "respect for our war dead" we glorify war through computer games such and Call of Duty, Medal of Honour, Brother in Arm these are 3 out of hundreds, a whole genre of games had grown out of World War 2. Not just including FPS, what about all the fight Sims that put you over Europe in 1940-45. B29 flying fortress you could actually take part in daylight raids and drop bomb on factories, now history shows us how ineffective daylight raid and the Blitz really were and how it was more about effect the moral of the people than destroying building and infrastructure.

Obviously Bethesda has to be mindful of peoples sensibilities, censorship is not the answer though. In terms of making a game, set in a nuclear wasteland, then to stopping themselves showing a nuclear device in name or through it destructive power, In my opinion isn't even comparable to being there and feeling all the skin on you body been burnt off or even comparable to living with the aftermath of such destruction and devastation, maybe that’s half the problem.

What this does illustrate to me, is that Bethesda is more concerned that offending what little sensibilities the Japanese have about Hiroshima and Nagasaki because there going to loose money, that the bottom line. They want there game to be popular in Japan because the market is huge, obviously they don’t jeopardise that, but that the same time you have to look at other Edgy and slightly controversial titles . It has absolutely nothing to do with respect, it’s all about the money. In fact if I was a Japanese gamer I would be more offended that a company taking the decision and not giving you the right to individual choice.

If were talking about devastasy and cost of human life and not to mention the complete intollerance and lack of respect we have for one another. "Shock and Awe" the American response to 9/11 is an really good example. All those greedy Haliburton Executives didn't much care and respect then civilians caught in that crossed fire when they sold all that ordinance to the US military .

It's hasn’t stopped companies who produce games like Modern Warfare FPS such as ArmA, Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4 or Full Spectrum Warrior to name but a few, for the entertainment of our children. Conditioning them into think that War is accept part of Human. All those games spring to mind given there set in a middle eastern theatre, so what of respect to the inocent Iraqi or Afghani caught in the crossfire ?.

So someone dropped an atomic bomb.. the Japanese are certainly not in an exclusive club. Take a look in to the history of the residents of the Atoll Islands in the south pacific, I'm sure they'll have a thing of two to say about the America Nuclear weapon program.,

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are example of that should be learned from !! and that goes for all human tragedies. Censorship and barring the publc from horrible truths is not the answer. Confronting the truth though eduction is what is needed here.

Your basic assertion appears to be that Nazi ideas are not just bad, but dangerous. I think that's not only stupid, but dangerous as well. The idea that ideas can be dangerous is the only idea that appears even close to being dangerous.

I understand that lots and lots of people died. I understand how terrible it was. But it is in the past, for one thing, and it wasn't Nazi ideas that caused the holocaust. Saying that the Nazis were responsible is a statement of gross historical inaccuracy.

Anger among the German populace for World War 1, a devastated economy, hunger, and high crime rates were what brought Germany into extremism. The fact that the Nazis were the embodiment of that extremism is basically coincidental. It could have been any extreme ideology that promised to return Germany to glory. The Nazi ideas were NOT THE DANGEROUS PART, it was the environment that allowed them to grow. Germany was not fooled once or even at all. Germany walked into extremism happily because life was terrible. In Russia, those extremists were Communists. Same promises, different groups.

I attack Germany for the fact that anything is forbidden. We have got lots of groups, more than Germany I'd say, that support overthrowing the government. The government is still here. We're doing fine. I also don't find having those wack-job Nazis running around amusing. No one does. They're terrible, violent, idiotic pieces of human crap, but they have a right to live and to have ideas.

For example, Rudolf. He's a Holocaust-denier. So? There are tons of them. In this country, he wouldn't be worth a mention in the cheapest magazine, but in Germany, he's being oppressed by the government so people know who he is, turning him into a martyr for those who agree with him. Which is better? I say the USA is better. Here, he would be free and unknown as opposed to locked-up and known. It's idiotic to think you can imprison ideas.

People are "allowed to depict Nazi symbols, as long as they keep the message right." Well, what is right? Who defines what right is? The government? Governments have been tragically bad at determining what is right throughout the whole of history. Morality gets very confusing when mixed in with politics and law. For example, why shouldn't I be allowed to make a game called "Concetration Camp Manager?" It's in bad taste, for sure, but immoral? It's NOT REAL. It's a joke. If I don't find the joke funny, I just move on to jokes I do find funny. No harm.

And, the same thing that happened to Napoleon? He's been dead for nearly 200 years. The conclusions being reached now are far beyond emotion or creed and are as cold and analytical as one can get. Perceptions on Napoleon are, if anything, an ideal that we can strive for. After the very fear and rabid emotions that you are currently espousing are finally set aside, the last bits of real history start to come out. And for Pete's sake, the comparison is not accurate! Hitler was a homicidal monster, Napoleon was a good, old-fashioned megalomaniac.

You also oversimplify what Al Qaeda's motives are. They seek justice for perceived slights against them. They don't specifically want to destroy us just because they feel like it.