So what happens if Bush doesn't win? Does U.S. all of a sudden play nice? It almost seems like a curse to a future fps developer (hopefully) if global conflict has no congealing cause. I mean, don't get me wrong, I would love to see evolution of global justice. Unfortunately, that means that these little smurfs... i.e. peackeepers will be called upon to do further duties. In my eyes, the natural evolution of the current combat ideology entails less troops, greater effectiveness, as it has always been. The creation of the ultimate combat ready mediary is a respectable endeavor, but neither candidate has the potential or the drive of men like Pearson.

For fps gaming to thrive, i figure it relies upon three things, a willing group of individuals with an interest in purely virtual combat, a stellar engine which utilizes current and future technology, and a personal link to atrocity and war. The latter factor draws what I think as the most indulgent and financially capable market. Without a link to reality a game can only rely upon it's visual appeal.

Without global conflicts like Vietnam, WWII we could not have the visceral experiences available in games like Call Of Duty. I guess it's the curse of the virtual warmonger.