Editors Note: The views expressed in the following exchange may not necessarily represent the views of the authors, nor those of TG Publishing. This is a debate in which the aim is to explore two sides of a controversial issue, and should be treated as such.

AARON MCKENNA: Hi Rob, how's all in Happy Tree Land? I've been a little miffed lately by just how seriously some people having been taking videogames - from individuals to governments. "Serious" is obviously a word that you can use in many contexts, and in this case I'm referring to people getting their backs up about perceived political incorrectness in some titles.

Take the example of Mercenaries 2: World in Flames, in development at Pandemic Studios. The game is set in South America and tells the tale of the overthrow of an imaginary Venezuelan dictator (or "tyrant", if you so prefer). The current Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez is not particularly happy with this fictitious tale of B-movie videogame intrigue, given that they claim a US invasion of oil-rich, recently turned quite socialist Venezuela is in the cards. The plot reeks of opportunism, with the developers seeking to make a quick buck out of a simmering political situation.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez"

Really, though - who cares? People have to get over this political correctness lark in videogames. Just because a game has you overthrowing a fictitious leader in a story with many realistic parallels does not mean that, as some in Venezuela are claiming, all our kids are going to start demanding an invasion of said country. The content of videogames is there for entertainment, and has no bearing on the real world. People can choose whether or not to take games seriously, and in this case (and others too) I think that they're merely doing it to help drive home an existing point.

Aaron