It took me until the second page before I found any real discussion of responsibility of the person or company who creates a war game, movie or novel for the forseeable impact on those who experience it.
As was mentioned, constant exposure to violence, for instance, can desensitize some people from a more normal perception of the ethical issues. Playing, as well, can divert people into concentration on means rather than ends.
I don't think it is merely unbalanced people who are influenced. Work with neural networks indicates that all learning is cumulative and that current opinions are a blend of all that has gone on before.
This means that we all have to be conscious of our effect on others.
In a war game, particularly one that does not emphasize the violent aspects, it may be possible to justify the effect by pointing to the benefits in training officers to avoid some of their more costly mistakes and in informing the public so that they can evaluate military information.
There is considerably less justification for violent movies or novels as edification is a minor factor and the benefits go mainly to the producer.
Sometimes, there is an attempt to justify the work by reference to art but I find that "art" is mainly in the mind of the person who benefits financially and in the minds of a mindless claque which seeks spurious second hand reputation from the activities of others rather like sports fans which judge themselves by the success of the team they support.
[This message has been edited by Robert Radford (edited 02-21-2001).]