War games often pride themselves on being "authentic", but come on, how many of us would know if they were fibbing or not? I don't know about you, but I never been shot, nor shot at a fellow man. I was press-ganged into this gig, but that's another story for another day.
Keith Stuart at The Guardian decided to ask a lecturer from the Defence Studies Department of King's College, London just how realistic modern war games are:
I think that what is missing is the chaos of battle. Too often I see tactical engagements unfold on the screen and everything is relatively clear, wheras in real combat, the elements of chaos, unpredictability and confusion predominate. Look at sequences in movies like 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Band of Brothers' to get a good example of what real combat is like. The game that comes closest is the Call of Duty series on XBox 360 in my view.
An excellent point. Then again, accurate simulations of warfare make rubbish games. Anyone play the US Army mode in Full Spectrum Warrior? It was "real", in that it had enemies coming at you from everywhere. You always died right away. Not much fun, that.
"What is missing is the chaos of battle": what a military expert thinks about modern combat games [Games Blog]
















