Bit Tech has just published a feature titled "Gaming in the real world" that's written by a former member of the Armed Forces. It discusses some of the differences between "ever more realistic" first person shooters and actual combat.
"A question that’s often asked is how much of what we might experience in a real life situation is reflected in those games that claim to be as close to real as possible?
Having spent most of my working life in the Armed Forces and spending most of my spare time fragging in ‘realistic’ 3D environments, I believe I’m in a position where I am pretty qualified to answer that question. So, bearing this in mind, I thought I’d put metaphoric pen to paper and see if I could come up with an answer.
In fact, I plan to explore the blurring of realism in the gaming world in a series of articles as this particular subject is one that is close to my heart.
The quandary facing the games publishers has only become more apparent as gamers have become more demanding for perfection and more realism thanks to more advanced graphics. Should the publishers make a game that is a reflection of fact or one that is based on perceived fact? To explain this, we will be talking about one of my favourite genres: the First Person Shooter and, more specifically, ones that use history or current events to set the scene for the action."