Call of Duty will be the primary game that I'll be talking about here, not just because it's the biggest name in this field, but because it's one of a very small number of games that I've played in this genre. I've always found the World War II-themed games to be kind of offputting. Having had both my grandfathers serve in World War II (one in the Navy on a minesweeping ship and one in the Signal Corps), I realize the sacrifice that both made to combat evil on a global scale. World War II was a dirty, grimy, down in the trenches war, and I don't know that kids who are playing Call of Duty 4 or what have you are really getting that, especially because the focus is so squarely on multiplayer.
World War II wasn't fun. It most certainly wasn't a game. Yet, of course, these are generally the things that make a videogame successful. Even claims of moving in a "realistic" direction are completely off the wall – realism would involve starving, fearing for your life, with no contact with the ones you love and your friends dying around you all the time. No videogame could truly convey that sense of terror.
Is it possible for videogames to achieve at least their version of Saving Private Ryan? I think it would require a fundamental shift in the way that these games are produced, and they'd have to strike a fine balance between avoiding proselytizing and being playable while also conveying the proper sense of what it means to be in wartime. The reason why Saving Private Ryan works as a war (and, in a lot of ways, as an anti-war) film is because it's such a guided experience, and one where the viewer knows for certain that the characters aren't ciphers for their own beliefs and experiences.
That's obviously not the case with Call of Duty. Sure, you play as Soap McTavish or what have you, but your character is still a silent protagonist. That, of course, implies that you're actually there in the heat of the battle. Make no mistake, there were some moments of serious power in the original Modern Warfare game, but most of the time it felt like an over the top action film. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, except that Call of Duty goes way out of its way to be the preeminent "serious" examination of war. By making war into a game, the game inadvertently (or, um, advertently, as the case may be) takes a turn towards neo-conservative politics, something that no game has the right to do. Not to mention that Activision's draconian business plan (firing the heads of Infinity Ward, who at least seem to know how to inject a certain amount of powerful imagery into their games, even if I think that imagery goes to waste), and iterating the game annually kind of kills any sort of true artistic ambitions that such a crunch-time deadline would put in place.
I don't know. I guess the real question would be what the impact of these games have had on society at large. Are kids joining the military based on their experiences with videogames? Do such videogames piss off veterans (any more so, than, say, The Hurt Locker has)? I still think it's somewhat of a disingenuous experience, though I'd like to debate this further in the comments section. I may not have the broadest background knowledge of all of these types of games, and maybe I'm missing that one game that really captures the essence of war and makes some sort of statement on it.
The Onion lampoons the "realistic" aspects of Call of Duty: