War Games, such as Call of Duty and Battlefield, have become increasingly popular in recent years due to their ability to transport players into realistic - graphically and exciting - combat situations. These games offer an immersive gaming experience that allows players to experience warfare in a way that was previously only available to real soldiers. I myself would say that I enjoy all the spectacular depictions of WWI and WWII.
Another interesting aspect about war video games is how they adapt current military technologies and tactics. Many of these games are designed to reflect the weapons, vehicles and equipment used by today's military forces, allowing players to experience these technologies firsthand. In addition, these games also form part of the training of various militaries as they allow players to visualize real military tactics and strategies, allowing them to develop skills in planning and executing military operations.
However, the way these games adapt warfare also raises important questions about how war is represented and perceived in our culture. Many critics argue that war video games can give a distorted image of war, presenting violence and combat as exciting and fun rather than showing the real consequences and human lives lost in war.
On the other hand, advocates argue that war video games can provide a valuable educational experience for gamers, allowing them to better understand the complexities of war and the decisions soldiers must make in combat situations. It is also argued that these games can help players develop important skills, such as quick decision-making and hand-eye coordination.
It hasn't been in the news for a while now, but just the same it is important to note that these games often simplify and exaggerate the realities of war. As someone who has fortunately not seen, nor participated in, any war, I can say as a lover of history that games often present a lack of moral and ethical consequences for the player's actions, some kind of repercussions beyond those dictated by the plot of these games, which can give a distorted picture of war. In addition, the games also often present a lack of realism in terms of weapon effects and logistics.
I am skeptical of how much realism about war can truly be conveyed by video games without risking the fun factor, although something else can be done and that is to subvert our expectations as Spec Ops The Line does so we can enjoy the shooter experience without sacrificing too much of the shock of the trauma of war, although I struggle to find other narrative lines that are not similar to this game and that can take advantage of the devs.
Although recently I have also been able to see a multiplayer experience that can be a first step to deploy a little more realism to these games, Escape From Tarkov is your typical multiplayer shooter / battle royale, only in this case its developer has been focused on giving the most realistic conditions in which these clashes can occur, every bullet counts and every shot can hurt us brutally, there is also the component that we only have one character in our control, if we lose any match with him, everything we have, weapons, ammunition and even health, will also be gone, some gameplays focus on stealth and how players must think in a controlled way how they approach this extraction mission.
If I could define this game with one word is stress, all the time you are much more the time you are walking and being careful not to make too much noise than shooting someone, the confrontations are usually short and the one who is faster pulling the trigger is the one who has the advantage, the game is still in testing phase but I can already see a new genre of realistic shooters.
I would recommend playing this game to understand what I would like the devs to do in these war games, I know it's a lot to ask but I know that at some point I will see it, and if not, I have escape from tarkov as a consolation.
All yours, 