- where they get no physical pain apart from discontent from getting killed on the battlefield and not finishing the game.
- where they get points for killing the enemy, for blasting the transports
- where they get no diplomatic attempts at avoiding the war
- where peace is nothing but the end of the game where all is past as nothing ever happened
I'm afraid this gives a very different picture of what war really is
- soldiers die from anything between a bad fall, a splinter, a bullet, an explosion
- there are no points - you either kill or get killed
- soldiers fight because diplomacies have failed - but at least have been attempted!
- where after the war there is no winner. Only heavy losses and maimings on both sides.
Players have to envisage that real soldiers do not engage warfare with such positive anxiety but rather a terrifying dread where they do not know what they are up to, where they don't know if they will be able to fire, to aim, will the firearm work? Remember it's not a mouse they have (an optical one at that) but a complex death-machine - which could be deadly to the wielder himself.
For soldiers who go on war AFTER having played a war game, the experience is different. They find out that it's not so easy to aim after all. But, does the juvenile idea of a war game being fun still linger in their subconscious? "Great Shot!", "HeadShot!", "I own!"
God forbid that games should be used against our children to brainwash them into fighting when the need arises!
