What do you prefer in your war simulators?

[Joelcool7]

So over the past decade we have gone from WWII games coming out the ying yang which many developers tried to stay true to the source material and create realistic experiences. Then finally some developers decided to begin making more modern combat games, I remember when CoD:4 came out it was called the most realistic modern day combat simulator.

But increasingly we are moving further and further away from realism. BattleField3, ModernWarFare3 are so far from realistic its hard to even call them modern warfare titles. They are based in completely fabricated wars as has been since CoD:4 With weapons that exist and some things that don't. Scenarios that are truly out of this world and nearly impossible. Yes I love BF3 and am sure I will love MW3 when I purchase it, but it is so unrealistic that it is hard to consider either game to be true combat simulators.

Then we have titles closer to realistic like Medal Of Honor based in Afghanistan and the older America's Army. The more realistic war simulators don't have all the nuke explosions the enemies aren't almost always in uniform. The games have input of actual soldiers fighting in modern conflicts, while these titles lack the eye candy of nukes and huge apocalyptic warfare they offer a more down to earth gritty and realistic appeal.

So the question is where do you want the FPS industry going? Do you want the companies to continue going further and further into fictional conflicts distancing themselves from reality, or do you want more games based on actual conflicts past or present using real weapons in real locations?

Its a question do you want realism or fiction in your FPS titles?