Games to the masses. They're always similar.

First person shooter multiplayer games are getting more and more "realistic". This "realism" usually means that players die in a few shots, and everyone is a normal soldier with no extra capabilities, no commanding status, with nothing that would stand out. This is all the "realism" they're talking about. But why don't they develop really realistic games nor arcade-like games? Why are all the games they develop so similar?

When we look a little deeper, we notice that almost no game is really realistic. Let's look at Call of Duty Modern Warfare, a game that sold millions of copies and, even though it's many years old, still has a solid player base. In this game you are a seemingly normal soldier but, despite that, you can call in airstrikes and helicopter support. That's something that a normal soldier can't do in real life, but still this "realistic" game allows it.

We can see this trend in a myriad of other games, too. These games are often popular, but it's not because of realism. They're popular because they're easy. All you need to do in order to get a good score is camp in one spot of the map and shoot everyone who comes to your field of vision. An average player is dumb and wants easy kills. That's why today's games are so simplistic and easy. For someone who likes to practise to get better, they don't give much. For someone who wants something different, they give nothing. Game developers support these trend games because they sell well. We need a change in the players' attitude to get outstanding first person shooters.