I agree with the general thrust of this article, I disagree on a point or two. Firstly, I don't really agree with Spec Ops: The Line being an illustration of the player's compulsion to just keep killing, considering there are no other options to progress. I don't think that's powerful at all. To me, it's chastising the player for simply playing the game. I hear that's kind of its thing, but it still doesn't feel like a meaningful commentary on war. What would have been more effective is if you could progress by force or evasion, but by evasion, perhaps you witness atrocities from afar that you want to fight and stop. However in doing so, you endanger the lives of your squad, civilians and yourself, and maybe instill in yourself a kind of moral justification for your actions. And I'm talking about the characters in the game. I'm talking about the player. That would have really hit home if the powerful moments of the game were wrought of the players own volition. It would be a good way to show the inherent issues around seeing atrocities, having the will and power to intervene, but knowing somewhere that your actions in stopping them would only lead to more suffering.
Secondly, I disagree with the sentiment that you sacrifice truth when you add more realism. Red Orchestra is a great example of how realism can actually convey the horrors of combat. The sound of artillery, the screams of dying soldier, distant gunfire, your own racing heart and breath, and the knowledge that around the next corner, could be your death. Playing or even watching them game is downright terrifying most of the time, as you would expect combat to be.