I think any connection we think we might get is mostly an illusion. Fell mentioned how the games were a sanitized version of the war, and unless there is a game out there that makes an effort to really show the atrocities, they will continue to be sanitized.
One of the big limitations of a game is that, generally, there is only one person reaching for the goals the game establishes. A war involves tens of thousands of people, on each side, many of them what we might call non-combatants, but who still get involved.
Does the Vietnam game have a kid with a hidden grenade come to greet a platoon, and then blow up in the middle of it? I honestly don't know, but if it did, suddenly you've got to kill every kid you see, or risk death yourself. This is the kind of darkness that soldiers have to deal with, even today, and something that, if included in a video game, would seriously detract from the enjoyment of playing, IMO. (I guess there may be some people out there that like the idea of killing children, but they need to be locked up, not catered to by the gaming industry.)
A war game, like any other game, has a set of rules that is, in some instances, completely arbitrary. Learning the rules and using them to accomplish the goals given you is the fun of the game. Though there may be similarities to actual events and situations, it seems to me that we haven't gotten to the point where the games are being made for historical accuracy first, and fun in play second. I doubt we ever will. What kind of connection we can make with those resources is probably up to the individual, and their perception. I certainly wouldn't want to say it was all a waste of time. :-/
