To be fair, they actually do kind of have a point regarding the way war is portrayed in video games. I could see someone cutting their teeth on this stuff in their early/mid-teens, and then thinking they could join the military to do it for real. While they would be trained to respect international laws and human rights, they would also have been "trained" to ignore them, too, by playing those games. As for which one would win out, it's hard to say. You're essentially talking about modeling real-life situations here. How you react to them in person may not be all the different from how you reacted to them in a game.
Of course, they shouldn't be pulled from the shelves or anything. Rather, I think war games could become valuable military simulators if they are built to respect the conventions of modern war. I remember playing F-19 back in the day, and if you were in a Cold War or Limited War situation, you got slapped down pretty hard if you blew up civilian structures that were not part of your mission objectives. However, in a Conventional War, anything was fair game--which, again, is not how it really works. Games could certainly be made more challenging by requiring you to abide by the conventions of today's warfare. Collateral damage is frowned upon, and intentional killing of civilians should be an automatic loss.