Why can a commercial video game hardly present a neutral view of real-world events?

Its depiction of the world must first serve game design (difficulty, balance), then dramatic tension and resolution, and then be sellable to the target market. Those priorities leave little room for a full and accurate perspective, and developers' own interpretations of the source material inevitably shape what is shown.

"It's only a game" vs. "everything is political". In an interactive medium, a neutral presentation may not even be desirable. The critical questions to ask developers:

• What do the games want to express, and how do they convey these themes to the player?
• What did the developers do to keep their own opinions and interpretations of the real source material from distorting the depiction?
• How, or why, could they set their personal interpretations aside to present something neutrally?
• What research was done? Who checks the game's claim to depict reality?

The only "technical" limit offered for not depicting a perspective fully is the uncanny valley: human acceptance of artificial, human-like figures drops sharply once they become very realistic without being perfect copies.

Go deeper:

• Wikipedia: Uncanny valley — the theory behind the drop in acceptance of near-human figures.