Modern Warfare is Fun, but ‘Modern Warfare’ is Not


(This is another edition of </RANT>, a weekly opinion piece column on GameFront. Check back every week for more. The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not reflect those of GameFront.)

As with any game to enjoy such a significant history of success, Call of Duty has a huge target painted on its back and no shortage of critics with their bows at the ready. The series has been accused of skating off of its name value, of bringing down the quality of the industry overall, and of encouraging a sprawling mass of indistinct military shooters that have turned the industry into gloopy brown sludge. Perhaps the most persistent argument, however, is that Call of Duty — its Modern Warfare offshoot in particular — glamorizes war for mewling idiots who cannot think for themselves and come away thinking that heartless slaughter is the militant equivalent of a birthday party.

I am a self-confessed fan of the series, but admitting so among polite gamer society seems to be on par with telling a 1950′s housewife that you’re a communist, or running into Salem with a pointy hat and broomstick. In fact, the “witch trials” come to mind when I see threads like this, where a user proudly states that he is removing any Xbox Live friends who have a trace of Modern Warfare 3 in their game library’s history. If we carry on like this, we’ll soon have senators bringing gamers in for questioning, asking if they or anybody in their family has played Call of Duty. The revulsion reserved for COD fans is quite extraordinary, eclipsed perhaps only by the Internet at large’s hatred for those who subscribe to the “Furry” way of life. So-called “real” gamers love to look down their noses at COD players, reserving haughty disdain for the “kiddies” who enjoy Activision’s franchise and snootily writing off anybody who does as a dribbling imbecile with nothing of value to say.

At the heart of this arrogant scorn is the game itself. Modern Warfare 3 is the latest chapter in Infinity Ward’s Call of Duty installments, and it’s come packaged with the same kind of controversies and arguments that we’ve come to expect. I have grown tired, however, of the complete and utter myths that people use to perpetuate their hatred of the series because, while there are plenty of valid criticisms people could use against the games, they insist on using arguments that have no basis in reality.

I want to focus on this argument that Call of Duty is a dumb, gung-ho shooter that glamorizes warfare and makes it look like a laugh. As someone who has played all three of the Modern Warfare games, I can safely attest that the last thing Infinity Ward does is make armed combat look like fun. Now, the game may be fun to play, and that certainly throws up a conflicting message, but the actual context of the gameplay, the characters and their situations, is quite clearly unpleasant. People foolishly assume that the game is about badass marines high-fiving over the corpses of arabs while Uncle Sam proudly stomps on America’s enemies, but when you actually pay attention to the games, you find a highly critical story that portrays violence in a fairly negative light and actually manages to comment on the military’s failures, rather than tout its successes.

With its focus on switching player characters and “anyone can die” storyline that frequently has players acting out their own mortality, one of the overarching messages of Modern Warfare is that people die in war — a lot of people — and it’s not a laugh when they do. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had two iconic moments where the player characters die — one featuring a man dragged to a public execution at the hands of violent extremists, and the other forcing players to suffer the after-effects of a nuclear attack, staggering from a burned helicopter wreck and taking a soldier’s final few steps in a burned, broken, ruined village. Both of these scenarios were very effective and highly praised at the time, but while gamers have forgotten about Call of Duty 4′s achievements, the series never stopped communicating a subversive anti-war message throughout its narrative. It’s a message that may be lost on the majority of detractors and fans alike, but it’s a message that’s still there, and Infinity Ward cannot be blamed for those who don’t take on board what is very clearly there.

Across Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3, a running narrative element concerns the repeated failure of the American military to cope with threats, mostly due to incompetent leadership (World War 3 is sparked by one government’s failed attempt at espionage and another government’s desperate need for scapegoats). Another element is that the characters involved are distinctly unpleasant people with unpleasant jobs, and that perhaps the jobs helped turn them into the unlikable chaps that they are. Respected columnist Charlie Brooker recently tackled this idea in a column for the Guardian, expressing concern that Modern Warfare 3 encouraged undue machismo attitudes by portraying soldiers as heartless dicks. While he’s right about the tone, I think he got the message entirely wrong. His issue with one character in particular — Captain Price — is that the man is able to slit throats with a cold, callous indifference. That has always been part of Modern Warfare’s message, however. Going back to Call of Duty 4 once more, there was another widely lauded sequence in which players had to gun down helpless enemies from a military aircraft. The enemies were no threat whatsoever, and they were presented as featureless white shapes through the lens of a heat sensor. As players “lit up” the opposing forces, he was congratulated by the disaffected, disconnected pilot. It was a very effective way of portraying just how alienated soldiers can get from the death and destruction they cause, an issue bookended by a man who can slit another human being’s throat with the same banal disregard he’d have for clipping his toenails. We’re not supposed to think that this is awesome. What Brooker calls “the trouble with videogames” could more rightly be called, “the trouble with human beings who are trained explicitly to cut into the windpipes of other human beings.”

Like it or not, there are men and women in the world who are trained to do just that, and like any job, it runs the risk of becoming mundane. I have to wonder how familiar Brooker and other gamers are with the work of Andy McNab, a former SAS operative who isn’t exactly known for his sensitivity (nor his unwillingness to use the word “slot” that Brooker had such a problem with). When you kill for a living, killing doesn’t exactly become something you stop to cry over every time you do it. That does not mean it’s glamorous, however, and I don’t think Modern Warfare portrays it as such. In fact, the indifference is exactly the right way of portraying it. By not sensationalizing the death and destruction, I think Infinity Ward did a commendable job of showing just how reprehensible war is, how cheaply it renders life and how easy it can become for people to turn into killers. In our civil society with our civil rules, the idea of slitting a person’s throat behind their back is a huge and terrible thing, and something that should affect the lives of everybody involved. In war, it’s just another day, and I think that’s a message that comes through in Modern Warfare. It’s certainly the message I’ve always come away with.

Of course, it’s difficult to make a game that portrays the message that war is horrible while still remaining fun to play, and this is where the Modern Warfare series comes undone. There are all kinds of big action sequences that are indeed “badass” and gratify our base needs for some action, crammed with explosive setpieces and insane vehicular thrill rides. Juxtaposed against the “war’s no good” theme, it does seem a little two-faced and I agree that it’s an issue. It throws up some very intriguing questions as to whether a game can accurately portray the horrors of war without sacrificing enjoyable gameplay. It’s just a shame that nobody wants to have that discussion as far as Call of Duty is concerned because they’re all too busy reaching for the low-hanging fruit and ignorantly accusing the game of reveling in military fanfiction that caters to morons. It’s ironic that these people, who clearly see themselves as intellectually superior gamers, are stifling potentially intelligent discussion about a game series because they’ve already decided it’s stupid and won’t entertain an opposing notion. It’s a shame, really.

Infinity Ward is not the best storyteller in the industry and Modern Warfare’s plot won’t win any awards, but it deserves far more credit than it gets. It deserves to not be written off simply as dumb entertainment for kids with bullet-flavored hard-ons. The Modern Warfare series has a lot to say about how unnecessary – yet how inevitable — war can be, and the affects that it can have a person’s attitude. Yes, it definitely falters at times and its rollercoaster ride levels seem at odds with the message that war’s not pleasant. Nevertheless, it does better than most games on the market at showing the lasting results of violence, and it’s unfair that it shoulders more criticism than any other game for doing the opposite. Few games are as critical of war as Modern Warfare, yet few games are charged with trivializing it so much.

Makes you wonder why Infinity Ward even bothered if nobody’s going to take notice. Still, I’m glad they did.

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

14 Comments on Modern Warfare is Fun, but ‘Modern Warfare’ is Not

Carlo Veits

On November 14, 2011 at 9:05 am

I am not a fan of CoD. With that said, removing players from your friends list for playing CoD is immature and stupid. Makes us gamers look bad.

Rammstein

On November 14, 2011 at 9:06 am

Haha. I do the same for Halo. I don’t even accept friend requests that have Halo in their history.

G.A.R.B.A.G.E

On November 14, 2011 at 10:56 am

Most likely the gamefaqs thread is mainly about the multi-player.

Single player may very well contain some important message or perspective, on war no argument there.

But you can’t use that long winded as excuse for the multiplayer side, as you say, to do so is just another insisted argument that has no basis in reality.

I would most definitely remove superficial friends from lists, playing MW3 multi-player, sheep/zombies as most of them buy the game solely for that horrid experience alone.

Lets see Activsion sell single player COD or MW and (no multi player attached) and lets see how far they get.

colonelboston

On November 14, 2011 at 11:36 am

I’ve been playing cod for over 5 years & MW3 will be the last game in the franchise I buy or play. My problem with the series is that it’s gotten so embarrassingly easy that there’s next-to-no competitive element to it. Players are no longer required to get better, because the equipment & game itself do it for them. When I first started playing cod, if you did poorly, you had to improve, simple as that, but, that’s no longer the case — if you do poorly now, all you have to do is equip things like a Heartbeat Sensor, semi-auto noobtube & a Care Package & the game circumvents your lack of skill & lets you hold stats your skill level never would.

Overall, I’ve really enjoyed the series, but it has, in part, ruined online FPSs because if the game isn’t cod-esque it fails, no matter how good it is or can be. I guess I just miss the days when dying in an online FPS meant you were either outplayed or made a mistake.

In my opinion, all the other cod bashing is just unoriginal people jumping on the bandwagon & knocking cod because it’s en vogue.

Lee Fehners

On November 14, 2011 at 1:17 pm

WOW
Really? Everyone needs to see the big picture, COD, BF there just games no message except to have fun.
Stand down!!
Lee

Zomboid

On November 14, 2011 at 2:40 pm

This was a pretty good read. You’ve made some valid points. What really makes me aggravated about the Call of Duty franchise is that it use to be a really good and fun experience. I’ve been playing Call of Duty since the first one was released and the last one I played was MW2 or Black Ops if you want to be specific. I’m not even going to bother buying MW3 because I feel like it would be a waste of my god damn money. I understand that Call of Duty kind of has to be the same formula in every game and that’s because that is what people are use to.

That’s what makes the game so popular is that easy pick up and play feeling. But they’ve gone too far and made it too easy and find just about anything that can be over-used and cheap and make any newbie look like a ing pro. Not to mention modern Call of Duty has ed up other online FPS’s. Companies feel like they need to make their games have a similarity to CoD or else no one will get it. Which brings me to my next point on how Battlefield 3 is somewhat ed.

I bought that game and I’m enjoying the hell out of it. Not stating it’s better than CoD, but I will for my own opinion. My problem with that is it doesn’t feel like how Battlefield 2 felt. It feels that EA/Dice got caught up in competing with Call of Duty that they had to make the online similar to that and in a lot of aspects it isn’t, and some it is. But what can you do? I’m sure if they stopped making the series, companies would no longer have to fear them and try and copy them in a way. Or some other asshat would take the throne. Who knows.

Mozer

On November 14, 2011 at 2:47 pm

It’s not Call of Duty’s gameplay I have a problem with. It’s the fact that the gameplay feels exactly the same as every past Call of Duty title that I have a problem with. The only difference I see are the support bonuses and weapons, little else.

Alex

On November 14, 2011 at 8:51 pm

A war game with an anti-war message, where the goals of the developer and publisher is to continue to make the same old-tired war game to make money…creating a never ending development loop of war games with an anti-war message. Right…

Alex

On November 14, 2011 at 8:54 pm

“By not sensationalizing the death and destruction, I think Infinity Ward did a commendable job of showing just how reprehensible war is, how cheaply it renders life and how easy it can become for people to turn into killers.”

Really? What’s the deal with the commercials then? Slogan: “There’s a soldier in everyone” Kobe Bryant. Jonah Hill. Sam Worthington. You’re the noob, watch the expert. Boom, flash, blood spatter. GET THIS GAME!!! OCT. XX, 2011!

Josh

On November 14, 2011 at 10:22 pm

This article did a great job of talking about the campaign of the MW franchise and the message is even more powerful when you finish the game and see the moments right after the major climax of the game, the cold Price sits down for another cigar like nothing happened.

For those who say that the multi-player is a different story, obviously. If MW should be packaged based on single player alone, then every game should be looked at in the same light. So almost no FPS gets by the critical distinction of “weak story and relies on multi-player.”

Next you have that it plays the same as other installments. ALL SEQUELS DO THIS OR IT IS NOT A SEQUEL! You don’t completely reformat your game if it is what the fans want. If Halo 2 was nothing like Halo, no one would have wanted it. If Gears of War 3 all of the sudden focused on a WWI setting to make sure it felt nothing like Gears of War 2, no one would want it. You can only change the format so much before you change the game entirely and lose the point of being a sequel.

Gary

On November 15, 2011 at 1:00 pm

This article screams fanboi to be honest. It’s well written, but it’s very very biased. You can tell that you enjoy the series, but all you do is make vague connections to real-life that you could probably apply to any modern or historic war game.

MW2 and MW3 are so far disjointed from any reality it’s not even funny. Every mission is a set piece from your favourite action movie. How can you possibly compare it to real war? To see how it should be done have a play of MoH 2010 – bar a couple of missions that game is very well done and you don’t feel like some testosterone filled incarnation of Rambo as you do in MW.

Besides, you’re only mentioning the single-player component which I’m pretty sure most people actually don’t really care that much about. What we dislike is the repackaged multi-player component that looks and feels the same every year. It’s tiring and boring. It promotes selfish & cheap play, and it molds the younger generation of gamer’s into thinking that’s how EVERY multiplayer game should be played.

I don’t hate every CoD player, but the game does seem to breed quite a few idiots. You only have to play a few games on console to find a server full of immature low-life’s who think swearing every other word is a requirement.

David

On November 16, 2011 at 4:20 am

I’m a little late to this article, but I like Jim’s point. The whole CoD franchise has suffered from that dichotomy, to be honest.

I know it was done by Treyarch and not Infinity Ward, but this is relevant: I loved the crap out of Black Ops (if you don’t think about the story holes too closely) but the ending was just AWFUL. It went from a rather twisted, somber story to a “yeah, yeah, America is awesome!” ending that made LITERALLY NO SENSE.

I just about wanted to throw up at that ending. ing nuts. I haven’t bought MW3 and probably won’t, because the gameplay is getting rather stale, but I have enjoyed the past games.

CHoedy

On November 17, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Jim likes this game because its easy for him to understand and its about as mentally stimulating as a pig eating from its trough.Seriously Jim go yourself you fat .Has the escapist paid you yet for your videos you post every week?

VIP223

On December 2, 2011 at 1:25 am

by: Lee Fehners
On November 14, 2011 at 1:17 pm
WOW
Really? Everyone needs to see the big picture, COD, BF there just games no message except to have fun.
Stand down!!
Lee

Spot on!!!