Reid McCarter's essay on
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a little better, with its analysis of the historical and cultural context that gave rise to its creation. I would have liked to have seen some quotes from the developers of the game to back up some of McCarter's claims though, because some of what he says sounds like a bit of a stretch.
Reid McCarter wrote:
The wars of 2007 weren’t being waged against villainous armies, but insurgent groups fighting for reasons more complex than national interest or blind patriotism. To remain vital the subject matter had to change and tackle the conflicts weighing most heavily on Western minds.
The first Modern Warfare doesn't quite seem to fit that description. Now, the later ones may very well qualify. Especially the second mission from
Modern Warfare 2, which has you operating a humvee turret in a battalion moving through the streets of Afghanistan. As seen
here.
That mission deserves more praise and recognition. Far more so than the No Russian mission does. Because the atmosphere that it created when you were driving through the volatile city, with the eyes of a hundred hidden hostiles oppressing you, while everything starts closing in around you was incredible. It was certainly no "power fantasy", that's for sure.
But accurate war simulation is not what these games are about. They are designed and packaged as "a grand action film— one in which the camera winces away from the ugly effects of violence in favour of its more exciting aspects." It's war as blockbuster entertainment. That doesn't mean there won't be moments in the game that reflect an authentic image of war, like in the example above and in the nuclear aftermath segment in
Modern Warfare. It's just that in a game like Call of Duty, they're going to be highly controlled and regulated. I.e. scripted. Chaos is kept largely at bay, and the battlefield operates only as it's directed.
War has changed.
McCarter recognizes the game as a "fantasy", meant to "purge our demons" via "a large-scale exercise in catharsis. ... And the best part? Inside the game we always get to win." He sees it more as a "therapist's couch" than a game. Which is funny, because at this point, this is beginning to sound a lot like how the
Hatred developers described their own game. But you know, if you're bothered by all this, there's quite a lot you can do to fix it. For instance, he mentions playing as an "immortal" soldier. Well, I don't know about him, but I don't remember ever playing as any immortals with "consequence-free" deaths. If he feels as if CoD is too much of a power fantasy, it's probably because he's playing them in such a way that they become power fantasies. It's a little disingenuous to fault the game for that, when you yourself made it so. And probably wouldn't want it any other way.
He then ends the essay by taking the game to task for not fulfilling a rather serious role.
Reid McCarter wrote:
To properly grapple with our place in this increasingly tumultuous world, the West is going to have to provide work more complex than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Fantasies of righteous wars and immortal soldiers aren’t going to be enough as we move forward.
It's a good thing we don't have to rely only on videogames for such things.
