Call of Doodie
By
Chad Quandt |
IDS
POSTED AT
09:12 PM ON Nov. 17, 2009
| PRINT |
Email
| SHARE
| COMMENTS (0)
The hype machine for “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2” has gotten to me.
Out of fear for my grades, I swore it off until Thanksgiving break. That didn’t stop me from spending time between papers watching webcams of people playing the game.
Yes, ladies, I’m single.
Gamers can’t resist its siren call of blockbuster “realism” in a game where one can throw a grenade 500 yards, jump off a three-story roof, knife five guys in the back and call in a miniature nuke over the course of 30 seconds.
News networks are talking about the game not because they want to brag about their killstreaks (I am starting the rumor right now that Lou Dobbs retired from CNN so that he could start playing it competitively and “bring the rain”), but because of the infamous “No Russian” level.
As part of the story, players control an undercover agent who has infiltrated a group of Russian terrorists.
To prove your loyalty to the faction, you accompany them to a Russian airport where you proceed to mow down civilians with assault rifles for five minutes.
It is a brutal scene and evokes emotions that are likely exactly what developer Infinity Ward was going for.
I’ve killed enough digital enemies to justify my own war memorial, but this scene is one of the first times I’ve felt revulsion for pulling the trigger. If I was Catholic I’d go to confession over this.
The story justifies your actions by stating that if you don’t do this heinous act, your cover will be blown and you won’t be able to stop them from doing something exponentially worse in the future.
It’s a modern take on the debate of whether dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a greater amount of lives by ending the war.
Where the game fails is it’s neglect to give at least the illusion of choice in the matter.
Video games have the unique advantage as a medium to immerse a player into the story they’re experiencing by letting the player feel they have choice in their actions.
If you feel the urge to turn your weapons on the terrorists (which many players likely will), they suddenly become bulletproof.
There is nothing you can do as a character to stop this decision.
The narrative is dependent on these events happening, but there are quick solutions to showing the consequences of rejecting the mission.
A video showing a more severe terrorist attack would drive home the idea that it was because you “failed.”
But at the end of the level, we’re taught that by following through with this bloodshed, we effectively start World War III.
To give the player the tools to stop this carnage (a really big gun) and prevent them from experimenting with the story line is a giant middle finger - and then expect a player to feel regret from their actions because of this is ridiculous.
Because of this, the level and the game come off as an exploitative shock tactic instead of another solid justification that video games are art.