Is Call of Duty's release ill-timed?
It's been a busy few weeks for gamers.Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, heralded as the biggest war-based videogame of all time, hit the shelves on Nov. 10. People were queueing from midnight to get a copy. The title, based on the original, groundbreaking Call of Duty title, features controversial scenes of modern battle -- including, apparently, an optional scene in which you play someone who has infiltrated a terrorist group and happily shoots civilians. But, amid all the hype and celebration, did anyone remember the date?
My little boy went to kindergarten the day before the release, where they held a Remembrance Day ceremony. A lone soldier was there, and talked sombrely about what it was like to fight, and why people have to do it. It's difficult for a five-year-old to understand that -- the notion that people might have to do horrible things to each other in the name of peace, or democracy, or oil. By the time he got to school, I had just about persuaded him not to be scared of the soldier, and explained that he wouldn't be carrying a gun or want to hurt anyone.
On what was meant to be a sombre day of remembrance and grieving, why were people going so crazy for this game? Sure, it's a tour de force of superb graphics, amazing gameplay, new cooperative modes, hidden special ops features, and all the other stuff that you'd expect from a flagship videogame in 2009. But when I watched the video interview with Infinity Ward, which developed the game, there was nary a mention of the underlying ethics of game publishing, of the social relevance of the subject matter, or of anything, indeed, other than the relentless drive for veracity, graphics, and better game controllers.
Modern day console gaming is largely about realism. How realistic can you make the experience? How juicy does the simulated blood look from inside your virtual visor? But, isn't this veracity at odds with what veterans were trying to explain to us that week? Remembrance Day isn't about calling to mind what it looks and feels like to pump a round of 40 calibre ammo into your nearest enemy. It's about remembering how horrific war can be, and trying not to do it again. Or celebrate it.
Activision-Blizzard, which publishes the game, will no doubt protest that it is making a $1 million donation to unemployed military veterans through the Call of Duty Endowment (CODE), a Charity Foundation of the Veterans. Surely, then, it must care about its vets? Except that, let's be frank, Call of Duty 4 sold 7 million units, and was heralded as the world's best-selling game of 2007. Not, you know, that I want to be cynical, or anything.
Call me overly moralistic if you like, but I don't want my five-year-old growing up playing this dehumanizing brain candy. I want him to be scared of war when he's older, and to understand that the people his great-grandfather had to bomb in Europe were living, breathing sons and daughters, and not just exquisitely animated pixels.
You'd think that when we are trying to honour the people that died for our freedoms, they'd give it a rest, and truly honour the dead, rather than trying to turn it into a media event to sell a product which celebrates, rather than mourns. Me? I'll take a silent moment and read some Wilfred Owen instead. And when I look at my children over lunch, I'll pray for a peaceful world in which they never have to fight, and never want to revel in the joys of hyper-realistic, simulated killing.
Danny Bradbury, MSN Tech and Gadgets
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Posted by: Shane Milne | Nov 17, 2009 1:32:38 PM
Damnit people! How do so many of you morons think that Danny Bradbury's 5 year oldson is ACTUALLY Playing this game?? The author said that he has a problem with his son growing up in a society where certain media (i.e. video games) are teaching young men to think war is a game of fame and glory rather than a destructive and deadly phenomenon that should be feared and respected. The author is worried about his son playing these types of games in the future-NOT RIGHT NOW for the love of God! Read the article again or go back to English class!
Posted by: Shelton | Nov 17, 2009 2:09:16 PM
Just to be clear your letting a 5 year old play this game? Last I checked it has a M rating thats 17+ and 5 years old. You want to talk responsiblity on the part of activision, How bout some responaclity as parents. I bet your would be upset with GTA as well? and further more I know when i was a kid we played cops and robbers and war games with nerf guns.
Posted by: Danny Bradbury | Nov 17, 2009 2:13:30 PM
@Shane Milne - THANK YOU! You get it. Appreciate the comment :-)
Posted by: Danny Bradbury | Nov 17, 2009 3:33:04 PM
What a lovely bunch of thoughtful comments! Thanks for replying (even the chap who called me a moron). I'm honoured to have some comments from service personnel who have personally seen action - it means a lot to me that they read the article, and felt moved to respond, whether they agreed with the sentiment or not.
No, of course my five year-old isn't playing the game. Shane Milne was right - I mentioned him because I feel that as he grows up, he is going to be bombarded with militaristic imagery from all sides that celebrates war, rather than respects it. And I believe that war is something that deserves a healthy, solemn and silent respect, rather than something that should be marketed and sexed up. Similarly, I support our troops in doing what they have been sent to do, but I am saddened that they have to put themselves in danger, and risk not coming home. I have an acquaintance who served in Afghanistan and lost his colleague on a recent tour, and I find it hard to pick up a game like Call of Duty without thinking of him, and his family. Like many others, I took a silent moment on Remembrance day, and said a prayer for the dead, and for a peaceful world.
Well spotted, all of those people who pointed out that former versions of CoD have been released in Remembrance week before - but alas, I didn't have the privilege of blogging for Geektown (which is a new site) then! It strengthens my point; if they're doing this repeatedly, then it's clearly a marketing gimmick, and I think it's very low. I don't believe that we should play marketing games with something so emotionally and politically charged. I feel the same way about Sony's attempt (abortive, thankfully) to trademark the term 'Shock and Awe' just after the US went into Iraq in 2003.
But of course, all of this is one person's opinion, and it's an attempt to find deeper meaning in the things that we're doing, and consuming. I don't buy the idea that it's "just a game". Nothing is "just" anything. Everything carries cultural implications. The question is whether you want to explore them or not, and whether that's useful. There's always an opportunity to find cultural understanding in the work that we do, in the entertainment we watch, and in the games that we play.
That is what blogs are for - to raise issues, ask questions, and encourage responses. And people have responded in spades, and I'd like to say how edifying it is that people are reading, and thinking. Thank you for making the effort.
Posted by: os | Nov 18, 2009 10:41:05 AM
next your going to say that violence in video games make others violent. if tht was the case i would have been in jail by now. but im not im in the military enjoying every last bit of it while still playing violent video games.
the violence in video games does not do anything to a strong willed minded person that can diffentuate what is right and what is wrong, but ppl play the blame game and pin everything on video games and music.
this game imo is a pos americas army is a far better game that i recommend to ppl. plus its free lol.
Posted by: Scott Bogdan | Nov 22, 2009 12:32:32 PM
I guess my first question is .. why is your 5 year old being exposed to the game? My boys are grown up and games of a higher rating were never even played while they were in any way able to view it. Once they were teens and able to decide and cope with the moral issues of these types of entertainments, be it books, movies or games, they were allowed to play and view them - after we talked about it and decided if it was something we wanted to bring into the home. Outside of my home I can't control what they see or hear ... only how they deal with it. I am not looking for other companies or for society to raise my kids ... that is my job. If society is throwing things at them I don't agree with .. I have to deal with it.
Posted by: guest | Nov 23, 2009 7:20:57 PM
I can see where your coming from, but have you ever done a lilttle bit of reseach in the game or ever seen it been played or what it really repersent. From the begging of the series, the game never was about making amaerica look great or making war look cool, but too show that war really is a brutal thing, it shows what happens to a limiti in war. But unless you have a open mind, all they will see is somthing negitive