-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Waypoint] 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare' Can't Decide Whether War Is Bad or Badass
- Thread starter MadLaughter
- Start date
They've never said anything remotely deep with any release of COD. They've tried, though, and I don't blame them for doing so, but they're first and foremost always been a shooter with "badass" moments.
i think this perception that if a game is more political or it strives to be more political it somehow makes the game more mature is i think misplaced. Do you expect Grand Theft Auto to be an anti-crime game or have an anti-crime narrative? Certain games can and should approach those angles, but there's also nothing wrong with what COD does in its approach to storytelling
OP
OP
The developers were also the ones saying that they were approaching the telling of the war story in a new way, but the fact that nobody in the room realized that they would undercut themselves with the next section of the presentation implies that they are not as dedicated to the former idea as they could be. Maybe they needed more time, or more diverse perspectives, or to reach out to more appropriate consultants, but if these are the steps they wanted to take it seems like they could've prioritized it better/more.
Essentially like Metal Gear Solid, a game which kind of gets the balance right in general.
But it doesn't, because as you and others have said, as long as it's "fun", people won't mind. And that's part of the discussion and why shooters, especially military shooters, usually don't try to push the idea of the horrors of war.
Jeff Gerstmann this morning said it pretty well, where in the older COD's in their campaigns do have moments of hard shock, but they don't hinge on them to make "WAR IS BAD" statements, mostly because if they did, it'd almost be hypocritical, which is why this trailer, a lot of which feels like stuff you'd see on Live Leak, seems weird to celebrate in a very HooRAH sort of way.
To be honest, I'm actually surprised that COD isn't just a mulitplayer only experience so they can avoid this very thing, having a fun game that can roll around in Military fetishism because they can just say "training exercise, not real, this is how we get better" similar to how Seige does it.
They have done a lot with it, the early games were heavy on the camaraderie, and Modern Warfare was super heavy on the cost of needless warfare. Not sure what you're trying to refer to with "deep" but the games were never quiet about what they thought of war and of soldiers.
OP
OP
"Imagine expecting depth from a game where the developer said 'we have depth' in their first reveal of the game to the world"
OP
OP
This isn't based on the trailer, it's based on an entire presentation the press received at E3 Judges Week.
Francois Truffaut used to say that there was no such thing as an anti-war film as no matter the message war movies are by their very nature exciting and therefore glorify war whether intentionally or not. I don't think videogames can be terribly different, though I doubt the COD devs are intending to do so anyway.
They're the Michael Bay of videogames. Their goal has never been to preach or teach. It's to provide memorable set pieces. I dont know why anyone would ever expect anything more from them since they've never tried to deliver anything but that.
OP
OP
They literally said this time that they are trying to deliver more
I mean, the problem that I and a lot of people have with GTA games is that they favor over the top nonsense over an real meaningful plot structure. People still mark GTA4 with being loose and dumb with it's story by having Niko be so staunchly anti-crime once getting off the boat, to...within a matter of weeks, becoming a criminal kingpin.
You can still have a game that is fun to play have a heavy message about it's subject matter. Spec Ops the line did it very well. But if you're saying that the story doesn't matter as long as the game is fun, or that the story needs to treat the militaristic aspects of it's plot with impunity, never questioning anything, never having anything to say, just leading a character around by a series of explosions and fallen gunshells, then you're buying the same koolaid Ubisoft is asking that you swig everytime they say they don't have a political message to say, but then make 3 Tom Clancy titled games a year.
Pentagon is going to displeased if it shows war as anything other than "necessary evil" committed by western nations and those who are inducted as allies to preserve "freedom".
Along with participating in the more left leaning forums and growing older, it took me watching a "React" video featuring Elders and showing them letting them play the last CoD title (one which takes place during WWII) to realize how abhorrent it is to commercialize real war (more so now given the ambivalent impetus) for profit. Given the interface is limited to shooting, movement, melee and occasionally interacting with items, these games are rife with ludonarrative dissonance.
Whilst VR may change things in the long run, I fail to see how this game can legitimately evoke sentiments that go against the philosophy it relies on to be a commercial success.
Loads of Irish jets up in the air :P
Either way I think the statement is still true.
This is where I'm at.
I mean, it seems like they're trying to make it have depth? Based on what they're saying about the campaign in this presentation, it seems that way.
GTA 4 was exactly that. It was Rockstar's really first attempt at a "mature" story (until RDR 2 again)and many people disliked it which is why they went back to the overtop of GTA V.
They tried to have Niko be this anti-crime reformed figure, but it didn't make sense when the game's mechanics allowed you to steal, rob and kill. It didn't fit for GTA, ludonarrative dissonance and all that jazz
*picks up old book and blows dust off*
ah, good, here it is
No one on resetera actually read it but showed up to book club for the wine and won't stop pretending.
The thing is we've seen them try this before. And they always fail. The memes didn't just make themselves.
I mean, if I was making a game about guns I'd probably be pretty fucking happy if I got them looking and sounding and feeling like they should. Whilst that might seem at odds with trying to not glorify war, it IS still a war game and part of making it as grounded as possible is things looking, sounding, and feeling "right". Don't get me wrong, I'm very very dubious about how this will be handled and whether the narrative will be strong enough to justify what they're doing, but them being excited about how the guns in their FIRST PERSON SHOOTER look and sound isn't the reason.
Right, they gave up on a serious crime store about being dragged back in for an ultimately cartoonish look at crime from a top down view.
So do you think COD can only ever be cartoonishly over the top when it comes to depicting war?
That doesn't mean they should stop trying though. Otherwise the medium never grows past having a 2 hour campaign 70% of people don't play whilst everyone else just hops online.
I think they would have to radically shift their mechanics to compensate for that type of narrative
As the discourse around games have elevated, it makes sense that a lot of video game producers are trying to respond to that by telling more mature stories.
In this case, it feels like a mistake to do it off the back of a AAA franchise who's core appeal that is inherently opposed to that vision. It feels a bit pandering to provoke some high-minded commentary on wartime violence on the same disc that you'll eventually hop into multiplayer on and cartoonishly kill or be killed about 40 times over the course of a round.
In this case, it feels like a mistake to do it off the back of a AAA franchise who's core appeal that is inherently opposed to that vision. It feels a bit pandering to provoke some high-minded commentary on wartime violence on the same disc that you'll eventually hop into multiplayer on and cartoonishly kill or be killed about 40 times over the course of a round.
I don't need call of duty to tell me that war is bad, it's pretty self evident, so if it's not entertaining then what's the point?
I mean... maybe read Austin's description of how the people behind the game deliberately pitched to the audience how this game was going to try and say something more significant.
e: kinda beaten, but yeah I'm thinking it's a swing and a miss at this sort of tonal change
Last edited:
Makes you wonder if they should just avoid campaigns at all if that's their thought process.
No Russian in MW2 is a bit like Michael Bay trying to do a holocaust scene in the middle of Transformers 3, incidentally.
To
And I get what he's saying. I know people that still LOVE watching the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan because, "It's so fucking brutal".
No Russian was just a transparent attempt at pretending something comprised entirely of empty shock value is actually meaningful.
I mean, I am of the opinion they should embrace being the gun porn/dumb action franchise that the multiplayer alludes to and keep crafting some Hollywood-ass popcorn campaigns. They've done that in the past well and I don't think they need to change it, and maybe they could lean into making it even more cartoonish.
If Austin Walker and Waypoint represents one end of the video game consumer spectrum, I think it's completely OK if Activation just makes some Dan Rychert-style spectacle. They'd continue to get dragged for pretending not to "be political", but I'd much rather have something campy then something that tries to feign the correct politics only to botch the execution.
It's just grating when these AAA games try to position themselves as everything to everyone. I guess that's something you try to do when you want to sell tons of copies, but it just makes your product feel like it has an identity crisis.
They should stop attempting to tackle real life conflicts because it is clear where their priorities lay.
Just go fully fictional with some stuff from real life crossing over like weapons and things like that. Ace Combat did it best.
If they want to tackle real life conflicts then the Spec Ops The Line way is the obvious. It shouldn't feel fun to kill people if you are basing the game on real conflicts.
Just go fully fictional with some stuff from real life crossing over like weapons and things like that. Ace Combat did it best.
If they want to tackle real life conflicts then the Spec Ops The Line way is the obvious. It shouldn't feel fun to kill people if you are basing the game on real conflicts.
Are you accusing Austin of misrepresenting what the devs said??
Austin Walker claims that they are specifically trying to do it though. It's one thing to say that you dont believe them but if that's what they're pitching what is there to over think.
And I dont believe them because theres a 90% chance the military has some roundabout way of consulting and funding parts of this like a lot of games and movies
They explicitly stated in their presentation that they were trying to capture the feeling of LiveLeak videos and show civilian casualties and stuff. You can't have that stuff and also cower behind "it's just a game, give me Michael Bay explosions."
Can we knock it off with the anti-intellectual "stop overthinking it" bullshit already? That isn't how this works.
It's not overthinking it if the developers claim it as one of their goals. We know Far Cry 5 was initially going to be way more overt but was toned down at release because people reported them saying what it would be at the Judged Week pitch just like this.
I play games to do and experience things I can't in "real life". You may play them for different reasons and that's totally cool, all good. But it's not an excuse to hammer on a comment made in an unrelated thread because I have a different viewpoint than you do.
It was an illustration of wider issue, one that I already stated has been cultivated by the industry which has now created a feedback loop of expectation. Looking back I should have done a better job at separating the trend from the poster and for that portion I do apologize because antagonizing you, as a person, was not the intention.
