Tuesday, September 9, 2014

War: Scary or Fun?

Every fall from 2009 to 2013, the Call of Duty franchise released the best selling video game of the year. Each new game was essentially an update on the last game, and there were rarely any significant changes from year to year in terms of the playability and style of the games. Of course, there were changes in the gameplay, but the basic principles of a first person shooter video game have remained the same. Why, then, is Call of Duty so successful?

The answer can be simplified into one word: war. The Call of Duty multiplayer game mode allows for individual, as well as team, battles. During a battle, players compete for objectives, such as the most kills in a certain time frame, or the longest time without being killed by other users. In this way, the game acts as a war simulator, portraying battle scenes between different “armies”. Call of Duty becomes even more warlike through the addition of napalm strikes, Cobra attack helicopters, and B52 carpet bombs, which were all weapons used in the Vietnam War. People all over the world love to play violent video games like Call of Duty because it allows them to do something that they would never considering doing in real life. Most people live life according to the rules, and never deviate from what is expected of them. In a way, Call of Duty acts as a facilitator, prompting the user to switch roles from the straight and narrow mild-mannered citizen to the pillaging, reckless warrior. Everyday, thousands of heinous crimes are committed in the United States. Most people avoid these illegal acts, out of fear of punishment. However, in Call of Duty, you can kill with impunity.

Black Ops, the sixth game in the Call of Duty series, shares several characteristics with the Vietnam War. The M16, M60, and M14 are several weapons that are mentioned as being “humped” by the soldiers in the Things They Carried and are also playable in Black Ops. In addition, non-firing weaponry, such as claymores and C-4 are also available for the user to equip onto his character. There are two multiplayer settings based on the landscape of Vietnam. One of them, "Hanoi", is a depiction of the capital city of North Vietnam. The other one, "Jungle", represents the Vietnamese forest, which is the location of several of the stories in The Things They Carried. However, these are just surface level similarities. In fact, Call of Duty: Black Ops and The Things They Carried depict completely different images of the battle field and the experience of a soldier in war. One example of this striking difference is when Curt Lemon is blown up by a landmine in “How to Tell a True War Story” in The Things They Carried. Rat Kiley, a fellow platoon member and dear friend of Curt, is so devastated by his friend’s death that he repeatedly shoots an innocent baby buffalo with a gun. The sense of friendship and camaraderie between Rat and Curt that had built up during the war was finally broken, and Rat Kiley was completely devastated.

That kind of commitment and loyalty between teammates does not shine through in Call of Duty. Strictly considering the team based game modes, unless a player has specifically placed himself on a team with his friends, he will be assigned randomly to a squad comprised of people from anywhere in the world. There is no willingness to save your teammate from harm, because to do so will cost you points and “kills.” In essence, Black Ops is about playing selfishly, for your own gain and nobody elses. Most people are only looking to pad their kill-to-death ratio by entering games with complete disregard for teammates. The sense of camaraderie and sacrifice for your friends as described by Dan O’Brien is nonexistent in Black Ops.

During the Vietnam War, one misstep could end your life forever. However, in Black Ops multiplayer mode, a character will continuously spawn again after he is killed by the enemy. The common goal of avoiding death is present in both depictions of war, but the reality differs significantly. During a real war, a soldier’s motivation for staying alive is tremendous. Many troops are fairly young and still have so much of their lives to live. In contrast, characters in Call of Duty: Black Ops don’t really have anything to live for. The only reason why the user wants to keep his player alive is to keep their current kill streak alive. After a character has been shot in Black Ops, he can just respawn and start all over again. This concept obviously does not hold true for real war. A soldier has only one chance to live his life, and there is no respawning after a mistake.

1 comment:

  1. I agree completely. Recent war video games misconstrue the experience of war completely, removing all of the aspects of war that O'Brien found rewarding. There is no peace, beauty, or friendship in the senseless violence in Call of Duty. Although it can be enjoyable to play Call of Duty and other similar games, it is important to remember that they do not represent war.

    ReplyDelete