Is CoD4 the most relevant shooter?

[MindFragged]

Okay, so what I mean by 'relevant' is that CoD4 makes a use of its subject and mechanics to provide a meta-commentary on warfare; the game makes its components relevant to its commentary in ways I can't think of any other main-stream shooter doing. I'm writing this as a way to clear my own thoughts on the subject, but also to hear what you guys have to say. I'd love to hear other break-downs of FPSs in response to this.

My argument is that CoD4 paints an ultimately ambivalent picture of warfare that is communicated through a remarkably diverse selection of its parts. The game wrangles its plot, script and game mechanics (ie. everything from re-spawning enemies to the messages after each player death) together to achieve this effect.

Exhibit A is the AC-130 sequence, viewable at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLHhVJ5ecY and http://youtu.be/TO3I2gCD_Ms . For those that don't know, you play this sequence to cover one of the two main playable characters as his squad heads for extraction. I believe this is the only time you play this character or gun from an aerial vehicle. Your goal is to rain down ordnance on the enemy, and the only lose conditions you face are failure to follow orders (as demonstrated in the video) or firing on friendlies (well duh). As you can see, the action all takes place through the screen of a console located in the plane.

So at face value what is the point of this section? It is not very challenging; after all, you can't die, and friendlies are clearly highlighted. Admittedly, it might be a bit difficult to make things out sometimes, but that is the greatest challenge here. The slim chances of failure reduce the risk-related thrill the rest of the game thrives on. The character you play is not important, and the sequence does little to drive the narrative on. Apart from providing some variety in gameplay and a bit of cathartic fun, why bother including it?

'Good shot, I see a lot of little pieces down there.'

It matters not to your comrade that he is reporting the shredding of someone into pieces, but that the enemy is neutralised. This cooly-spoken phrase suggests a disconnection between the reality of the act committed and the completion of that goal. This isn't the only comment from the crew to which this reading could be applied.

Then there are the whoops of 'woah!' and 'hot damn!' that echo the cathartic pleasure the player feels in blowing the enemy away with a well-placed shell. For obvious reasons the player doesn't feel the impact of taking life in such a way. But then, these comments would suggest that these guys don't either.

I appreciate that many games have your comrades bark out comments along the lines of 'LOL HE DEAD' but the difference here is that there is a literal level of disconnection between these men and their actions as well as a figurative one. Impervious to harm, the action is seen through the filter of a heat-sensing (or some-such) scope, and the crew are free to enjoy the fireworks separated from the risk and reality of war.

Gunning from an AC-130 could probably be a more terrifying and horrifying experience than this game suggests. However the point remains that modern warfare is, more than that of any other era, conducted by proxy, through a veil akin to that through which the player views the violence.

In this way CoD4 closes the gap between the player's experience and the avatar's through a complex interrelation of mechanics. In doing so it provides a complex interpretation its subject - 'modern warfare'.

I could go on about the rest of the game - the quotes and statistics when you die, the plot, the ambivalent morality of your squadmates, the endless waves of nameless, faceless enemies etc. - but for the time being this will have to do as an example of what I'm getting at. There is certainly more to the game's approach to warfare than this, but I think it serves as an example that CoD4 used its mechanics to explore its subject in a way I think few give it credit for, and few FPPs can claim to have done (Far Cry 2 maybe.... but who knows, that's for another time).

 

[IrritatingSquirrel]

Perhaps, but it lost it's shot when it got a pair of sequels, in my opinion. That kind of undermines any statement being made in favour of commercialism

 

[MindFragged]

Perhaps, but it lost it's shot when it got a pair of sequels, in my opinion. That kind of undermines any statement being made in favour of commercialism

For the purposes of my argument, I ask everyone to believe those two titles were smothered at birth.

 

[IrritatingSquirrel]

Perhaps, but it lost it's shot when it got a pair of sequels, in my opinion. That kind of undermines any statement being made in favour of commercialism

For the purposes of my argument, I ask everyone to believe those two titles were smothered at birth.

Oh well in that case I can see where you're coming from. I have no counter argument as of this very moment, then.

 

[Hazy992]

Perhaps, but it lost it's shot when it got a pair of sequels, in my opinion. That kind of undermines any statement being made in favour of commercialism

For the purposes of my argument, I ask everyone to believe those two titles were smothered at birth.

But that's impossible. You're asking us to pretend that COD4 exists in a vacuum when it doesn't. Your argument might have some weight if COD4 was the only game in the Modern Warfare series but the simple fact is it isn't. You have to take into account the sequels.

 

[Michael Hirst]

Any points COD4 was supposedly trying to make in regards to warfare are made redundant by the sequels which are far more gung ho.

I appreciated 2 things in COD4 1. The Nuke scene (it worked well the first time and all attempts to one up it in sequels feel like just that) and secondly the SAS squadmates being ruthless bastards, they're morally ambiguous but just NEED to get the job done.

At the end of the day though it's pointless reading more into the Modern Warfare games because they've been made from the ground up as shooters to glorify violence and entertain a young-adult audience through said violence.

 

[MindFragged]

Perhaps, but it lost it's shot when it got a pair of sequels, in my opinion. That kind of undermines any statement being made in favour of commercialism

For the purposes of my argument, I ask everyone to believe those two titles were smothered at birth.

But that's impossible. You're asking us to pretend that COD4 exists in a vacuum when it doesn't. Your argument might have some weight if COD4 was the only game in the Modern Warfare series but the simple fact is it isn't. You have to take into account the sequels.

My analysis was of CoD4, not the Modern Warfare series as a whole, so I don't really see why people are taking the other two into account. The other two games haven't changed the content of CoD4 - its still exactly the same game it was in 2007. I know its tempting to look at them all together, but there is no need to.

Any points COD4 was supposedly trying to make in regards to warfare are made redundant by the sequels which are far more gung ho.

I appreciated 2 things in COD4 1. The Nuke scene (it worked well the first time and all attempts to one up it in sequels feel like just that) and secondly the SAS squadmates being ruthless bastards, they're morally ambiguous but just NEED to get the job done.

At the end of the day though it's pointless reading more into the Modern Warfare games because they've been made from the ground up as shooters to glorify violence and entertain a young-adult audience through said violence.

I agree, the latter two titles were far more gung-ho. However, my point was of CoD4 that it DOES show a surprisingly complex interpretation of its subject matter. If you want to rebuff that claim, by all means do, but tell me why.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I completely agree. COD4 is by far the most mature, interesting, and nuanced take on war and the nature thereof in a "mainstream" game I have ever seen, especially in the last 5 years. A lot of people seem to miss the game's subtlety and nuance, which is a shame. What is even more of a shame is the sequels, which completely abandoned the messages and themes of 4 for "MOAR EXPLOSIONS!". -_-

 

[Gatx]

Any points COD4 was supposedly trying to make in regards to warfare are made redundant by the sequels which are far more gung ho.

I appreciated 2 things in COD4 1. The Nuke scene (it worked well the first time and all attempts to one up it in sequels feel like just that) and secondly the SAS squadmates being ruthless bastards, they're morally ambiguous but just NEED to get the job done.

At the end of the day though it's pointless reading more into the Modern Warfare games because they've been made from the ground up as shooters to glorify violence and entertain a young-adult audience through said violence.

I agree about the sequels thing. "First Blood," the first Rambo movie. I had always thought that Rambo was all about gungho action movie violence so imagine my surprise when I watched the first one and saw that it actually had a deep message about effects of war on veterans. Of course, popular culture doesn't seem to REMEMBER that as the "Rambo" is colored by all of the sequels.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Any points COD4 was supposedly trying to make in regards to warfare are made redundant by the sequels which are far more gung ho.

How do the sequel automatically invalidate the originals nuanced take on modern warfare, eh? Seriously, I do not get that. When looked at, the game has a ton of obvious messages on the nature of war and those who fight in them. Just because the sequels were gung ho does not mean that those do not exist in the original, and cannot be appreciated. It is like saying that because Load and ReLoad were crappy, they automatically invalidate Master of Puppets and Ride the Lightning. :/

At the end of the day though it's pointless reading more into the Modern Warfare games because they've been made from the ground up as shooters to glorify violence and entertain a young-adult audience through said violence.

Maybe the sequels, but not the first one.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Any points COD4 was supposedly trying to make in regards to warfare are made redundant by the sequels which are far more gung ho.

I appreciated 2 things in COD4 1. The Nuke scene (it worked well the first time and all attempts to one up it in sequels feel like just that) and secondly the SAS squadmates being ruthless bastards, they're morally ambiguous but just NEED to get the job done.

At the end of the day though it's pointless reading more into the Modern Warfare games because they've been made from the ground up as shooters to glorify violence and entertain a young-adult audience through said violence.

I agree about the sequels thing. "First Blood," the first Rambo movie. I had always thought that Rambo was all about gungho action movie violence so imagine my surprise when I watched the first one and saw that it actually had a deep message about effects of war on veterans. Of course, popular culture doesn't seem to REMEMBER that as the "Rambo" is colored by all of the sequels.

But that still does not invalidate the fact that First Blood was a very nuanced anti-war movie does it? The message is still there and can still be appreciated, just like with Modern Warfare.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I completely agree. COD4 is by far the most mature, interesting, and nuanced take on war and the nature thereof in a "mainstream" game I have ever seen, especially in the last 5 years. A lot of people seem to miss the game's subtlety and nuance, which is a shame. What is even more of a shame is the sequels, which completely abandoned the messages and themes of 4 for "MOAR EXPLOSIONS!". -_-

I find that COD4 is strangely schizophrenic about where it wants to be message-wise. It certainly has many trappings of the anti-war message, with its' death screens, the nuke sequence, the AC-130 part and the melancholic ending to name some. But on the other hand, most of the gameplay is straight up action-glorification. The gameplay is the one man army player plowing through the opposition, showcasing awesome american weaponry and telling you how awesome war is. Generally speaking: The USMC parts all the way up to the nuke are gung-ho (you could argue that this is meant to create a mood dissonance to drive the point home, though) whereas most of the SAS parts are far grittier and ambivalent in their portrayal of war.

 

[Bernzz]

I agree completely. The sequels, while fun, were mindless, gung-ho action movies.

I believe that the disconnected radio chatter for the AC-130 section might be emotionally dead people sometimes, but for other people, it could be a coping mechanism. It's much easier to kill a dehumanised enemy in a violent explosion than it is to kill a father of three kids.

Think about it: if you were the captain of a submarine, about to launch a torpedo at an enemy submarine, would you rather think of it as a metal shell containing 100+ people, fighting for what they believe in like you are? Or would you rather think of it as a robotic enemy who feels nothing, like a training target?

Thinking about enemies being real people with real lives that you've cut short could easily send people into depression. It'd do it to me.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I completely agree. COD4 is by far the most mature, interesting, and nuanced take on war and the nature thereof in a "mainstream" game I have ever seen, especially in the last 5 years. A lot of people seem to miss the game's subtlety and nuance, which is a shame. What is even more of a shame is the sequels, which completely abandoned the messages and themes of 4 for "MOAR EXPLOSIONS!". -_-

I find that COD4 is strangely schizophrenic about where it wants to be message-wise. It certainly has many trappings of the anti-war message, with its' death screens, the nuke sequence, the AC-130 part and the melancholic ending to name some. But on the other hand, most of the gameplay is straight up action-glorification. The gameplay is the one man army player plowing through the opposition, showcasing awesome american weaponry and telling you how awesome war is. Generally speaking: The USMC parts all the way up to the nuke are gung-ho (you could argue that this is meant to create a mood dissonance to drive the point home, though) whereas most of the SAS parts are far grittier and ambivalent in their portrayal of war.

No, it seems fairly consistent. Yes the USMC is gung-ho, but they die. Horribly. The game drives home the fact that acting gung-ho in war is a terrible idea and will get you (and most likely your squad) killed. That was pretty much the point of the nuke scene. They acted all gung-ho throughout the war, even doing the classic "I can't leave anyone behind!" scene, and it ended up getting them all killed. They screwed up badly, while the more morally ambiguous SAS all got out alive and ended up winning the war.

 

[Sarge034]

It matters not to your comrade that he is reporting the shredding of someone into pieces, but that the enemy is neutralised. This cooly-spoken phrase suggests a disconnection between the reality of the act committed and the completion of that goal. This isn't the only comment from the crew to which this reading could be applied.

Then there are the whoops of 'woah!' and 'hot damn!' that echo the cathartic pleasure the player feels in blowing the enemy away with a well-placed shell. For obvious reasons the player doesn't feel the impact of taking life in such a way. But then, these comments would suggest that these guys don't either.

Well most of the time these types of guys are like that in the real world. A pilot sees, at most, little dots when he drops his bombs. It is impersonal and, as long as they don't dwell on it, distant. A soldier/sailor/marine/airman on the ground must be able to either dehumanize the enemy or simply rationalize their way through the violence of action if they expect to come out of combat without depression or guilt.

I think CoD4 is by far the best CoD, it does the best job (comparatively) of depicting modern warfare, the nuke was absolute genius, and it sends a very strong set of messages about war, but it by no means truly depicts what war is like. In a firefight it is adrenaline and training, but it is the waiting and the patrolling you never see. Being on your guard for two weeks straight without incident just means you are fatigued and need to continue to be on your guard because you might get hit tomorrow.

 

[Ympulse]

(yes the americans were TOO stereotyped but other than that it hit the point home)

Speaking purely as a former Marine, the depictions of the Marine units were almost 100% accurate, with only minor deviations made, for obvious thematic effect. (Like a SSGT toting a SAW around... yeah...)

 

[Hero in a half shell]

This is nothing new in gaming, Medal of Honor Frontline had several sequences that were designed to make you sympathise... with the Nazis. It was done through several brilliant events as you played through the game, getting more and more personal (first you saw them sleeping in their beds, then you went undercover to a pub and everyone was drinking, singing songs and telling jokes, etc.) Culminating in overhearing a German soldier radioing his wife and telling her he loved her and missed her and would be home soon... shortly before the base gets bombed to smithereens by the RAF. I could never kill that last German soldier, even though I knew he probably wouldn't survive the bombing, I always had to run past the bunker he was in, and I know I'm not the only one.

Another example is the Brothers in Arms franchise which is as historically accurate and authentic a WW2 game that you'll ever get. It focuses more on the characters than the missions (In the first game your objective is to push forward to some hill somewhere, or something. It's not that important) But your squadmates can die at any time, and since they are key to any of your tactics working you end up really trying to keep them alive, and they become more than just your computer A.I. companions. You realise just how war was in WW2, as they banter in cut scenes you see how they are just frightened, exhausted, young men, just trying to get their mission completed so they could go home alive, and that's the greatest mission of B.I.A.: just to ensure that you and your teammates survive.

Yeah, COD 4 is great in doing this sort of exploration of warfare, for the reasons you stated. It's a shame all the sequels missed the memo, in fact, that's probably their biggest failing.