this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
337 points (99.7% liked)

Gaming

30614 readers
283 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I just started playing COD Black Ops Cold War because I got it through my PlayStation Plus subscription and wanted to try it out. I've previously played some others like Modern Warfare (1 and 2) and WWII. While it always felt a bit over the top and propaganda-ish, I really liked it for the blockbuster feeling and just turning your mind off and enjoying the set pieces. However, Cold War has a section in Vietnam and I suddenly started feeling really uncomfortable and just turned the game off.

In WWII you can easily feel like the "defender", and even Modern Warfare felt like fighting a very specific organisation that wanted to kill millions. Here however it just becomes so hard to explain why I'm happily mowing down hundreds of clearly Vietnamese locals that I was unable to turn my mind off and just enjoy the spectacle.

I turned to the internet and started browsing and found this article and I really agree with what the author is saying.

I don't know if I will be continuing the campaign or not, but I just feel that I don't want to support these kinds of minimizations of military interventions.

I just wish there were more high budget / setpiece games that don't glorify real life wars. Spec Ops The Line was amazing in that sense, but it's also quite old already.

I would love to hear your opinions on this subject.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Perhaps my memory is clouded, as it has been a long time since I had played a Call of Duty game, but I believe there was a time when most of it felt anti-war, in that you would die frequently and often, then be shown a quote that was about how there are no winners in war, providing a sharp contrast between the actions you were taking and the grin reality of what was occuring. After I believe Modern Warfare 2, the CEOs of Infinity War stepped down, and since then the quotes stopped being more anti-war, and much more pro-war, highlighting heroism and such in the quotes. I always viewed it as a studio change and just stopped playing after that, feeling the games were just missing the mark and farming more and more of that sweet multiplayer money.

[–] glockenspiel 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Citations Needed had a mini series where they discussed why this happened. The US government will give material support to movie and game studios in exchange for some creative control over the content. That’s why so many movies with military equipment in it are rabidly pro-war; the studios don’t get access to the real equipment without the government’s support, and they don’t sign off on extremely critical scripts.

COD and similar games don’t just pop out of a void and still strive for some semblance of realism. That is a huge selling point after all. So the government gets involved, even if in little ways. Same way China gets to censor movies, either by omission or fundamentally changing things, around the world.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the same reason TV shows like NCIS get 500 seasons.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ooooh, I feel dumb that I didn’t pick up on this before.

I knew about movies (Top Gun and all) but not other things, for whatever reason.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago

The beginning of the "campaign" in Battlefield 1 was really good about this.

SPOILERS AHEAD ^(I know there are spoiler tags, but they don't work on my app.)

Opening begins with the following:

Battlefield 1 is based upon events that unfolded over one hundred years ago.

More than 60 million soldiers fought in "The War to End All Wars".

It ended nothing. Yet it changed the world forever.

What follows is frontline combat.

You are not expected to survive.

You're then thrown into the start of a regular battle. This is the game, right? Cool, let's shoot some bad guys.

Nope. Doesn't matter how good you are, you will die. After you get killed, the name of the soldier and how many years he'd lived are shown on-screen.

Then you switch perspectives to a different kind of battle (eg. artillery, air, tank, etc.). Same thing. This goes on a few times.

Eventually you reach a point where it's just you, face to face with a lone German soldier, your rifles pointed at each other. Both soldiers just lower their guns, realizing the futility of it all.

Intro ends.

The rest of the game is the typical military FPS stuff we're used to, but that intro was pretty great about how war has no winners when it comes to individuals on the battlefield. We all lose in the end, whether we live or not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Activision receives preferential access and funding from the DOD. Much like with films and sports presentations, Call of Duty is a PR arm of the military industrial complex.

The upside is I don't see how its improved recruitment numbers.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

At one point in time I certain it has. Right now people seem more skeptical, which is pretty fair since anyone joining now has lived their entire life during a pointless war.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s always been like that https://www.eurogamer.net/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-accused-of-rewriting-history-to-blame-russia-for-controversial-us-attacks

Also there is literally a former CIA exec in the exec suite of Activision.

https://www.activisionblizzard.com/leadership/brian-bulatao

And the Homeland Security Advisor to Dubya was also an exec at Activision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Townsend

How many other game companies have executives with close ties to the military?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago

I think they were/are getting funding from some US military defense sector, the same one that was funding a lot of pro-american propaganda films. So even without taking the actual campaign/story of COD games into consideration, it's definitely in their interest to make a propaganda game.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I mean, yeah. CoD has always glorified it. Even more so in recent years as they push for multiplayer and the massive payday that came with that. The earlier games often had a "war can be bad too" bits. The Russian bit in CoD1. The nuke. "No Russian". But otherwise it's a Michael Bay movie in game form.

Spec Ops The Line was the only game I can think of that bucked that. Even the publishers had no idea what it was, despite the antagonist literally being called Konrad.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hello. I am a game developer of 10 years. For about 1.5 years I worked on Squad, from early 2016 to late 2017. I quit for this exact reason.

I thought it would be a game about honoring the act of war not glorifying it. Especially since we had veterans at the studio on the design. Instead, it was a game about making it feel as realistic as possible while still being fun. 51% gameplay, 49% realism was the motto.

Squad doesn't do anything narratively. It just sets two factions on a map and says fight. The mechanics feel great, the sound design is the best it can be, and the vehicles give this strong feeling of weight. It's a great game... that they then took my work, split into another company into a defense contractor, and made a real-life military simulation. Not like Arma but an actual military training tool.

Squad does the same thing, makes you feel okay with fighting and making fun of an opposing force that is just trying to preserve it's own way of life. It's not there narratively but in the community which Squad specifically as a team did nothing at the time to stop the racists and created a pro-war community. In fact, in a lot of ways they cultivated it.

So I have a lot of opinions about this subject, pretty scattered but I will leave you with my greatest accomplishment on Squad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RMnYm_6rNE

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I haven't played Squad in a bit, but thanks for the work you put into it.

I will say, Bohemia Interactive (ArmA studio) also makes military training tools. If you make a fairly realistic multiplayer milsim style game, it's easy to roll that into something militaries will spend a lot for. I don't think this is "wrong" but it is morally gray. It does provide low risk training, which could save lives, but it's also training to kill people, and maybe not "the good guys" if there is such a thing.

You're right that Squad has harbored a lot of racists though. A lot of people seem to play to larp as a racist stereotype. That said, I've also met a lot of vets there who seem to care a lot more about treating it properly. I don't think there's a way to get one of those without the other, without being ArmA which takes too much commitment for me now.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Bohemia at least heavily pushed their Laws of War DLC and their collaboration with the Red Cross

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The most stark example against this is the original MW2 - in addition to the anti-war quotes everyone loves to talk about every time you die, the main antagonist is literally a US Army General (admittedly he is distanced from the actual Army by the end, using a PMC instead).

The black ops games have some twist that often provoke the the thought of whether the ends justify the means. ::: In Cold War, the main character, Bell, is actually a captured Russian soldier that they have brainwashed to fight for the US as part of an experimental program. When this is revealed, you have the option to betray your "team" and lead them into a Russian trap :::

That being said, I haven't played all of the cod campaigns, especially some of the more "historical" entries. It's more fun to play this type of game when it makes you feel like what you're doing is justified. It's important to remember it's all fiction, but hey, it's not going to be for everyone. If you feel like the game you're playing goes against your morals, no shame in switching it off for something else.

As Reggie from Nintendo once said, "If it isn't fun, why bother."

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As Reggie from Nintendo once said, “If it isn’t fun, why bother.”

I haven't played enough to make a judgment about COD in particular, but like you said, this is from Nintendo, a company whose main franchise is a game for kids about a funny little man stomping evil turtles in a fantasy world. It doesn't even have the trappings of something that you can take seriously and use to inform your real life. Nobody would mistake it for anything close to a realistic historical account, unlike COD.

Is Schindler's List fun?

There is more to media and art than whether its fun. Art can be engaging and intriguing without being "fun". I wouldn't call Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice "fun" per se, but it's definitely a good game.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Would you define this as your "Are we the baddies?" moment?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, not really as I'm European and have no connection to any side in the Vietnam war.

I just feel that if your game is based on real life wars than you should be very careful to give a nuanced view of the situation. Even allowing a campaign on both sides would be interesting if executed well.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

French colonization of Vietnam was what the VCP were fighting against at the beginning of the war. The Soviet Union and China got involved to help kick France and Britain out and US involvement came when it was clear France and Britain had lost the war. But other than that and the coalition troops I guess Europe wasn't involved in the Vietnam War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Indochina

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I knew about this. As a Belgian though, I don't believe we had a lot of presence there.

Sadly, we have done our share of horrible stuff on foreign soil (but we haven't made any videogames about it)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Certainly we already had this conversation like ten years ago right? Call of duty has never been anything but that, you really can’t make a war game that is both fun and anything but pro war

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think this is a conversation we can have once ten years ago and forget about it, as long as the franchise is still going.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Yeah. I never played any other CoD games than the WWII ones. CoD 1, 2, the Pacific one (world at war?) and the latest WWII.

When I saw them release the modern warfare one after the invasion of Iraq, I thought it was so distasteful I never bothered to pay any other CoD game because I knew it would be uncomfortable.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Don't they recieve funding from the us armed forces? No shit its pro army propaganda

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

You didn’t play long enough, eventually there are miscellaneous Cuban enemies too.

If you aren’t going to finish the game, I’d recommend at least watching the ending. The “good” ending modifies the typical narrative and the “bad” ending ends up being much more fun.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did anyone not realize this?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I installed all 100+ gb on my PS5, played 2 or 3 matches with a friend online, laughed a lot at how gruff-guy, teenage edge-lord it all was, then promptly deleted it in order to see if Destiny 2 was any better. (We're still playing Destiny 2, but have all but given up on ever understanding what the hell we're supposed to do in that game or how to even go about doing it.)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

@knokelmaat As someone who used to play call of duty I don't think anyone plays the campaign and thinks its anything more than fantasy.

[–] murtaza64 20 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Young and impressionable kids? I started playing the original MW2 when I was 11.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You forget that literal children play these games

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

And also US puts out enough propaganda about their role in wars that enough grown-ass adults have very idealized views about them.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The US Army would disagree, and I'm certain they know better than you. They literally use CoD in their recruitment campaigns.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s not incompatible with the thesis, fantasy can and does have a point of view

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I think at this point, the only way they get media attention is if they do something outlandish like this. The adults get huffy and make posts like this, the kids don't care at all and call them boomers, and all press is good for them. It started with "remember, no russian" and it's the only reason I ever hear about COD anymore.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago
load more comments
view more: next ›