Call of Duty's underlying message is becoming more troubling

http://www.edge-online.com/features/call-of-duty-piece/

by evo_9 • 13 years ago

118 102 13 years ago

edge-online.com

Rygu• 13 years ago

I guess Hollywood started it.

kbar13• 13 years ago

yet another sensationalist article about a game that's on its way out

exodust• 13 years ago

The article is not sensationalist.

While it's too short, and only scratches the surface of the topic, his idea is valid and not unfamiliar to people who like or hate these games.

I've played these games before and thought "this is American bullshit (for reasons stated in the article).... but kinda fun at the same".

icebraining3• 13 years ago

The thing is, anyone who plays CoD for a reasonable amount of time (and I know I did, until MW1) spends half the time killing Americans, because the single player is only a footnote compared to the multi player.

BetaCygni• 13 years ago

I haven't played the game, but doesn't a story line that warns about current (military) infrastructure being used against the population of the U.S. itself sound very dystopian and modern? Yes, it is troubling but that's not a fault of the messenger.

dmazin4• 13 years ago

I agree with your first sentence, but what's being said is troubling is the message that American military power should be unchecked.

neuroscr• 13 years ago

Art can be interpreted in may ways. Just because the author reads it one way doesn't mean it was the intent.

dmazin4• 13 years ago

But kids aren't consuming COD as art.

Maybe many many years from now we can appreciate it aesthetically, like we do some propagandic speeches, but right now it's very clear that COD drives a very certain message to the people who play it - but now I'm just repeating the article.

Tohhou5• 13 years ago

"It's very clear that every movie you watch is driving a certain message. Also every book. None of that is art. You are so simple minded that these medias can tell you what to think just by existing and without you being able to make up your own mind. Let's ban entertainment that doesn't fall in line with our ideological tow."

haldujai• 13 years ago

Why are kids consuming CoD? The game is rated M, maybe parents should stop impressionable minors from playing the game, I think someone 17+ should be significantly less impressionable.

vinkelhake• 13 years ago

The kids aren't playing CoD for the story. The single-player campaign is, at best, seen as a light warmup for multiplayer. That is where the kids are spending their time.

arrrg• 13 years ago

That doesn’t mean you can say nothing about it or that any opinion about it is equally valid. Your blanket dismissal of this criticism makes little sense.

I’m also not sure what your point regarding intent is. If something has a certain unintended effect the authors’ statement that they never intended that effect may be interesting (especially when looking at the creation process and when looking into why certain things turn out the way they do) but it’s not exactly a valid defence. The effect is very real, intended or not.

Is the stated effect a reasonable interpretation and is it likely to be at least no completely rare? That’s the question you should ask and discuss. I don’t think intent is even a tiny bit relevant here.

However, this whole topic is still a vast wasteland. All the discussion always seems to focus on violence and whether or not video games cause it (for which there is very little evidence and if there is an effect it is likely to be quite small) – but completely ignore the importance of talking about art and entertainment and the messages it has. This isn’t about censorship, this is about serious criticism.

I’m too tired for a nuanced discussion on this today, so I will allow myself to be a bit harsh: When I look at popular games I see the most brutal violence being celebrated everywhere. And it sickens me. I want more better games with less violence for this awesome medium. And I want game creators to ask themselves why they feel the need for violence to always be so, so central.

mason2402• 13 years ago

[Insert popular video game here] might be just a game, but its underlying message is becoming more and more troubling

Tohhou5• 13 years ago

[Insert popular thing here] might be just a [thing], but its underlying message is becoming more and more problematic.

/r/conspiracy is leaking into HN /r/conspiratard would like a word with many here.

aaronblohowiak• 13 years ago

Spec Ops: The Line was a video game and the message was a good one.

venomsnake2• 13 years ago

But the gameplay was bad even for modern console shooter. And that says a lot. I loved the cutscenes but the other parts were terrible. It was - slaughter these people in gameplay - watch the cutscene how bad war is. They failed to relay their message with the gameplay.

usingpond• 13 years ago

This is literally the laziest counterargument you could make.

mason2402• 13 years ago

Sorry, but this literally the same headline about video games we've seen since at least the mid 90's.

qbrass• 13 years ago

I'm surprised the Splinter Cell games didn't get a closer look. Especially when Tom Clancy's death, and anything NSA related being used for headlines.

emiljbs5• 13 years ago

You know "it's just a game" does have a lot of mileage left in it if you had to write an article on edge-online.com about the issue. I can promise you that none of those teenagers that play CoD ever even thought about that or even tried to interpret the story at all. In fact, the single-player campaign is just something you do when you get temporarily bored with multiplayer. If a teenage player did think of what the story implies then I am sure that he is also smart enough to think about it further and conclude that that's quite silly.

I wouldn't be bothered with what one source tells you (if you look really closely at it) when there are so many other sources of information out there. Especially when that source isn't considered serious by pretty much everyone who plays the game.

debt• 13 years ago

While I agree, I do think this underestimates the power of a person's subconscious. The details outlined in the article might not be explicitly called out in the gamer's mind, but might set a subconscious expectation for it to be the case; that "America is a superpower". When this expectation isn't met in reality, then the user might find themselves defending the position that "America is great" without them ever realizing why they hold that position in the first place.

dwaltrip2• 13 years ago

Very well said, thank you for posting this. It seems to me that humans in general have a hard realizing the powerful subtleties of the subconscious and how it can shape world views/thought patterns over time.

walid• 13 years ago

I remember playing Half-Life and finishing the game and only after I replayed the intro again did I bother to understand the premise of aliens teleported to us. I only wanted to wind the game. FPS are fun to me because of the speed I have to react and not because of the weapons detail. In fact weapons don't interest me if they don't have a sci-fi feel to them. So yeah, it's just a game.

belorn• 13 years ago

One could argue the same thing abut pejoratives and ethnic slurs on the Internet. None of people posting youtube comments ever think about the issue of using ethnic slurs, nor what they actually mean. If a person did think of what such words mean, they are surely smart enough to conclude in not using them.

Yet... I think it is good that people do point out the inappropriateness in using pejoratives and ethnic slurs. It marks a social standpoint, which instructs people in what is acceptable and not acceptable. Same goes for propaganda messages in games.

emiljbs5• 13 years ago

I think a better analogy would be someone accidently telling deaf kids that "saying <ethnic slur here> is awesome" while giving them candy. The deaf kids doesn't pick up on that and the person probably doesn't realise what he is saying anyway because he just wanted to give kids candy.

Activision doesn't care about sending out propaganda, they just want money and do so by bringing out action games with ridiculously bad storylines that a lot of players probably doesn't even play.

saraid2163• 13 years ago

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

mercurial5• 13 years ago

In fact, the single-player campaign is just something you do when you get temporarily bored with multiplayer. If a teenage player did think of what the story implies then I am sure that he is also smart enough to think about it further and conclude that that's quite silly.

By the same token, a campaign glorifying White Power would be perfectly fine. If developers are putting serious money into crafting a single-player story, and people are playing (in fact, I think I read some time ago a CoD developer expressing surprise at the number of people playing only the campaign and not the multiplayer), it's perfectly legitimate to criticize it.

thisiswrong2• 13 years ago

This article raises a valid point, but sadly doesn't fully address it.

Are the same group of conspirators who illegally spy on us also pulling strings in Hollywood and at game studios to promote their agenda? This concept may seem hard for certain to believe. But a quick look at history clearly shows that oppressive and feudal rulers have actively promoted different types of story telling/theater acts or bible scripts that implicitly match their agenda.

Some articles for your thoughts...

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/18/video-game...

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-01-17/government-p...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/the-cia-and-other-gov...

mrxd• 13 years ago

See also the CIA's role in promoting abstract expressionism during the Cold War: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-w...

mhurron• 13 years ago

Are ... [they] ... pulling strings in Hollywood and at game studios to promote their agenda?

Only if they always have been. War movies are not a new phenomenon.

Couldn't it simply be that the American public are war-mongers and game studios are simply giving the people what they wanted?

thisiswrong2• 13 years ago

The American public are war-mongers and game studios are simply giving the people what they wanted

By that logic GW Bush was simply trying to get reelected when he helped start a false war in Iraq and Obama is simply appealing to his electorate (and perhaps the Nobel peace prize panel) with his assassination programs.

benihana• 13 years ago

Doom might be just a game, but it's underlying message that we should be killing demons makes me very uncomfortable.

gamblor956• 13 years ago

It always did seem weird that all the demons were trying to escape from hell but we were trying to get to it...

dwaltrip2• 13 years ago

Great comparison, really provides extra insight into the issue.

rl35• 13 years ago

There's far more than the plot lines that are troubling.

For example, much is made of the fact that real-life Special Forces soldiers aid in the development of these games for the sake of authenticity. That's great, but that authenticity is then baked into products that paint a wholly misleading picture about the realities of war. The Medal of Honor franchise is also guilty of this.

In a much larger sense, it just feels like there's a giant entertainment industry cash grab that's been taking place off of ongoing US conflicts, and it's being masked in soldier worship and flag-waving. In my opinion, this phenomenon only serves to obscure the real sacrifices made by service personnel.

This is even more unfortunate when you consider the franchise is heavily marketed on the basis of its supposed authenticity, and its main audience tends to be quite a few years below each game's M rating. I don't even remotely care about violence in videogames, but messaging that resembles propaganda seems troublesome, especially with a younger audience.

That said, I realize they're games, and the object of games is to entertain. Therein lies the second problem: Call of Duty games tend to be mediocre at best. The fact their sales are so strong is a testament to Activision's marketing powerhouse.

saraid2163• 13 years ago

For example, much is made of the fact that real-life Special Forces soldiers aid in the development of these games for the sake of authenticity.

I'm really amused at the idea that there are veterans who have been through hell sat in a room debriefing for a bunch of artists and programmers.

Also in complete disbelief.

kyzyl• 13 years ago

Gotta pay the bills somehow. I hear most military pensions don't quite cut it.

throwaway89764• 13 years ago

""Right now we are pretty stacked with consultants," the video-game man responded. "Thirty active and recently retired guys" for one game: Medal of Honor Warfighter. In fact, seven active-duty Team 6 SEALs would later be punished for advising EA while still in the Navy and supposedly revealing classified information. (One retired SEAL, a participant in the bin Laden raid, was also involved.)"

http://www.esquire.com/features/man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden...

spullara• 13 years ago

The CoD servers I play on are dominated by active service personnel.

sliverstorm4• 13 years ago

You wouldn't be excited if someone wanted to make a video game about your job? That's like the 21st century's movie deal.

w1ntermute• 13 years ago

The rate of veteran unemployment is very high. You'd be amazed what you'll do for money, especially when you have a wife and kids, which a lot of veterans do.

InclinedPlane• 13 years ago

This is just the nature of the portrayal of war in media. Your complaint is just as accurate when leveled against film, music, or literature. John Wayne movies, The Three Musketeers, Shakespeare's Henry V, The Aeneid, Homer's Illiad, all these things glamorize warfare to some degree.

Mithaldu• 13 years ago

The problem with CoD and friends are that they glorify war consistently and with no regrets, not even shying away from portraying torture or humiliation of victims as something good.

venomsnake2• 13 years ago

That is ... not quite true. The Three Musketeers is mostly about friendship (there is little violence in the book except in one chapter and the bodycount for the whole book is low) and the Illiad is about the tragedy and inevitability of being a hero - and he does not glorify - he shows the war.

debaserab2• 13 years ago

The mediocrity is why they sell as good as they do. The simple story-line, roller-coaster style "on a track" interaction are what makes it appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The main audience of these games are being misinterpreted in this article and in these comments. CoD is not a sophisticated game - it's a game that 12 year old boys get really excited about beg their parents to get for Christmas, or college aged guys that are sick of halo. If you think the CoD producers are designing a game for people expecting a complicated storyline full of puzzles and riddles, you're mistaken.

I don't understand the purpose behind this article. It's basically like being upset that a fisher price toy is too simple minded and easy.

sejje• 13 years ago

I believe people buy CoD to compete online.

When I played it, that's what it did for me. It was replacing other competitive outlets (pool, poker).

If that's not what it's about, I'm not sure what it is about. Most people I knew didn't even play through the story. Just endless leveling in multiplayer, only to reset it when you finished.

mercurial5• 13 years ago

For example, much is made of the fact that real-life Special Forces soldiers aid in the development of these games for the sake of authenticity. That's great, but that authenticity is then baked into products that paint a wholly misleading picture about the realities of war. The Medal of Honor franchise is also guilty of this.

Obviously, any claim at "authenticity" of a game in which you play a bullet-sponge with health regen is laughable at best. People actually caring about authenticity would play ARMA, in which the reward for "heroism" is being shot by a bunch of pixels hiding in a bush 500 m away. But even ARMA (or least it was the case in the original Operation Flashpoint) is heavily sanitized. It's empty of civilians. No sniper shoots at children. Wounded are not trying to put their guts back in place. It's the Star Wars version of war, where the Stormtroopers either stand or fall, and innocents never get hurt.

rl35• 13 years ago

I was referring more to atmospheric and thematic authenticity. Obviously, no one is going to believe health regeneration is real. In retrospect, I should have made it clear that I was speaking mostly in context of single-player campaigns.

My point was that, what may be dismissed as unremarkable by most people, might be compelling narrative to some teenage kid coming up on military age. Keep in mind that the games aren't fiction in a vacuum, but fiction with real life military unit names, equipment, and in some cases setting. Then, marketing touts the fact that actual members of said real life military units helped make the game. That lends credibility to any perceived authenticity, no matter how misguided.

There is of course the argument that nobody that young should be playing the games in the first place, but it is what it is. On the other hand, if we're talking about Medal of Honor, that might even be compelling to some young adults.

Either way, entertainment which utilizes ongoing conflicts has the potential to leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. It comes off as trashy if poorly executed.

---

Regarding ArmA, although it has vastly more realistic mechanics, it's not really a valid comparison due to a lack of virtually any story or narrative at all. It's more of a simulation sandbox at heart, albeit a sterile one.

Morgawr• 13 years ago

In a much larger sense, it just feels like there's a giant entertainment industry cash grab that's been taking place off of ongoing US conflicts, and it's being masked in soldier worship and flag-waving. In my opinion, this phenomenon only serves to obscure the real sacrifices made by service personnel.

Unfortunately this is nothing new. It's been happening for centuries. Back with the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, every other country/power/empire ever. It's part of the human nature to glorify strife and war and depict soldiers as war heroes instead of just poor souls sent to die for a cause they most likely don't even understand.

This is just another instrument of that great assembly chain that raises young children into young adults that eventually decide to go to war and die for their country with a (supposed) smile on their face.

Houshalter• 13 years ago

Oh Jesus, it's an American war game, what did you expect? They have to make up fictional enemies in order to have something to fight. It's not realistic and it's not supposed to be.

I think it says a lot about the current state of the world, how implausible world war scenarios now seem.

mistermumble• 13 years ago

Even Hollywood movies now have a global perspective, with storyline and characters that allow people in different regions to identify and own the experience.

Wonder why CoD has not caught up with the times.

dageshi• 13 years ago

Because people don't buy CoD for the single player campaign they buy it for the multiplayer. So long as the Single Player sets up some nice maps and environments for the multiplayer that's all that really matters in selling the game.

sliverstorm4• 13 years ago

How about because CoD is a two-dimensional game, and doesn't need to be anything more? People watch movies for plot. People don't play CoD for plot.

tootie• 13 years ago

I'd love to see a game where the point is to seize another country's natural resources under the guise of spreading democracy. Call of Duty: Blood for Oil. Actually, it would be way worse if a game like that was a hit.

kreeben• 13 years ago

"under the guise of spreading democracy" That's too silly, now one would buy that. Blood for oil would probably be a hit though. A story line like that, minus the democracy part, that would be a really realistic scenario and fun to play.

copx2• 13 years ago

Call of Duty is bad, not as bad as Harvest Moon though. That game teaches that love is something you buy, turning our children into prostitutes with its underlying message. We must eradicate this filth!

http://gamezfile.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Download-Gam...

And as if the promotion of prostitution were not enough, it is subtle PETA propaganda too! You cannot slaughter your farm animals! You run a vegetarian farm! Instead you have to pet them to make them happy, an act rewarded with better milk etc. Children who grow up playing these games will likely see bestiality as normal!

pyre• 13 years ago

I can only assume that this is satire, but:

You cannot slaughter your farm animals! You run a vegetarian farm! Instead you have to pet them to make them happy, an act rewarded with better milk etc

This doesn't make any sense. You think that if Harvest Moon were more true-to-life that slaughtering the animals would make them happy, and produce better milk?

Also, this:

Children who grow up playing these games will likely see bestiality as normal!

does not jive with this:

it is subtle PETA propaganda too!

As animals can't consent to sex, I'm pretty sure that Peta wouldn't agree with bestiality.

copx2• 13 years ago

The post was satire, my rant was meant to be nonsense.

The linked article over-analyses a game and over-estimates the impact of games in general. If you did the same thing with Harvest Moon you could indeed classify it as pro-vegetarian propaganda and as having a very questionable message about human relationships.

unclebucknasty• 13 years ago

There was a time when I believed that art was a reflection of the real world (i.e. art imitating life). But, more lately, I am beginning to wonder about that assumption.

For one, the "real world" itself is becoming increasingly virtual, with people now spending hours each day "interacting" with others via technology. Are the lines between reality and the virtual world blurring?

And, it's an age-old question as to whether the consumption of violent entertainment begets real violence. The debate started with film, then moved to video games. I believe there is a distinction betwen the formats, in that film is merely viewed passively, while FPS-style games involve the active engagement of the consumer in simulated violent acts. It is hard to imagine that hours of this type of activity has no effect on the human mind.

So, while it has been argued that violent entertainment does not lead to a more violent society, I find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the notion of a complete disconnect between mass shootings and other forms of dramatic violence, with the proliferation of realistic FPS games. This is especially so, given that tactics used in the former frequently seem to mimic those of the latter.

patrickg_zill• 13 years ago

Supposedly, during WWII and before, the military had a problem: only about 50% of the guys with a gun in their hand, were shooting to kill the enemy. That is, about half of their troops felt morally bad about shooting at another human.

I think that it quite possible that a side effect of CoD et al, would be that those who played it who later did join the military, would have much less reluctance in shooting at others. Whether this is deliberate on the part of the military or just an unplanned outcome, I don't know.

emiljbs5• 13 years ago

If they go to the military and act as if it is CoD then the only one that will die are themselves. It is an interesting question though, however cheeky my replies may be.

angersock• 13 years ago

So, let's run down the list of some military shooters and observe some themes.

Call of Duty--all iterations are basically varying degrees of "America, fuck yeah!". What's troubling (as the article posits) is that the series has basically focused on trying to portray America as an underdog despite the facts of today basically showing that in any knock-down-drag-out fight, we're basically on par with the Empire in Star Wars. We have all the toys and all the troops.

Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2--Not gory, fun gameplay, not serious, not America Fuck Yeah. All sides are represented more or less fairly, and it's more on the "game" side of "military games" than the "military" side. The games are about a level I'd feel comfortable letting a young teen play.

Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon (original series)--Fairly brilliant and unforgiving tactical shooters under the Tom Clancy/Red Storm banner. Troops died and stayed dead, one-shot kills were the norm, and honestly anything other than like an hour of pre-mission planning would result in casualties on your team if not a complete failure. Hard.

Operation Flashpoint/Armed Assault (Arma)--A brilliant series of military simulators, a slight rebranding of which (VBS2) is used to train actual soldiers. The games do a brilliant job of depicting realistic engagement distances, weapons fire, combined arms, the overwhelming superiority of American air power, and how much you will never ever ever want to be an infantryman. Seriously, my biggest impression playing the game was "Man, I hope to hell I never have to wield a rifle for my country, because that life is short." It's not particularly gory, but the impression of just how fragile people are in modern engagements is hard to shake. It's pretty solid.

Spec Ops: The Line--A game which starts as a generic third-person America Fuck Yeah shooter, and then gets darker. And darker. And darker. It's interesting mostly for its story and gore in points; the actual combat is kind of meh. It kind of ridicules the entire AFY and military-shooter mindset, and explicitly mocks the player for participating. It's pretty intense, and I wouldn't suggest it for younger folks.

Soldier of Fortune 2--This is what Call of Duty would've been if it was less patriotic, more mercenary, and much much gorier. Every shooter decides to optimize for something, and these folks decided "Hey, fuck it, what is the most accurate damage model we can use for people?". You can sever fingers, joints, render faces a pile of mush...it's quite unsettling, and is very much not a kid's game.

The biggest problem I have with the CoD series is that you basically are playing lazily-written and farcical missions, and that the combat is neutered set-pieces. Enemies respawn infinitely in most areas, and gameplay is very linear (levels do not lend themselves to meaningful exploration). The first modern warfare game was at least somewhat restrained in its AFY, but the later entries in the series are way too much "What's the next setpiece going to be? What's the next cool America Fuck Yeah moment?"

If a game is going to portray war, it should decide whether it wants to be focus on the fun or on the tactics. Battlefield is a good example of the former, and Arma/Ghost Recon an example of the latter--Soldier of Fortune was fun and messy but not focused on showing war, Spec Ops was commentary over gameplay, and CoD is AFY and young male empowerment fantasies; that is to say, the last few are action movies and not war movies.

One of the interesting messages of CoD (and a message implicit and much better argued by example in Arma) is that you cannot challenge America and win. Nope. Can't be done--look at the overwhelming force.

It's somewhat interesting to see this indoctrination going on at this point in our national history, especially when the .gov and .mil in the past decades have done so much to show their authortarian and anti-individual tendencies.

Qantourisc• 13 years ago

"If a game is going to portray war" it should feature death, dismemberment, despair and misery ...

icebraining3• 13 years ago

The first modern warfare game was at least somewhat restrained in its AFY

Which is, not coincidentally, the last game made by Infinity Ward, the original creators of the series, before Activision fucked them[1] and put Treyarch in charge.

It's fun to compare the current games with the original, where the most heroic campaign was definitively the Soviet, including the climactic end where the player raised the Victory Banner[2] on top of the Reichtag.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Ward#Infinity_Ward_Em...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Banner

dfc3• 13 years ago

I have no idea what are you talking about. Infinity Ward put out Ghosts; they also put out MW2 and MW3.[1] TreyArch is not in charge of Ghosts, if they were it would not be so awful. I used to be a die-hard CoD fan and then IW rolled out the turd that was MW3. I played BF3 that year and I am playing BF4 this year.

I don't remember World at War being very "AFY." What parts of WaW did you think were bad?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Ward#Games

astrobe_• 13 years ago

I like FPS games but I dislike those that have realistic or even historical features; I prefer futuristic (PS2, firefall) or fancy (TF2, Sauerbraten) ones. I find it plain disturbing to pretend to be a real soldier in a real war.

TsiCClawOfLight2• 13 years ago

I love the old Rainbow 6 and the Arma series. But that's a matter of taste, I guess.

mercurial5• 13 years ago

Operation Flashpoint/Armed Assault (Arma)--A brilliant series of military simulators, a slight rebranding of which (VBS2) is used to train actual soldiers. The games do a brilliant job of depicting realistic engagement distances, weapons fire, combined arms, the overwhelming superiority of American air power, and how much you will never ever ever want to be an infantryman. Seriously, my biggest impression playing the game was "Man, I hope to hell I never have to wield a rifle for my country, because that life is short." It's not particularly gory, but the impression of just how fragile people are in modern engagements is hard to shake. It's pretty solid.

Funny, my takeaway was "Man, I hope to hell I never have to pilot a helicopter, because the ground is a lot closer than you think."

OFP/ARMA are up there with Rainbow 6/the first Ghost Recon in terms of realism, although they all have very different focus. The SWAT games should get a mention as well.

One of the interesting messages of CoD (and a message implicit and much better argued by example in Arma) is that you cannot challenge America and win. Nope. Can't be done--look at the overwhelming force.

Haven't played ARMA, but it's not really what I took away from the original OFP. I read it more as a "let's have ourselves Red Storm Rising on a much smaller scale". The big difference as well with the CoD games (at least the recent versions) is that the OFP storyline is not heavily morality-based. Ok, the opposition is not made of nice people, but they're not "evil terrorists who want to blow up the free world and have the wrong religion".

drill_sarge• 13 years ago

Call of Duty isn't even a good shooter. The franchise has become the example of a dull, repetitive and undemanding interactive experience - I don't even say game because most of it are scripted sequences with almost no player interaction or challenge. And the rest of it is uninspired "gun down 10000000 guys walking direct upfront to you who are too dumb to even hurt you". Also this "authenticity" is basically laughable. Because there is none. It is not a authentic war game (like arma) and it is even too dumb, easy and restricted to be a simple straight forward ego shooter (like serious sam). It's the Michael Bay of video games.

Call of Duty's underlying message is becoming more troubling

Related Stories