-Edited by Dan and Kuma
War. It’s not a pretty sight when one sees it for the first time. I myself have seen only fragments of war and interviewed veterans about their experiences, learning to not take war so lightly as many have. Nowadays, war is romanticized in video games, and in the video game industry modern shooters are what attract players all over the world. In a way it answers some curiosities that we players have wondered; what war can look like, and how chaotic it can be. As of late, we seem to be moving in a direction that blurs the line between the separation of the first person shooter culture and what is war.
The Call of Duty franchise has been a major icon in war games based on our own historical wars or possible future wars. Many people take these entertainment sources as their only indication of what war brought, and do not have a clue as to the endurance of war. Only those who lived through it know it all too well. Ten years ago developers Infinity Ward created the first Call of Duty game that set the player in WWII, playing in the perspective of soldiers in that era. Games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor were brought into the gaming industry showcasing the reality of the battle. To give an example, an American Paratrooper brings the player a few hours before the Invasion of Normandy, where the troopers would parachute behind enemy lines and secure key points in German controlled areas so that the invasion army would not run into any problems once they left the beaches. However, because of poor piloting and many miscalculations, many of the soldiers found themselves scattered and in the company of soldiers from different units. This gives the player the view that our invasion into Normandy did not go according to plan. This showed the frustration and anxiety that the soldiers went through and how they needed to adapt in a very grim situation, especially since the enemy surrounded them. Before I played any video games I spoke to veterans of WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf and even the war on terror. A veteran of the 82nd airborne once told me he found himself without his rifle and other essentials with only his combat knife. When he finally found a rifle and other equipment he had to pry it from a fellow American soldier’s corpse. He was still not proud about taking something from a dead man even if he didn’t need them anymore. I have been given a glimpse into what war really is and it’s not pretty.
Surprisingly the original Call of Duty and Medal of Honor video games representation of war coincided with what the few veterans have told me. The screaming, the blood, the chaos, mental breakdowns, camaraderie amongst soldiers and the sense of holding a position against overwhelming odds gave the those games a view of what soldiers went through during the world war. There were no power-ups, instant gadgets to save the day, or a battle of intel. The first few Call of Duty games featured no such thing as automatic healing, multiplayer arenas or triggered checkpoints. Call of Duty not only gave thrills to players but also rewarded the video game industry with a world war II experience that was complementary to the research. In reality I doubt it would have been fun storming the beaches of Normandy or holding a hopeless position at the Battle of the Bulge. Those battle are not to be taken for granted, but in a virtual sense it is a thrilling experience more so when a player plays on the highest difficulty giving it a more live or die situation where one bullet practically kills you and it’s game over.
This brings me to modern warfare. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is more similar to the current real world status where we find ourselves trying to preemptively stop another world war through politics and intel. Technology has improved as a support option, including drone strikes, air support, and infrared. The ones who truly know war hasn’t change as much are those in the front lines know. Friends and families can tell you that it’s not relevant to the hollywood action movie which is how most modern war games see the War on Terror. Call of Duty is still warfare that is fought in order to save the world from domination but as the franchise start running out of material, the focus starts straying away from the it’s original concept. Unlike the tone given in the early games, you are still playing as one of two or three individuals trying to race against time to stop a madman from starting World War 3, not unlike most adventure movies if you think about it. Modern Warfare’s era had us doing a lot of sneaking around and putting down corrupt leaders and insurrectionists before they have a chance to become a real threat. The point of view narrates the backlog intel used for each of these strike missions as the player and his private team set to stop whatever weapon of mass destruction is in season this week. It's through fictional events and outlandish enemies that no one is surprised discussions of a campaign-less Call of Duty might be coming sooner than expected. Looking at the history of the matter, I have noticed that much of our military history is doomed to repeat itself because every regime has some form of rebellion or a single patriot who wants to tear it all down. As much as research can lead to great battles, there’s little excuse to not go back to what made those campaigns so immersive. A great example of a different view of warfare in games is Homefront. This game has the view of war for freedom, since the game has you playing a character in occupied America where the Koreans have taken over. In a sense you are basically fighting a revolution with high tech gear and weapons, but you are still heavily outnumbered and outgunned. It really gives the player a sense of what a revolutionary could be feeling in a situation like this. An off world game like Halo is a war of survival, given the tone of when a mortality rate is extremely high and all hope seems lost while viewing humanity on its last leg and limping to stay alive from the onslaught of the Covenant who are highly advanced. It’s difficult to place a soldier in the boots of a super soldier and say that is what war is about.
Now some would ask why did it change? Well to be frank it's really quite simple because when facing a foe, sometimes in order to win you must use different tactics. I mean during the revolution we stood in straight lines side to side and shot at the enemy, then reloaded while they fired back. Then, the military thought in WWI, we should fight using trenches, which stretched for miles. Then in WWII we used suppressing fire tactics from infantry, warships, artillery, and airplanes. Basically, we took everything we learned from the past two hundred years and fused them together to fight this war. Nowadays we keep fighting like that’s our only problem but, ever since Vietnam, our enemies have been using guerilla tactics. The Roman Empire had so many enemies that they themselves used guerilla tactics and eventually wore them out. Hell, America did that when we were under the rule of the British back two hundred years ago. As the film industry moved away from classic war tales and into classic action hero movies, so has the video game industry. The winning tactic has become cookie-cutter, Tom Cruise inspired sequels. These changing tactics now apply to video game warfare as these modern games are adapting to constant sequels and hollywood-ism. The Battlefield franchise was the first to move away from traditional simulation of war as they developed a simulative-style FPS with Battlefield 1942 as it fantasizes a multiplayer arena based shooter during World War II. As we move more into modern times war, objectives try to be more momentous as saving the day wasn’t enough but a huge explosion or set piece was needed for more pow. We move away from stories with grit and instead get filled with extravagant plot and controversial twists. Combat in these games become softer as shields and healing become easier to obtain. Checkpoints control the flow of danger and is measured in 10 yard, first-down style, as you huddle trying to find cover. Gameplay has changed from simulating the basic tactics of the battlefield to action-oriented quick-timed event and constantly being reminded that the face of the enemy is what wins the war. Hollywood stars became the center of the zombie-fest lusting over a point based competitive party. Some of these ideas can be fresh, fun changes to the normal formula. Advanced Warfare gave me a different feel for gameplay warfare because not only was I on the ground shooting bad guys but I was also running and jumping through obstacles thanks to those exosuits. I guess with more functions, there’s no need for real war-like confrontations.
What is the future for war games at this point I can’t say, but I’m sure there are plenty of ideas. The upcoming Call of Duty Black Ops III gives the possibility of human and machine warfare, where man and machine fuse together but can cause much internal strife. In hindsight, since warfare has changed in the last hundred years it is only natural that a game industry that bases their games on war would change as well. In WW2 we fought everywhere in the land, air and sea, no place seemed to be safe at that time. In Vietnam and Korea we fought in the unpredictable jungles where the enemy could be laying wait to ambush with guerrilla tactics. Now we fight in the urban desert where we can’t even tell friend from foe. And now there’s robots. At least Battlefront brings back the dreaded trench warfare against the Imperials.
-Mike Corona
Thanks everybody, and stay Kultured!
War. It’s not a pretty sight when one sees it for the first time. I myself have seen only fragments of war and interviewed veterans about their experiences, learning to not take war so lightly as many have. Nowadays, war is romanticized in video games, and in the video game industry modern shooters are what attract players all over the world. In a way it answers some curiosities that we players have wondered; what war can look like, and how chaotic it can be. As of late, we seem to be moving in a direction that blurs the line between the separation of the first person shooter culture and what is war.
The Call of Duty franchise has been a major icon in war games based on our own historical wars or possible future wars. Many people take these entertainment sources as their only indication of what war brought, and do not have a clue as to the endurance of war. Only those who lived through it know it all too well. Ten years ago developers Infinity Ward created the first Call of Duty game that set the player in WWII, playing in the perspective of soldiers in that era. Games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor were brought into the gaming industry showcasing the reality of the battle. To give an example, an American Paratrooper brings the player a few hours before the Invasion of Normandy, where the troopers would parachute behind enemy lines and secure key points in German controlled areas so that the invasion army would not run into any problems once they left the beaches. However, because of poor piloting and many miscalculations, many of the soldiers found themselves scattered and in the company of soldiers from different units. This gives the player the view that our invasion into Normandy did not go according to plan. This showed the frustration and anxiety that the soldiers went through and how they needed to adapt in a very grim situation, especially since the enemy surrounded them. Before I played any video games I spoke to veterans of WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf and even the war on terror. A veteran of the 82nd airborne once told me he found himself without his rifle and other essentials with only his combat knife. When he finally found a rifle and other equipment he had to pry it from a fellow American soldier’s corpse. He was still not proud about taking something from a dead man even if he didn’t need them anymore. I have been given a glimpse into what war really is and it’s not pretty.
Surprisingly the original Call of Duty and Medal of Honor video games representation of war coincided with what the few veterans have told me. The screaming, the blood, the chaos, mental breakdowns, camaraderie amongst soldiers and the sense of holding a position against overwhelming odds gave the those games a view of what soldiers went through during the world war. There were no power-ups, instant gadgets to save the day, or a battle of intel. The first few Call of Duty games featured no such thing as automatic healing, multiplayer arenas or triggered checkpoints. Call of Duty not only gave thrills to players but also rewarded the video game industry with a world war II experience that was complementary to the research. In reality I doubt it would have been fun storming the beaches of Normandy or holding a hopeless position at the Battle of the Bulge. Those battle are not to be taken for granted, but in a virtual sense it is a thrilling experience more so when a player plays on the highest difficulty giving it a more live or die situation where one bullet practically kills you and it’s game over.
This brings me to modern warfare. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is more similar to the current real world status where we find ourselves trying to preemptively stop another world war through politics and intel. Technology has improved as a support option, including drone strikes, air support, and infrared. The ones who truly know war hasn’t change as much are those in the front lines know. Friends and families can tell you that it’s not relevant to the hollywood action movie which is how most modern war games see the War on Terror. Call of Duty is still warfare that is fought in order to save the world from domination but as the franchise start running out of material, the focus starts straying away from the it’s original concept. Unlike the tone given in the early games, you are still playing as one of two or three individuals trying to race against time to stop a madman from starting World War 3, not unlike most adventure movies if you think about it. Modern Warfare’s era had us doing a lot of sneaking around and putting down corrupt leaders and insurrectionists before they have a chance to become a real threat. The point of view narrates the backlog intel used for each of these strike missions as the player and his private team set to stop whatever weapon of mass destruction is in season this week. It's through fictional events and outlandish enemies that no one is surprised discussions of a campaign-less Call of Duty might be coming sooner than expected. Looking at the history of the matter, I have noticed that much of our military history is doomed to repeat itself because every regime has some form of rebellion or a single patriot who wants to tear it all down. As much as research can lead to great battles, there’s little excuse to not go back to what made those campaigns so immersive. A great example of a different view of warfare in games is Homefront. This game has the view of war for freedom, since the game has you playing a character in occupied America where the Koreans have taken over. In a sense you are basically fighting a revolution with high tech gear and weapons, but you are still heavily outnumbered and outgunned. It really gives the player a sense of what a revolutionary could be feeling in a situation like this. An off world game like Halo is a war of survival, given the tone of when a mortality rate is extremely high and all hope seems lost while viewing humanity on its last leg and limping to stay alive from the onslaught of the Covenant who are highly advanced. It’s difficult to place a soldier in the boots of a super soldier and say that is what war is about.
Now some would ask why did it change? Well to be frank it's really quite simple because when facing a foe, sometimes in order to win you must use different tactics. I mean during the revolution we stood in straight lines side to side and shot at the enemy, then reloaded while they fired back. Then, the military thought in WWI, we should fight using trenches, which stretched for miles. Then in WWII we used suppressing fire tactics from infantry, warships, artillery, and airplanes. Basically, we took everything we learned from the past two hundred years and fused them together to fight this war. Nowadays we keep fighting like that’s our only problem but, ever since Vietnam, our enemies have been using guerilla tactics. The Roman Empire had so many enemies that they themselves used guerilla tactics and eventually wore them out. Hell, America did that when we were under the rule of the British back two hundred years ago. As the film industry moved away from classic war tales and into classic action hero movies, so has the video game industry. The winning tactic has become cookie-cutter, Tom Cruise inspired sequels. These changing tactics now apply to video game warfare as these modern games are adapting to constant sequels and hollywood-ism. The Battlefield franchise was the first to move away from traditional simulation of war as they developed a simulative-style FPS with Battlefield 1942 as it fantasizes a multiplayer arena based shooter during World War II. As we move more into modern times war, objectives try to be more momentous as saving the day wasn’t enough but a huge explosion or set piece was needed for more pow. We move away from stories with grit and instead get filled with extravagant plot and controversial twists. Combat in these games become softer as shields and healing become easier to obtain. Checkpoints control the flow of danger and is measured in 10 yard, first-down style, as you huddle trying to find cover. Gameplay has changed from simulating the basic tactics of the battlefield to action-oriented quick-timed event and constantly being reminded that the face of the enemy is what wins the war. Hollywood stars became the center of the zombie-fest lusting over a point based competitive party. Some of these ideas can be fresh, fun changes to the normal formula. Advanced Warfare gave me a different feel for gameplay warfare because not only was I on the ground shooting bad guys but I was also running and jumping through obstacles thanks to those exosuits. I guess with more functions, there’s no need for real war-like confrontations.
What is the future for war games at this point I can’t say, but I’m sure there are plenty of ideas. The upcoming Call of Duty Black Ops III gives the possibility of human and machine warfare, where man and machine fuse together but can cause much internal strife. In hindsight, since warfare has changed in the last hundred years it is only natural that a game industry that bases their games on war would change as well. In WW2 we fought everywhere in the land, air and sea, no place seemed to be safe at that time. In Vietnam and Korea we fought in the unpredictable jungles where the enemy could be laying wait to ambush with guerrilla tactics. Now we fight in the urban desert where we can’t even tell friend from foe. And now there’s robots. At least Battlefront brings back the dreaded trench warfare against the Imperials.
-Mike Corona
Thanks everybody, and stay Kultured!