A Few Thoughts on the Modern Warfare 2 Controversy

I would like to offer my tuppence ha'penny over the recent release of the game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and the ensuing furore over its' more controversial elements, particularly the infamous 'No Russian' level. Within hours of release the game was under fire by the Daily Mail, who "protects" us from paedophiles, immigrants and the worst excesses of video-games. The game was even brought up in British Parliamentary debate by Keith Vaz, MP for Leicester.

In it, the player takes the role of an undercover CIA agent who has infiltrated a Russian ultra-nationalist terrorist group. To maintain your 'cover' you are invited to take part in the shooting of hundreds of Russian civilians in an airport. I have actually played this game and would like to state my opinion of the moral crusade against it in the context of actually having played the game.

The offending level and possible fantasy of those who have ever had their flights delayed.

Yes, initially I was appalled - and not at the fact that there were no British Airways staff to pepper liberally with bullets. The whole experience was visceral yet deeply thought-provoking. I crouched beside a virtual civilian who died of their wounds before my very eyes. I felt a cold shiver along my spine at the sheer realism of it, and I admit my finger hovered tremulously over the trigger button as I wondered whether or not I should ease the suffering of the poor soul.

The level was outrageous, but it was meant to be. I felt no ire for the developers, but rather a sense of the human tragedy and the brutality of modern terrorism. It is shocking, granted, but intentionally so in order for the player to feel moral indignation at the actions of the protagonists. To engage with the plot we are allowed a first-hand look into the atrocity. Indeed, the Daily Mail has in the past claimed that games desensitise people to violence, but surely it should be the case that running through a game casually shooting enemies should contain a (albeit artifical) moral imperative to do so?

Mr Vaz stated;

"I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks".

It is unreasonable for Mr Vaz to complain about the realism of the game as we have reached the point, technologically, where games can give almost cinematic visuals. Gamers, for a £50 price tag, will demand the hardware to be utilised to its' fullest extent. Vaz' comments are out of touch and suggest that we should be sticking to Tetris instead of allowing video games to evolve as a medium. As for violence, I believe the violence in the game is tied inexorably with the intent of portraying war (albeit in a five-minutes-into-the-future setting) as true to the real experience as possible (as praised by professional soldier-turned-silohuette, Andy McNab). British Servicemen are at this moment out there participating in conflict, and for an MP to say that our perception of war should be sanitised is dangerously stupid.

Or perhaps Keith Vaz, who seems to be no fan of games in general, is our generations' equivalent of Victorian early cinema-goers who fled screenings of Edwin Porters' 'The Great Train Robbery' shrieking for fear that they may be harmed?

Previous entries in the Call of Duty series have elicited no controversy in the British Isles. The various prequels allowed players to storm the beaches of Normandy, assault the Reichstag and generally liberate France many times over. There were no complaints about gunning down hundreds of German soldiers (to my mind in the most recent entry players were given the chance to participate in war crimes against German POWs), as seemingly this is seen as acceptable. Why, then, are games set on the front line in the War on Terror vilified? The evolution of war itself is mirrored by the gameplay of CoD:MW2 - we are involved in assymetric conflicts where, sadly, civilians are increasingly the targets of political groups and subterfuge is necessary to weed out what is perceived to be the 'enemy'.

The thread that seems to underline the rants of the anti-video games stance is that there is a general lack of understanding of video games. The South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson commented that the game "allows players to be virtual terrorists and gain points by massacring civilians". Besides missing the point entirely, his use of archaic video game slang (the player does not gain 'points', as such) suggests he is talking on a subject about which he has very little knowledge. These critics, I suspect, have not actually played the game in detail (watching the 'massacre' alone places it out of context) and are in no place to attack the game on merit.

Indeed, there is no reward for participation in the massacre; the player characters' cover is 'blown' at the end of the level and he is killed and left for dead, the political effects of which feed the games convulated and involving plot. At no point did I feel rewarded for this; however I did unlock an achievement for taking out three Russian riot police with a single grenade. I think this was more an unfortunate coincidence rather than the intent of the developer.

The Mail also describes the level as 'cynical, tasteless nastiness' and that the massacre is included in a 'tedious bid for controversy'. The jury is out on whether Infinity Ward included this content in order to use the ensuing media storm to generate sales, or if they merely wanted to push the boundaries of video game story-telling. Personally, I think elements of both are applicable - after all, in the first game an atomic bomb was exploded in one level, killing the player character.

I am glad that at least one MP, Labours' Tom Watson, had the sense to gallop to the defence of the game. He argued that the content of video games are no 'worse than in many films and books', and that the House should be in support of the lucrative video games industry rather than 'collaborate with the Daily Mail to create moral panic over the use of video games'. Hitting the nail remarkably well on the head, he highlighted the video games industry as an increasingly profitable business, not as some underground and possibly perverse hobby of anoraks and ne'rdowells. To attempt to create a public backlash against an increasingly meanstream medium during a period of economic downturn seems irresponsible.

Perhaps Mr Vaz is eager to find some evil to focus upon, in an age where expenses scandals have rocked public trust in politicians. Would you believe in the politics of a man who deems silk John Lewis cushions a "reasonable expense"?

Silk cushions: a more worthwhile use of your (taxpayers) money than video games, apparently.

In the end, I think the fires of this controversy have been stoked by a misapprehension of video games in general as the retreat of the facile, the awkward and the potentially sociopathic, and the game itself as anything other than an involved, complex and realistic take on modern warfare. In response to claims that the game glorifies war, I believe strongly otherwise. American foreign policy is (subtly) criticised, pithy quotes about the follies of war by the likes of Goethe and Benjamin Franklin replace standard 'game over' screens, and the music is tragic, poignant almost, not the immensely stirring music of previous Call of Duty games.

The rating system is there for a reason, as anyone over 18 is deemed capable of making their own judgements on content. If not, it is the responsibility of the parents. It is not, however, the responsibility of politicians and tabloids to direct vitriol against games without merit. Indeed, their comments have probably contributed to the massive commercial success of the game.