Video games, being one of the most famous forms of interactive media, have evolved over the years to include complex characters and narratives. These interactive stories allow one to experience and unfold the story at their own pace. One such franchise with a focus on quality storytelling is the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series which spans over three parts, all progressing the narrative in their own ways. The player takes control of multiple characters - US Marines, British SAS, CIA etc. - each with their unique backstories, fighting to prevent war.
The second part of this series released in 2009 puts you in control of an undercover CIA agent, infiltrating the ranks of a Russian terrorist group. Your rite of passage: a massacre at the Moscow Airport. Armed with American weaponry and a cleverly phrased dialogue from the terrorist leader Makarov, "Remember - No Russian", a double entendre, instructing you to not speak Russian and obviously, leave no Russian alive. All this, to make it seem like an American attack and fuel a war with Russia. The mission, albeit optional, slowly takes you through the airport, shooting at innocent civilians and security guards (also optional).
The mission was met with significant controversy, with the Russian version of the game not having the mission at all. Criticisms of its gory portrayal of a terrorist attack where the player is the shooter were countered with developer's aims of achieving realism. With the lead designer saying the mission acted as a catalyst in the larger story and players have the option to skip through it if they found the content disturbing. But to each individual, what qualifies as disturbing and what leads to violence?
The interactive nature of video games and their accessibility to underaged children is exactly why they face such criticisms, but beyond that, the content itself is frequently questioned. Studies on video games and violence have been inconsistent with their methods of experimentation and proving weak correlations between the two. So the question still remains, do instances like the one in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 come under the category of visual storytelling or instruments that increase aggression and consequently, incite violence?
Such an interesting read! I think video games may make players desensitized to crime and violence- a problem that keeps getting more severe as video games become more realistic and break down the fourth wall.
Thank you for highlighting this. It is important that we study social processes that lead to aggressive behavior in children. If you are interested in the topic, you can look into Bandura's bobo doll experiment (1961), which demonstrated that children are able to learn social behavior such as aggression through the process of observation learning,
An extremely thought provoking post! Video games of this genre have become so prevalent that we barely question its content now. But in an age where there are violent conflicts left, right, and center, we need to be mindful of the messages that we are directly and indirectly putting out to the consumers. In most cases, children start playing these games during their pre-teen years. We can never know how they are taking in and interpreting the stories and visuals subconsciously. Several studies and examples have shown how children become violent within their households after long-term exposure. One can only imagine how it can impact on a larger scale.
I remember playing this multiple times. This is perhaps one of my most favourite story missions at all time because there's nothing like this and there'll probably be nothing like this in the future. That is because recreation of such violence is extremely taboo. I guess if it were based on a real event than it should have never made it's way too any console but this was purely fiction. I've seen movies and read books which have depicted more contraversial circumstances. Why should video games be singled out?
I think there should always be a purpose to storytelling, like theyre trying to achieve something. Sometimes storytelling is a method to have you stand in the shoes of another - but in this situation, who are we trying to empathize with? Whose feelings and emotions are we trying to understand? I think it's a cop-out to say it's optional and adds to the story. We need to realize everything we do has consequences. Though there is a weak correlation to violence, I think it still impacts your state of mind and sensitivity to these issues, and even how you react to and perceive different incidents. This is a horrible example, but sometimes while driving I have flashbacks of GTA…