I just needed to write this and Tumblr seemed like the best place to do it as I don’t want to crap up with film blog with videogame talk. So, a couple of things before I start:
- I don’t actually mind the Call of Duty series. I’ve played and enjoyed the World War II set ones, the original Modern Warfare (I thought the sequel was crap), World at War and Black Ops. I thought Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was the best of the bunch and managed to have a decent single player story that was both exciting and surprisingly moving at points. I do think it is more than a bit cheeky to charge £45 for a yearly update though and have ridiculously expensive DLC.
- I haven’t played Modern Warfare 3 yet. I am considering it, but having purchased Gears of War 3, Arkham City, Uncharted 3 and Saints Row The Third in fairly quick succession, my bankcard is screaming for mercy.
- This is just my opinion, no need to get bent out of shape about it. If you feel differently, tell me, no need to rage at the page.
So. Modern Warfare 3. On course to be the biggest entertainment launch since the last one. Millions of dedicated fans worldwide. That’s a scarily huge influence to have. As Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben wisely said : “With great power comes great responsibility.” Unfortunately, I think the makers forgot about the second part. The main selling point of the game, the multiplayer, is fine. Well, apart from the inherent problems CoD multiplayer has, but I don’t find it to be problematic. What I have a problem with is the London level.
You may have already heard that there’s been a slight “controversy” in this country over the fact that Modern Warfare 3 contains a level set in, around and under London, where the player has to stop a terrorist attack:
Whilst not explicit, it’s possible to get a real July 7th bombing feel from this level. Thing is, this is totally intentional. Modern Warfare 2 found that you can get millions of dollars worth of free advertising if you just add a little controversy to the mix. In that game (for those of you who don’t know) the was a mission entitled “No Russian” where you gun down innocent civilians and bystanders at an airport. Modern Warfare 3 is playing the same trick and has only had moderate success with it, but has still managed some media attention, albeit usually in the “…and finally bit”:
Am I the only one thinking that this is completely morally fucked? To sell a game not needing publicity in the first place with a “controversial” level that echoes a real terrorist attack is pretty diabolical. There is no way they would have included a level echoing the 9/11 attacks because it would have alienated their core American audience. It’s bad business. I’m not one to get offended by things like this, I’m just trying to raise a point that doesn’t seem to have been said loud enough.
The Call of Duty games are not to be taken seriously, sure. I’m reluctant to liken them to summer blockbuster films, because if a mainstream film contained a scene where the Eiffel Tower blew the fuck up without irony, or indeed puppets, it would be laughed out of the multiplexes. Which is why this irks me. It’s not exploring deep themes or holding up a mirror to society, like other games have and will hopefully continue to do. It’s a video game that thought it could shift a few more units by having a quick ride on the ol’ controversy bandwagon. Yes, one could argue that the single player isn’t why people are buying the game- but the content is there on the disc. Kids will play this game, despite its 18 certificate.
I must stress I’m not personally offended by this. I’m just pointing out that it’s a scummy marketing practice. Courting offence to get free attention is an unbelievable dick move and something other studios have tried before. As I said, I quite like the series and am on the fence whether to purchase or not. Just thought I’d rant for a bit.
