I don't have a fancy blog page (yet), nor have I even posted here before. But I do have something to say, and it is about video games.
Also, there will be spoilers for those who still care. And no, I won't be going in-depth into No Russian. That topic's been beaten worse than a dead horse.
Now, I just finished the single player campaign to Modern Warfare 2 yesterday, even though I've had the game much longer. Very late, I know, but I've been focusing more on the multiplayer aspect, as that's the main reason I purchased the game to begin with. However, I occasionally picked up the campaign and found it very enjoyable, akin to a Michael Bay movie. I finished it in 3 sessions of play, which is saying that it's really really short. But that's ok. That was its way of telling the story it had to tell. Sure, from a price standpoint it's unfulfilling, as the campaign alone is not worth $60, but Infinity Ward knew who they were selling to, and it's NOT the XBox Live Silver account members.
That's besides the point though.
Most people who played the single player campaign beat it in about 5~6 hours on average. It has been described almost universally as just one big explosion leading to another, and it's hard to deny that. As such, the narrative isn't exactly terribly clear. However, I've also heard from several different people that had the narrative been clearer, the tale might have achieved the level of narratives such as Metal Gear Solid.
I do not believe this to be true, and I also feel that Modern Warfare 2's narrative is just fine.
Now, it is true that Modern Warfare 2 is tough to follow and is mostly huge action scenes, such as snowmobile chases, nukes exploding, etc etc etc. However, what I feel disjoints is most is what sets this story apart from the narrative of MGS. In both Modern Warfare 1 and 2, you follow different soldiers of different units across several different countries. In any given Metal Gear title, you're following the story of 1 soldier throughout the entire game, barring intro sequences and whatnot. The story is more cohesive if you're just following 1 character, and eventually the story evolved into something huge, but only after the lives of several different people were explored, over the course of 4 games. You only grasped the true nature of the battle being fought after exploring the trials of Solid Snake, Raiden, and Big Boss, and then their stories concluded with Metal Gear Solid 4.
That explanation is a little simplistic, I know, but that is the barebones narrative structure of the series. In the Modern Warfare games, we're experiencing a similar narrative, but instead of experiencing the individual soldiers throughout their careers, you're in the shoes of multiple soldiers all apart of a plot larger than themselves. While Metal Gear is more of a narrative of the individual soldier, Modern Warfare is a war narrative. The soldiers are the players of the story, they are not truly the main focus, at least until the end of Modern Warfare 2 when General Shephard betrays Task Force 141. Only then does the story become personal, as you then follow MacTavish and Price in their bid for revenge. Before that though, you were following orders in the pursuit of ending the war, nothing else. Except for the maybe No Russian mission, which many people felt personal towards.
The various Snake characters of Metal Gear Solid characters feel fleshed out and human. We see their interactions with other people as they struggle to maintain personal identity amidst the tragedies, horrors and hardships of war. You care about these characters (except for maybe Raiden) because they are so well developed. In Modern Warfare, however, we care about the characters for a completely different reason. In all honesty, they aren't fleshed out so well and we only know them for their service record. We still care about most of the playable characters though, because we see the war through their eyes. We carry their gun, walk in their shoes. When NPCs talk to the character, it feels like they are talking directly to you, and you grow attached because you feel like you're personally involved in this greater conflict.
Now, all of this isn't to say that one form of storytelling is better than the other. As it stands, Metal Gear Solid does indeed have a much more cohesive narrative, and is easier to follow. However, we need to realize that there are also 4 games in that series, and the story it told is essentially over, not counting any future installments by Kojima. There are only 2 games in the Modern Warfare storyline, but already the epic story is beginning to unfold. There will more than likely be more installments in the series, thanks to the massive amounts of money is pulls in, and hopefully Infinity Ward can tell its story. It's entirely possible that a lot of what I said about the series will not hold true: the story could become very much a personal soldier's narrative and less of a story about the greater conflict, given the history of Soap and Price. That could be a welcome evolution of the storytelling that Infinity Ward chooses to use though, and certainly would feel more personal than Metal Gear Solid as you'll still be looking through their eyes and dealing with them and their missions personally.
|
I think what was so frustrating is that the story was "almost" there. I could grasp parts of it, while other parts sort of didn't make sense to me (like Price's action to "end the war" and how that fit in with the Shepherd/Price thing). If the story had been just a little more clear, the scenes would have had more meaning. Eh, I've only played it though once, maybe on the second play through I'll pay more attention to the voice overs during the load screens and gain a little more understanding.
I thought Modern Warfare 2's story was solid. A worthy successor to the original, and I held that belief right up until the last few missions. After Shepard's betrayal, the narrative itself didn't get more "personal" for me, it went from an excellent thrill ride on a rollercoaster to the route of a wayward garbage truck in about .2 seconds. Not simply because two characters were taken out, but because that moment signaled the entire narrative getting derailed in an atrocious manner.
I don't mind that Ghost and Roach went by Shepard's hand. The thing that really ticked me off was the awful writing that went into it. The big question for me - the one that made me give the game a fair shake, and take it to the end - was "Why?" I was interested in knowing what made him gun down two of the most prime operatives in the group and steal the intel. Was he working with Makarov the whole time? Was he trying to play misdirection, and set off an American invasion of Russia in retaliation for their attack on the United States? What was his angle?
And, to my unhappy surprise, that question didn't get answered. We get, what, four or five lines of dialogue about him losing 30,000 men during the events of Call of Duty 4, and that recruitment is going to skyrocket, "there will be no shortage of patriots"? Oh, so that's why you gunned down 2 foreign military operatives on another country's soil, then set off a global manhunt for two more guys, you wanted to avenge the deaths of 30,000 men and ensure that there would be no shortage of patriots. It makes perfect sense! Except that it fucking doesn't make a bit of sense at all!
Modern Warfare 2's story, from beginning to end, strikes me as basically a first draft. It's short, all of the big reveals are strung together in one quick punchy line, and there's no development or subtlety to be had. There's no buildup to the big reveals, they're just thrown in there and taped together by an unsure hand. It's lousy writing at the best of times, not because the ideas were bad, but because they didn't get go through the editing process enough. My bet, probably because they wanted to get in quick and capitalize on Call of Duty 4's massive success as a multiplayer title. And it delivers in spades on that front, but the narrative isn't even in the same damn ballpark as Call of Duty 4.
I thought it was horrible and very generic. The switches in perspective are spastic. You say that you care about the characters because you are in their shoes. However, the fact that you keep switching characters only reinforces the generic nature of the people around you. You don't have time to get to know any of the characters because the scenes keep changing in such an extreme way.
The whole "betrayal" concept, like every other story device in this game, is completely overused. You get betrayed twice, you get killed several times, you black out several times where IW tries to be all clever and try to trick you into thinking you've died...it's all terribly repetitive, and frankly very annoying.
War games have such a good opportunity to address moral moral dilemmas, yet choose not to. An example: they could have used the battle through suburbia to raise questions about the point of the military. If there were civilians dying in the streets and you were given a choice as to pursue the enemy at a faster pace, or slow down and help the civilians along the way, which one would you choose? Would you stop to help the people you have sworn to protect, or would you charge forward into battle, hoping to drive out the enemy more quickly?
Half the time you are in the game, you have no idea why you have been shipped ANYWHERE. Why are you on an oil rig? Is it just to save hostages? You go to South America to chase this guy...for what reason? It may have been explained in the game, but it was so forgettable that you don't even care.
To me, MW2 was just a fairly generic shooter that uses recycled gameplay from its predecessor, with a few added new features to prevent the game from being a clone. To me, the only noticeable difference was that this game actually makes use of color instead of being drenched in browns, greens and grays.
@Nintendoll- Maybe the nature of everyone being generic is the point? Maybe it is a commentary on how unnapreciated or insignificant a signle soldier in the army is? And how the 'good ones' are portrayed in negative light? Just a thought.
Also, great first blog. Along the lines of the previous comments, from a storytelling perspective of a war instead of a soldier the game series has succeeded, and only when we view recurring protagonists do we have a sense of the individual who we expect to succeed.
haha, I'm not really sure if that's what IW was going for, although it's possible. However, what drives a military unit is a sense of family. My mom said when my grandfather was in WWII, they used to put all of the men drafted from the same town into a unit together to promote that sort of unity. I didn't get that at all from MW2.
While this post is well written, there are still things like like the undeniable plot holes that can't really be explained away.
-Shepard's motivation: What was it? The game never really tells you. The closest we get is at the verrrrry end when he hints at losing 30,000 soldiers in the blink of an eye and how there will be a whole lot more patriots tomorrow. But still, so what? How does losing 30,000 men lead him to betray his whole country so completely, and were his aims?
-Price: For the love of Mork Price. Why did he fire off the nuke, and how did that fit in with everything? What did it accomplish? Why was he even in Pripyat in the first place?
-Makarov: He just kind of gets sidelined. While you were once actively engaged with his hunt, the game sort of just jumps to you attacking his hideout. You never even get to see him.
I think the story's cohesiveness breakdown can be exactly pinpointed to the moment you rescue captain Price. Up to that point I'd been following the plot. Still, MW3 looks like it has a good shot at a strong story.
From what I understand, Price launched the nuke to bring the Russian assault to a grinding hault. The advantage of a modernized army in an attack is its technology and its ability to resupply. The high-atmosphere detonation which resulted in an EMP demolished the Russian army's ability to bring the maximum firepower it had available to bear. Losing optics on artillery, losing aircraft support, communications, all of these are extremely important lifelines for an invading army. They are away from their own soil, and thus can not easily be reached for resupply of those vital things. Imagine trying to coordinate an organized firefight/attack between multiple infantry units and armor without basic communications equipment.
Whereas, the Americans would be able to resupply and re-outfit their units in short order, they have the advantage of owning the battlefield.
That makes sense, but if that is the case, that's something that needed to come across more strongly in the game's narrative.
IIRC, Price just talked about putting out oil fires with a big explosion, which came across in my mind as effectively attempting a Hirsohima style end-war event. Also, was Price punished or anything for his actions? The rest of 141 seemed pretty distressed when he launched that puppy, but I don't think it ever came up again.
It definitely should have been more apparent in terms of effect for the overall narrative. The problem was (at least in my estimation) that the game was intent on getting on to the next "wow" moment it had in store, as was the case with the rest of the game. Examples of other holes:
American killed by Makarov after terrorist attack. Never detailed on how Makarov became aware of the fact that he was a planted agent.
Price's captivity. How Price came to be in captivity is not detailed, nor is there any explanation on why Soap was not captured after the events of Call of Duty 4 and Price was.
The nuclear blast we've already discussed.
Shepard's betrayal. His motivations are never clearly explained, nor are they even sufficiently alluded to prior to his killing of Ghost and Roach. He just does it, seemingly for no apparent reason, resulting in an epic moment with absolutely no direction or momentum, something which seems to happen constantly in this game.
As far as a punishment for Price and the 141's reactions, if I remember right their reactions were to the incident at hand, which appeared to be the launch of a missile in retaliation for their assault. While it was clear to the player that Price was responsible during the course of the missile actually being fired, to the rest of the 141, this would not appear to be the case. Additionally, this is not explored or expounded upon at any point later in the game. It could be that Shepard's "betrayal" could have been a retaliation for the 141's connection to the launch and detonation of a nuclear weapon, but Shepard's motivations, again, are not explained in any reasonable, logical way.
-For the undercover guy, I always just assumed Shepard had one of the shadow ops rat him out (why did he chose a rank and file soldier for this delicate op, I'll never know. Easy patsy, I guess). At least I think that's what you were chosen for, that whole 'special op' they talk about in the first mission or so.
-I think 141 does figure out it's Price. Doesn't Soap say something like "What are you doing Price!?" and Price responds with some gritty thing about ending a war?
-On Price, I agree with you there. That's probably the largest of the plot-holes in my opinion , with the largest issue narrative-wise being Shepard's invisible motivations. Honestly, in regards to his betrayal I'll just go with the notion that 141 were the only people who knew he was a traitor....somehow.
He's certainly not an english major.
He IS however a dickhead.
Nice post, and I haven't even played the campaign yet. The thing with it is that perhaps it wasn't very well thought out because it didn't need to be. The majority of people who bought the game wouldn't give two flyings about the story apart from the HURR EXPLOSIONS part of it. Which is a shame.
Yeah, it certainly doesn't have to be that well thought out, but I feel that the writers over at Infinity Ward might have a complete script, and the effects guys are just like "...Forget this crap. ADD IN A SNOWMOBILE JUMP THAT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE AND MAKES YOU FEEL LIKE A BADASS."
It seemed like they wanted to recreate the scene of the nuke from the first one and they tried to do it about three times. the more you do it the more it doesn't become shocking.
And the 'No Russian level' which still confuses the fuck out of me. Logically speaking I'm standing behind a very dangerous terrorist with a machine gun.
Why can't I shoot him?
I can't see ANY reason not too, but I guess that would end the story...
I mean you die at the end of the level anyway...
Ugh.