Originally written September 22, 2019
In today’s gaming landscape, few franchise names are as divisive as Call of Duty. Some remember Call of Duty as the fun game they would rush home to play with friends after a long day of school. There is an intrinsic appeal to its gameplay; over 100 million unique players stand as a testament to this (“Call of Duty by The Numbers”). It’s simple, fast paced, addictive, and rewarding to play. Where some may remember Call of Duty fondly, however, others saw it as the cancer of the industry. Back in its heyday, Call of Duty was the biggest name in the industry. One of the worst caveats of being so massive was that most others were attempting to replicate its success. To those that weren’t a fan of the games’ heavily scripted, Michael Bay-esque gameplay, it was almost impossible to escape it. Most imitators failed to stick the landing. Established franchises whose gameplay was inherently different than Call of Duty suddenly rushed to adapt the gameplay for Call of Duty fans, hoping to increase sales. Whether or not one actually played the game, Call of Duty’s effects could be felt rippling throughout the games industry, and its effects are still felt today. The transformation of Call of Duty into a blockbuster shooter can be traced back to the release of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Two years later, Modern Warfare 2 took the intrinsic appeal of Call of Duty 4 and amplified it even further. Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2 stand as games that propelled the franchise into a household name, and implanted the cinematic first-person shooter genre and its tropes into the games industry for years to come.
The month is November, 2007. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare has released to universal acclaim from critics and fans alike. IGN’s Hilary Goldstein boldly proclaims, “There is a new standard to judge this sub-genre and it is Call of Duty 4” (Goldstein). The popularity of the game in comparison to previous entries is unparalleled. This is largely due to a dramatic change in setting, scope, and design philosophy. World War 2 shooters had been the norm for over a decade, and developer Infinity Ward was creatively starved in 2005 from churning them out. Developers Zied Rieke and Michael Boon explain, “We don’t want to pigeonhole ourselves any more than we have to, and many members of the team came off Call of Duty 2 promising never to work on another WWII game” (Boon). There was already a long-standing dispute with publisher Activision on whether or not a risky jump to a modern setting was appropriate, but the studio had collectively put its foot down, and work began on Call of Duty 4.
While World War 2 games entailed limitations right from the get go (weapons, settings, and narrative outcomes were restricted), a modern setting allowed Infinity Ward a great degree of flexibility with how they chose to design the game. It’s also worth noting that while most modern shooters used their setting as the focus, Infinity Ward opted to use it mainly as a backdrop. As a result, the studio essentially had a blank check to tell whatever story they wanted in whatever locales they wanted, while also having access to a wealth of modern weaponry that guaranteed a fresh experience. Call of Duty 4’s campaign is regarded as a classic by many gamers today, and Infinity Ward’s open approach to the setting is largely responsible for this. “From the first mission, it is a non-stop adrenaline rush. If after playing through the first mission your pulse does not resemble the rate of a machine gun, check it again to see if you are alive” (“Call of Duty 4 Doesn’t Disappoint”). But even if one dismisses the campaign, most unanimously agree that Call of Duty 4’s multiplayer is what made the title so influential.
The multiplayer’s biggest addition is a level-by-level progression, akin to that of a traditional RPG game. Players start confined to a few preset classes, but are soon introduced to “create-a-class”, a mechanic that allowed the player an unbelievable freedom in how they wanted to play the game. Not only could players choose their primary weapon and sidearm, but their tactical grenades, and a plethora of perks as well. But why would a game purposefully gate off content from its players? At the time, this seemed like a backwards decision, especially for multiplayer games, and especially for first person shooters. However, Call of Duty’s system of leveling up appealed to all players. This combined with the core gameplay of the multiplayer for an addictive reward loop. Regenerative health, expertly designed maps, low times to kill, and more made for a fast-paced flow of combat that the series hadn’t yet seen. Mark Rubin explains, “It’s a lot more intense, and much faster. I’ve gone back and played COD2, and felt like, wow, it’s so slow! And at the time it was white-knuckle intensity at the time I originally played it! This is much faster – everything is an automatic weapon. We balance so that movement through areas is really actually about the same speed, but there’s so much more noise, and you’re inundated in this modern battlefield” (Rubin).
It’s worth arguing that Call of Duty 4 gave birth to the first true “casual” shooter. A label like that is vague, but it is important to understand that most multiplayer shooters were focused on testing the player’s skill at all times. An appropriate comparison is to Halo 3, a juggernaut franchise entry that released right next to Call of Duty 4. Halo 3’s multiplayer incorporates skill-based matchmaking, so that its players are always matched with those of equal or greater skill. Rarely does a player go on an absolute rampage game after game; the matchmaking prevents it. Call of Duty’s matchmaking, however, has its first priority set on fastest connection. It makes sense for a fast-paced shooter of this caliber. Meanwhile, there is little to no emphasis in the matchmaking placed on skill. This is likely because the game invites the player to progress in terms of available content, not in terms of capability.
While it is certainly a goal in any game, being a good player is almost never emphasized. Experience is handed out as a reward simply for completing a match, and being talented at the game only changes WHEN the player gets rewarded, not IF they get rewarded. This makes the experience fun for all parties involved. Seasoned veterans pick off newcomers left and right, and are rewarded with a faster progression through the leveling system. Newcomers, meanwhile, aren’t entirely turned off; they are guaranteed to get experience points every game, and the promise of a new item at every level keeps them playing. It’s a completely unmonitored and unfiltered ecosystem that can only really work in the framing of Call of Duty’s progression system. To further emphasize the focus on progression, the multiplayer includes a “Prestige Mode” in which one’s level resets back to the start. The player is essentially volunteering to forfeit all their progress, and yet, most players made the decision to do so, because the reward loop is such an integral part of the game. Journalist Brian Savino notes, “The variety in weapons, maps, perks, game modes and customization all created a game that broke the barriers of multiplayer gaming… It is no wonder why this Infinity Ward installation changed the way that multiplayer games would be played from then on” (Savino).
Call of Duty, following Modern Warfare, became casual at its core, both in single-player and multiplayer. The campaign largely served as a vehicle to provide the player as many opportunities as possible to live out a power fantasy. They mow through terrorists, commandeer AC-130’s, and make daring jumps into helicopters taking off without them. It cannot be stressed enough that the setting serves as a foundation for the gameplay, but is not treated as a limitation. Meanwhile, the multiplayer ignores placing focus on the player’s skill and instead emphasizes being able to unlock and use the game’s content. Special care was put into making the gear used feel authentic, and being able to play with a new toy at every level was genuinely rewarding to most players. It is a casual game; it is all too common to hear stories of non-gamers who knew a friend that played Call of Duty, picked up the controller for 5 minutes, and were hooked instantly. Regardless of skill level, it was seriously difficult to not get any enjoyment out of Modern Warfare. The game’s commercial and critical success made greenlighting Modern Warfare 2 a no brainer, and the result is what many consider the quintessential Call of Duty game, and for good reason.
To start, Modern Warfare 2’s campaign is straight out of a Michael Bay movie, and that could be taken as far as the literal sense. Set pieces are ripped straight from movies like The Rock, and campaign missions explode into outlandish Hollywood-esque “get to the chopper” moments on a whim. One of the game’s early missions involves infiltrating a Russian airbase in a blizzard. In the span of fifteen minutes, the player goes from sneaking through the base and planting explosives, to an all-out assault on the enemy troops once compromised, to then detonating the explosives and hitching a ride on a snowmobile to escape, topped off with a jump across a comically large gap to safety. It almost crosses into the realm of cartoonish, and to many outsiders looking in, it’s easy to dismiss the game as shallow and lacking any substance. As a sequel to Modern Warfare, the progression in sheer scale and production quality of the game’s set pieces makes sense, but on its own merits, may seem flimsy. Call of Duty 4’s campaign was a power fantasy, and Modern Warfare 2 unashamedly cranks this aspect up to eleven.
Meanwhile, Modern Warfare 2’s multiplayer may as well be sensory overload. Players can unlock twice as many weapons, attachments, equipment, and weapon camouflages. New to the game are customizable Killstreaks, Deathstreaks, and upgraded versions of perks unlocked via continued use. There’s also a plethora of Titles and Emblems to equip to a player’s online alias, which are handed out ad nauseum in the earlier stages. The amount of unlockables has increased almost exponentially from the first Modern Warfare. This often led to players inadvertently completing at least five or more challenges in a match. Infinity Ward also decided to incorporate a new design philosophy for the weapons on offer: if everything is overpowered, then nothing is overpowered. As a result, most guns fire with laser precision and kill instantly. This made the gameplay incredibly simple and accessible to just about anyone. The amount of instant gratification on offer is ludicrous.
To some outsiders looking in, this idea of handing out rewards to any and all players is absurd. Gamers raised on other titles point out that games should be about mastering the mechanics and being able to demonstrate this mastery, whether in the single-player or multiplayer component. In reality, this vocal majority exists as the other side of a player dichotomy. Veteran game designer Mike Stout delineates, “There are at least two types of players who want different things. One type likes to FEEL smart, or powerful. The other wants to solve problems that require them to BE powerful or smart… Designing for the first group tends to be about giving the illusion of power or intelligence and manipulating emotions. It’s not disrespecting those particular players, it’s giving them what they want” (Stout). Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 are textbook examples of this design philosophy, and Infinity Ward isn’t given enough credit for adapting it to multiplayer games. It’s why Call of Duty became so popular in the first place; a major portion of Call of Duty’s player base are those who don’t consider themselves gamers. Exhausted from working a regular job, most don’t have the time or energy to learn intricate game mechanics. Call of Duty offered a fast, simple, and rewarding gameplay loop to this audience.
As it turns out, however, expanding this simple design methodology into inherently different games upsets many. Mike Stout went on to say, “Try and do the same for the other group, though, and they get REALLY mad. It’s the opposite of what they want. They want challenge. They want parity, fairness… it’s upsetting to them, and in their view disrespectful and dishonest, to be given the illusion of something” (Stout). In the wake of Call of Duty’s success, many publishers and developers figured that by emulating the Modern Warfare games, they too could reach blockbuster success. Games that were all about letting the player achieve greatness on their own merits now wanted to devolve into the illusory gameplay that Stout had described. What followed was a near decade-long period of uninspired first-person shooters and other established franchises subverting their own premises in the name of profit.
The aforementioned Halo hardly ever put the player in scripted set pieces in its single-player or put Call of Duty-esque mechanics in its multiplayer. Once Modern Warfare 2 blew up, though, games like Halo Reach and Halo 4 added scripted sequences in the campaign, increased emphasis on RPG elements and customization in the Multiplayer, and much more. Most fans noted that Halo was never quite the same. Then came the 2010 reboot of Medal of Honor, which many described as incredibly uninspired and clearly existed solely to take market share from Call of Duty. After the disaster in 2012 that was Medal of Honor: Warfighter, the series went on permanent hiatus. Even Battlefield, long hailed by fans as a more intelligent alternative to Call of Duty, filled its newest campaigns with Hollywood blockbuster moments. Battlefield: Hardline in particular stands as an embarrassing reminder of when the series’ base appeal was almost stripped away entirely.
It’s easy to see why Call of Duty naysayers were fed up; every single one of its contemporaries decided to copy it. It was essentially the equivalent of walking into a movie theatre, and having nothing but Michael Bay’s filmography available for viewing, for about eight years. If the viewer is a big fan of these movies, there isn’t much to complain about, but if they aren’t, they don’t have much of a choice. Indie games began to substantially rise in popularity at this time, and Call of Duty is mainly to thank for this. With so many AAA developers setting out to copy it, the most creative games at this time were made at tiny studios, sometimes made by only one person. As with all trends, the Call of Duty moment eventually came to pass, but the industry was never the same after.
It’s safe to say that Call of Duty has had its fair share of both positive and negative influences on the gaming industry. If the first-person shooter hadn’t already risen from cult status with Halo and the like, Call of Duty propelled the genre into the focus of the industry. In addition, the truly casual shooter was finally perfected and would serve as inspiration for hundreds of titles to release thereafter. In game development, it can sometimes be easy to forget the importance of fun. Call of Duty reminded all multiplayer games that it was imperative to make every player feel important. Games today don’t feel nearly as daunting to newcomers because Call of Duty practically wrote the book on accessibility. Even games that appeal to hardcore gamers now shower them with glorious visual and audio effects, taking a page from Call of Duty’s fantastic reward loop. RPG mechanics have found their way into almost every genre, a result of Call of Duty showing the industry that it could be brought to the first-person shooter. Accomplishing something in a game today feels ten times as satisfying as it did ten years ago, and the Call of Duty franchise is largely to thank for this.
Yet still, many blame Call of Duty for a gaming industry lull that lasted for many years. In reality, though, it seems unfair to pin this on a solitary franchise. Infinity Ward simply made the game they had wanted to make for years. This was their franchise, and they had free reign to do with it as they pleased. The jump to Modern Warfare was a risky venture that they decided to embark on, and the end result was something that millions cherished. Games are made by people, and Call of Duty’s developers certainly didn’t set out to dumb down games on purpose. Every game is made for a specific audience, and Call of Duty is special because it was the first of its kind to speak to an audience that was largely ignored: the everyman.
orangeroofs.home.blog 