ABSTRACT

"Call of Duty" is among the most successful video game series in history. A 2007 entry, "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare", transitioned the first-person shooter franchise from World War II settings to a post-9/11 context. Through its immersive gameplay, "Modern Warfare" captures the essence of contemporary military combat within the War on Terror. Despite constructing a false reality of war, the game effectively convinces players of its authentic depiction of military violence. This article, employing Roland Barthes' Reality Effect theory, explores how certain mundane details in "Modern Warfare," which bear little narrative significance, blend realism and fabrication into a convincing portrayal of the Real that delivers military violence as entertainment.

Key words: Barthes, reality effect, military, violence, modern warfare

Military Violence in Video Games: Defining and Representing the Real in Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare

Video games have recently emerged as a powerful platform in exposing military violence to the public. As the title suggests, Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare, published by Activision in 2007, pioneers in employing the post-9/11 modern setting to construct a virtual experience of modern warfare. Although the Call of Duty franchise and other competitors had released several military-based shooter video games prior to Modern Warfare, most game studios, relied on the Second World War theme to deliver immersive war experience, accurately aligned with history (Ramsey, 2020; Payne, 2016, p. 97). Modern Warfare breaks away from the franchise’s engagement with historical accuracy of the Second World War and actively develops its fictitious plot around the political anxieties of the post-9/11 setting (Payne, 2012, p. 313; Payne, 2016, p. 97). In this context, Modern Warfare represents a distinctively neoliberal perception of modern wars and familiarizes the player with performing the virtual version of post-9/11 violence in defense of the West. Modern Warfare provides a virtual space where the player takes on the role of the protagonists and commits military violence there.

Modern Warfare emulates violence depiction as conducted by excels in realistically depicting violence conducted by modern military. When comparing the portrayal of military combat in traditional media platforms with the interactive nature of videos, the latter offers a superior ability for players to actively engage and participate in war experiences. In the case of Modern Warfare, the sense of immersion arises from several factors, including life-like visual representations of firearms and military vehicles, as well as the realistic sounds they produce. Significantly, its fictitious narrative is parallel to the post-9/11 political order in the 2000s giving the players the experience of the Modern Warfare plot on a social, political, and cultural level in addition to the visual elements. In this sense, the discourse of Modern Warfare closely resembles a historical discourse or, to be more specific, an ideological elaboration where the narrative signifies their own facts and constructs the Real of the narration (Barthes, 1989, p. 138). When a literary text attempts to describe a historical event, the Reality Effect contends that the “real” is nothing but “an unformulated signified, sheltered behind the apparent omnipotence of the referent” (Barthes, 1989, p. 139). In other words, the Real is only a meaning but is usually mistaken as the reality. The perception of the Real by audiences is not the actual reality itself, but rather an "extra-structural field" that is imbued with meaning by the writer or the narrative. (Barthes, 1989, p. 138).

Modern Warfare is more than just a body of text. In addition to the narrative, visual portrayals and audio representations of war constantly give meaning to the Real that makes up the game’s world. Playing Modern Warfare means partaking in the ideological elaboration of a fake performative discourse of military violence. How video games are able to convince players that they represent the Real remains unexplored in existing literature (Mantello, 2017, p. 491). This essay aims to fill this gap by utilizing the literary theory of Reality Effect into the analysis of Modern Warfare’s realism. The paper contends that the narrative of Modern Warfare infuses the post-9/11 Western-centric political discourse into players by blending the demarcation line dividing fiction and reality.

Barthes’ Reality Effect and Challenges to Historical Discourses

Although the media has popularized visuals of modern conflicts and conveyed war experiences to the public since the Second World War, military-themed video games have emerged as a new informative, entertaining, and educational platform to know more about wars. This genre of video games, plays a significant role in closing the gap between the public and military institutions. Payne (2012) points out that contemporary video games about wars usually sell their “ever-increasing levels of visual and aural realism and computational verisimilitude” (p. 306). In other words, game creators promptly recognize the desire for graphic realism and strive to make video games resemble real life as close as possible. This holds true for the market for military-themed games as well. However, in this genre, the consumers’ demand implies not only realistic portrayals of war instruments but also the authenticity of war experience as a soldier.

Meanwhile, military industries and institutions know how to spark the public interest in the marvel of militarized science by consolidating general excitement towards scientific achievements with patriotic sentiments. For instance, a recruitment advertisement for the special forces of the United States showcases a scenario where a squad of infantrymen is deployed in a hostile environment. The commander then pushes a button that activates an aerial drone with a thermal imaging camera and scans through the terrain. The technology allows the commander to spot three hostile soldiers preparing to ambush his squad. At the end, a text appears “It’s Not Science Fiction, It’s What We Do Everyday” (Mantello, 2017, p. 484). This recruitment advertisement is a showcase for “technical superiority and preemptive salvation,” which is a distinctively Western-centric neoliberal conduct of war (Mantello, 2017, p. 484). This idea implies that complex political and ideological discourses are at play behind the advertisement’s narrative. They attempt to persuade viewers that applications of advanced technology in warfare are effective, rational, and fun. By doing so, the military marketers relay positive messages about war participation which, in turn, convinces people to sign up for military service. In a similar manner, war-themed video games also close the gap between public and military institutions by constructing historical discourses that ultimately claim: the war represented here in this game is fun, rational, and most importantly, it is real.

Modern Warfare owes its commercial success to the narrative that closely emulates the real world. Graphic details such as virtually replicated military technologies, and narrative elements, such as the Western hegemonic ideologies political anxieties against Islamic extremists in the 2000s, challenge the demarcation line between fictitious and realistic discourses of war. Mantello (2017) contends that military-based video games form part of the “mainstream respectability” by aligning itself to “the same institutional forces that construct sanitized and righteous versions of the actual battlefield” (p. 485). Therefore, it is worth investigating some of the institutional forces that define the game’s title: the callousness in modern military conduct and the Western-centric ideologies of self-preservation against non-Western threats. Specifically, it is important to deconstruct details that make up the fictitious-yet-realistic world of Modern Warfare. French literary theorist Roland Barthes offers the concept of the Reality Effect that can be used to explain how certain minor details in Modern Warfare can convince audiences that the depicted historical discourse is the Real.

Barthes’ examination of “useless detail” starts with “an old piano supported, under a barometer, a pyramidal heap of boxes and cartons” from Gustave Flaubert’s A Simple Heart. The presence of the barometer is called into question as it serves no narrative purpose that even the most indirect structural analytical approach cannot justify its existence (p. 141). Although it is possible to link the piano to the owner’s bourgeois status and the heap of boxes and cartons represent a sign of disorder, as Barthes claims, the barometer seems to be narratively mundane (p. 142). However, this insignificant detail plays a vital role in elaborating and shaping the historical discourse in A Simple Heart’s history-inspired fictional background. In other words, the “superfluous” or “futile” details in backgrounds of fictional works represent the commitment to the contingent, the inconsequential, and the insignificant (Barthes, 1989, p. 147). Indeed, the narrative function of the “useless detail” is to have no narrative function but to serve as effects for the sake of reality, similar to Flaubert’s barometer that says nothing but “We are the real” (p. 148). Therefore, Barthes’ Reality Effect emphasizes that any historical discourse is essentially an ideological elaboration that constructs and fills the meaning of the “History” (p. 137). In other words, the Real in the History is not objective and constantly requires meaningful input from textual notations of the mundane details in order to make a narrative a part of the History, hence making it a part of the reality. The insignificant notations serve to authenticate the Real in a narrative and thus becoming “both sign and proof of reality” (Barthes, 1989, p. 140).

According to Barthes, other examples that also constitute the “real” are photographs, which are an immediate witness of “what was here”, and exhibitions of ancient objects, as seen in the Tutankhamen’s show (p. 146). Barthes’ examples illustrate that the Real is self-sufficient and that historical discourses potentially represent an interpretation of the past independent from documented historical facts. The more they remind audiences of the Real, the more likely audiences tend to perceive such narrative as a part of the historical discourse.

Another notable case is Angela Carter’s novel The Fall River Axe Murders published in 1985 that attempts to blend the historical and the fictional. On one hand, the actual murder case in 1892 remains unresolved and the prime suspect, Lizzie Borden, was acquitted of the murders. On the other hand, Carter’s story narrates various social, economic, environmental, and familial pressures and tensions of the Bordens that lead to the explanation (and justification) of Lizzie Borden’s acts of murder (Vlitos, 2016, p. 1403). The “gloomy” Bordens’ house on the Second Street of Fall River, the “omnipresent acridity of horse piss and dung”, and the “amniotic horror of the fishmonger” are some of the details that visualize and authenticate the historical narration of the Fall River city in the late 19th century (Vlitos, 2016, p. 1405). They convince audiences that the story that is about to be unfolded here is on a par with what is written in historical records.

Beyond the literary boundaries, Wood (2001) employs the Reality Effect to explore and explain the exoticness in history-inspired visual art, as a form of middlebrow entertainment in the 19th century in England. When the archaeologist Giovanni Belzoni made a deal with the Liverpool collector William Bullock to exploit Bullock’s collection of faux Egyptian objects and represent them as a popular entertainment, Belzoni’s 1821 Exhibition was able to capture the “veritable dreamscape” of the Valley of the Kings (Wood, 2001, p. 1-2). Thanks to the strikingly accurate construction of mocked-up archaeological sites, statues, and sarcophagi, Belzoni’s exhibition was not determined by its aesthetic value but rather by “the exotic novelty” (Wood, 2001, p. 2). The artifacts on display were presented and admired not because of their archaeological authenticity but because they carry the justification of being the Real (Wood, 2001, p. 3). Again, the insignificant details which were constructed, crafted, or carved on the mocked-up objects were able to deliver the Reality Effect that captivated the audiences as if those items were excavated and brought from Egypt. Therefore, an exhibition can self-authenticate its presented content and position itself in a contest with documented history.

When expanding Barthes’ literary theory to the analysis of Modern Warfare, video game narrative employs the same approach to deliver the Real, almost identical to Carter’s novel or and Belzoni’s exhibition. Indeed, Payne (2012) points out the existing marketing trend that promotes and favors military realism because “military weapons, and vehicles that function and look like the real thing, and combat that unfolds in authentic theaters of war” as if being “ripped from today’s headlines” are what sell very well to consumers (p. 310). Payne warns that there is a significant distinction between military realism in video games and military reality. The former, Payne contends, is “an aesthetic and discursive category” and the latter is “a factual state of affairs” (Payne, 2012, p. 309). Mantello agrees that because video game industry giants seek the martial expertise and battlefield experiences of actual veterans as consultants to “give their synthetic world authenticity and realism”, war planners and weapon makers harness the immersive quality of military-themed video games to train soldiers in complex combat situations (Mantello, 2017, p. 485). Mirrlees and Ibaid (2021) even coin the term “militainment” to refer to the military and war-themed video game entertainment industry. They contend that “militainment” is much more than mere entertainment since they express “a convergence between the real wars being fought by the U.S military and the simulated wars people play” (Mirrlees & Ibaid, 2021, p. 38). Bogost further concludes that video games do not simply entertain with mere empty, meaningless content but instead, they are capable of “making claims about the world” (Bogost, 2008, p. 125). Specifically in Modern Warfare, military violence represents not only a form of callous violence but also a militaristic and patriotic ideology catering toward American consumers.

One critical question to raise is to what extent can consumers of war video games critically reflect on and distinguish the demarcation line dividing fiction and reality when it comes to ideological elaboration of war and violence. In previous examples, minor details in The Fall River Axe Murders novel and mock artifacts in Belzoni’s exhibition serve the narrative purpose of establishing “an illusion of referentiality, to pretend to collapse the distinction between referent and signifier” (Vlitos, 2016, p. 1413). This idea implies that only readers who have extensive knowledge about the Fall River Axe case in 1892 could testify against the novel’s fictional nature, or that only visitors who actually visited Egypt and possessed archeological knowledge would not be persuaded by the realism presented by Belzoni’s mocked-up artifacts. In the context of Modern Warfare, the narrative and its visual portrayals illustrate a similar challenge: without first-hand experience about war and military conduct, players may face difficulty in distinguishing the fictional and the actual representation of war experience. However, in comparison to Carter’s novel and Belzoni’s exhibition, the Real presented in Modern Warfare leave a bigger and perhaps more severe social impacts. Particularly, the participatory nature of Modern Warfare produces social and ideological justification of callous violence on behalf of military institutions, whereas wrongful assumption of the Fall River Axe’s culprit’s identity or misidentifying Egyptian mocked-up objects leave little to no social consequence.

Modern Form of Violence and Its Transferability into Video Games

The conduct of modern violence in Modern Warfare relies on the elements that define and characterize callous violence to produce the Reality Effect. Randall Collins’ theory of cruelty defines callous violence as the symbolic form of violence primarily conducted by the modern nation-states in recent decades. In comparison to the earlier version of human cruelty, which is the overt brutality of ferociousness in pre-19th century society, modern society’s callous violence appears more humane (Collins, 1974, p. 419). The technological efficiency of modern weaponry, in combination with highly institutionalized military structure, makes participants of callous violence more detached from its consequences (Collins, 1974, p. 436). The primary characteristics of callous violence are, therefore, its “secrecy from the public” and its attempts to “depersonalize and distance it from human contact” (Collins, 1974, p. 433). Drawing from recent conflicts, Mamdani (2010) further adds that when a war breaks out, states do not just target the armed forces of adversary states but also inflict damages upon “war-related industry and infrastructure, economy and workforce” (p. 57). Therefore, Mamdani concludes that because modern violence becomes generalized and indiscriminate, any war during the modern day is a total war (Mamdani, 2010, p. 57). These elements of callous violence are captured and exploited effectively in military-themed video games to convince consumers that the virtual military environment is a part of the Real. In the case of Modern Warfare, by being the protagonist, the player not only partakes in the violence themselves but also inherits the ideological mindset of modern Western military doctrines and institutions when waging wars.

Constructing the “Real” in Modern Warfare

Plot Summary

Before proceeding with the structural analysis, a summary of Modern Warfare is needed to contextualize the game world. The plot takes place in a near future (compared to the year 2007 when the game was released) in a political climate that is indistinguishable from the real world. First, Russia faces an all-out civil war between the pro-government loyalists and the ultranationalist faction. The civil war not only destabilizes the country and the surrounding regions but also gives the anti-Western ultranationalists access to Russia’s weapons of mass destruction. Under the leadership of Imran Zakhaev, the ultranationalist faction supports a terrorist Islamic group, led by Khaled Al-Asad, in overthrowing the government of an unnamed fictional Middle Eastern country. In the first-person perspective, the player, in turn, takes control of John MacTavish, a recruit of the British Special Air Service (SAS), and Paul Jackson, a member of the United States Marine Corps (USMC).

The highlight of the plot is when a nuclear bomb suddenly detonates and completely wipes out the capital city, along with both the USMC and Al-Asad’s forces. The player, as Paul Jackson, survives his helicopter’s crash for a brief moment to witness the mushroom cloud and the radioactive effects, before succumbing to his wounds. From this point on, the player resumes only as the British SAS operative John MacTavish.

After the nuclear detonation, a joint task force consisting of the SAS, USMC, and the Russian loyalist faction is formed to put an end to the nuclear threat. After being pushed into a corner, Zakhaev launches two nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. The joint task force successfully takes control of the launch facility and remotely detonates the missiles during mid-flight. In the finale, as the joint task force is pursued by Zakhaev’s forces, the player confronts and kills the antagonist Zakhaev, prompting further events in the sequel Modern Warfare 2 and 3 (Ramsey, 2020).

Constructing the “Real”: From the Peripheral and the Central

Modern Warfare delivers the Real by reinforcing its narrative with factual and credible details and simultaneously blending them with the fictional plot. The organizations and military structures on the protagonist’s side are inherently real. Both the USMC and the SAS respectively are real-life American military branch and British special force unit. The reality-inspired representations of uniforms, equipment, combat, gun handling, and even voice acting fulfill both atmospheric and technical immersion into how soldiers from these units actually perform in the real world (Payne, 2012, p. 314). For instance, in the introduction mission with the SAS operatives, many distinctively military terms are used during combat such as “on me”, or “weapons free”, or “watch your six” (Infinity Ward, 2007). As the player, taking over the perspectives of the two protagonists from these Western military institutions, they therefore perceive the world in the same way an actual USMC or SAS soldier would see. Mantello (2017) contends that what most distinguishes military-based video games from all other mediated representations of war, such as literature, film, or TV, is the element of contest and agency that allows players to “serve as passive witnesses but also as active performers in shaping the narrative process of truth-telling” (p. 499). These peripheral details are abundant and subtle. They do not directly involve in the delivery of the plot. However, they authenticate the background where the game plot takes place, which, in turn, convince the player to overlook the differences between the real-life and the fictional geopolitical issues. In other words, peripheral details consolidate the protagonists’ authenticity as a Real person.

In contrast, Modern Warfare intentionally constructed the opposing enemies with less individual authenticity while loosely basing them on former and current enemies of the Western power. The in-game Russian ultranationalist faction is historically inspired by the communist movement in Russia. Modern Warfare’s armed conflict with Russia reminds the audience of the Cold War sentiments. In addition to that, Al-Asad’s fictional coup in an unnamed fictional Middle Eastern country and the establishment of an anti-Western regime paints a fundamental fear of the West losing foothold in the Middle East (Infinity Ward, 2007). These details are delicately handled in a way that does not stray too far from actual historical accounts which were already popularized in Western mass media. Modern Warfare effectively communicates the Otherness toward whom the player can draw their hostility. Some players can draw the similarities between the Russian ultranationalist faction represents a not-so-distant Cold War sentiment, or between Al-Asad’s Islamic terrorist faction to the real-life Al-Qaeda organization. At the very least, the game conveniently places the protagonist among English-speaking allies while making the player face linguistic barriers with the opposing forces who speak either Russian or Arabic. By emphasizing the Otherness of the enemies, Modern Warfare delivers a wartime discourse that creates the “preconditions necessary to military action” identical to the real-world contemporary political landscape (Steuter & Wills, 2009, p. 9). Enemies in Modern Warfare are defined and characterized on the principle of preemption. Mantello (2017) points out the pattern that many military-shooter video games are not concerned with whether any particular future would occur, but rather with how the “anticipation of security” shapes the anxiety to mitigate uncertainty and formulate the justification for military actions (p. 498). The enemies, despite not representing a solid identity like their USMC and SAS counterparts, also represent the Real because they are ideologically based on the fundamental Western perception of security and Otherness. In particular, and without explicitly explaining to the player, the game implies and embeds the idea that the Russians and Arabic-speaking are threats to Western hegemony.

In addition to establishing the premise of a military conflict between us, who are good, versus them, who are bad, Modern Warfare affirms the belief that the state represents a rational system in a struggle against non-rational entities. Mantello (2017) identifies another tendency of military-themed games which is its tendency to reaffirm “the state’s exclusive claim to political violence” (p. 504). Both Al-Asad’s and Zakhaev’s factions are inherently viewed as irrational non-state actors. As a result, the fundamentals of Modern Warfare gameplay circulate around the idea of having the player commit justified violence against these entities because they are inherently a threat to the status quo of the Western hegemony. For example, after Al-Asad takes over the unnamed Middle Eastern country, the United States immediately responds with a military invasion (Infinity Ward, 2007). The plot does not provide any information regarding whether the U.S military intervention is just or legitimized, but since the invasion starts within 24 hours, it suffices to believe the United States acts unilaterally. The U.N Security Council exercises the authority to grant and authorize any intervention on an apolitical ground (Mamdani, 2010, p. 54). However, sometimes the rule of law in the international community is applied selectively, and the decision to punish a country that breaks the rule is “inevitably a political decision” (Mamdani, 2010, p. 62). In this case, the legitimacy and legality of the U.S invasion of the Middle Eastern country are downplayed by both the narrative and the pre-established Western ideology. The player, without both the power to resist the narrative and the capacity to interpret the event, takes part in the invasion and perceives the Otherness as hostile ideologies and forces. By detaching the player from empathy and passion towards the enemies, Modern Warfare’s in-game violence represents Collins’ definition of callous cruelty and further proves how the in-game Real is indistinguishable from the real-life political climate.

The technical implementation of callous violence in the gameplay is essential to Modern Warfare, as a first-person shooter (FPS) game. Although the FPS game genre primarily focuses on delivering the experience of using guns to take out enemies, not all FPS games convey the callousness defined by Collins (1974) as strongly as Modern Warfare. In this game, callous violence is present not only in its storytelling but also in its mechanics (Gagnon, 2010). In addition to handling military-grade weapons and technologies, the player is exposed to a setting that allows them to entertain these means of violence without feeling sympathy towards the enemies. During the U.S invasion, in the mission “Shock and Awe,” the player sits in a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter and uses an automatic mounted grenade launcher Mk 19 to assist USMC troops on the ground (Infinity Ward, 2007). The player gets to rapidly launch projectiles from above that explode upon impact to enemy combatants and vehicles. This mission showcases the “bureaucratic efficiency” of callous violence (Collins, 1974, p. 433). At the same time, it closely resembles some of the video footages of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In this sense, graphical demonstration of destruction is both a proof of (effective) callous violence and a symbol of authenticity. In-game callous destruction implies the fictional war here is real and that the player, by participating in the game, is a part of the Real.

Additionally, the peripheral (technical) feature of name displaying makes a major impact in Modern Warfare’s narrative. AI-controlled friendly soldiers have their first names virtually displayed on their heads. Meanwhile AI-controlled enemy soldiers do not. The game mechanics inadvertently tell the player that if they do not display a name, they are enemies. The Reality Effect in this case lies in the imitation of the military system of Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) which is used by NATO to provide real-time updates on the bearing and range of friendly forces in the combat zone (Combat Identification, 2015). However, this feature serves more than just visual assistance towards the gameplay experience. On the one hand, when a Western soldier’s first name is displayed, Modern Warfare indirectly portrays this person as a part of the Real. The named soldier has an existing background, personality, and possibly a family unbeknownst to the player. Therefore, every time a friendly soldier dies in battle, the player is forced to witness the death of a “real” fellow soldier instead of lines of coding. On the other hand, the enemies are nameless and depersonalized. They do not speak English and their uniform is highlighted by the keffiyeh to make the perception of Otherness even more impactful.

The name displaying system is especially crucial in one of the scenes where a nuclear device detonates and kills both the USMC and Al-Asad’s soldiers (Infinity Ward, 2007). The names of all the USMC soldiers vanquished in the explosion briefly show to the player. This effect implies that the game tries to evoke sadness and compassion towards soldiers from the player’s emotional perspective. Meanwhile, the enemy combatants are nameless and listless, making them forgettable and not subjects of empathy and compassion. If anything, the player is supposed to direct their anger towards the antagonist Al-Asad who triggers the explosion. Again, this act re-enacts the suicide bombing tactic of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East commonly portrayed by the news. This scene serves as a reminder to the player of their unquestionable immersion in the game’s reality. It portrays the opposing forces as irrational, inhuman, and dangerous, while highlighting the virtues and superiority of the Western civilization.

Conclusion

The storytelling of Modern Warfare is an attempt to construct faux historical discourse in the context of the post-9/11 era. It engages audiences with modern military conduct and distinctively Western-centric ideologies. Andersen and Kurti (2009) point out that this type of theme in video games cannot represent an “authentic” war because they “cannot tell the emotional truth of war” and “war’s true anguish” (p. 61). Gagnon (2010) argues Modern Warfare invades the player’s heart and mind and thus represents a part of militaristic propaganda by the West. This paper tries not to argue otherwise but uses a different approach to explore how construction of peripheral and central details in Modern Warfare convince players that what they play is the Real.

Roland Barthes develops a literary theory to describe and structurally analyze the elements that constitute the “real” in novels. He asserts that by adding mundane details which serve little to no narrative purpose, an author can construct a self-contained narrative that tampers and eventually confuses with documented historical discourse (Barthes, 1989, p. 148). In other words, when people approach any work of fiction that is capable of building its world full of mundane details, they face the potentiality of assuming such work represents the “real”, that is, the historical discourse, or the History, as long as the mundane details produce the “having-been-there” principle of things (Barthes, 1989, p. 147).

By applying the Reality Effect into the analysis of Modern Warfare, the game successfully constructs the Real by employing graphical realism and conveying the Western-centric ideologies of contemporary political landscape. The notion of callous violence, which is argued to be the dominant form of violence in modern-day bureaucratic nation-state society in Collins’ theory of cruelty, is reinforced in Modern Warfare from narrative and game mechanics (Collins, 1974, p. 433). From the narrative, Modern Warfare not only delivers the experience of using military-grade weapons to the player but also demonstrates the inherent contrast between the factual us versus the fictitious them. This difference consolidates the peripheral details where the player impersonates a character that is based on a real military organization and the central details where the enemies are grouped under the collective perception of the Otherness. In this view, the Others represent the threats to Western hegemony. Therefore, violence committed by the player against the Others is rationalized and justified by the player themselves. In addition to the narrative, the game mechanics also play a major role in sustaining the player’s perspective of a Western soldier fighting against the Otherness. In particular, game mechanics are built to evoke emotions towards the successes and losses of Western soldiers while simultaneously reinforcing the stereotypes of the Others from the Western perspective. From the visual demonstration of military weapons, their destructiveness, to the reality-inspired geopolitical climate, to the mechanics that display friendly names, these seemingly useless and minor details in the world of Modern Warfare make the fictional and the real become indistinguishable.

References