The rumours and eventual confirmation that Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII would have no campaign got me thinking about how much I value them in military shooters. I’ve never been a multiplayer fan, outside of cooperative modes, preferring to stick to single-player content. As military shooters (typically of the FPS variant) shifted their focus from lengthy single-player campaigns with tacked on multiplayer in the early 2000s, to shorter campaigns that function as a glorified tutorial for the expansive multiplayer options, I’ve stopped buying into the hype and rarely pick them up at launch. However, I still keep my eye on sale prices and inevitably pick them up for the bombastic and often very stupid campaigns they offer.

If you’ll allow me to oversimplify things, FPS games have cycled from a futuristic sci-fi setting, to the Second World War (and the rise of the “military” aspect - something the movie Saving Private Ryan is almost singularly responsible for), to modern or near-future wars, and then back to the future, all before repeating the cycle.

I’ve find myself most enjoying the campaigns found in Battlefield 3 and 4, or Call of Duty: Modern, Advanced, or Infinite Warfare; those that have free reign to establish fictional villains, rogue military forces, terror attacks, and global conflagrations. Sure, many ideas may be based on current geopolitical tensions, but they’re still works of fiction and this makes it difficult for anyone to take offense at the narrative or events portrayed, unless they also want to wade into the morass of other fictional literature and film. These games are packed with cliched characters; full of stupid, predictable decisions that set up character deaths we see coming a mile off; they often promote chest-thumping patriotism; and usually deal with themes of loyalty and sacrifice in such an on-the-nose fashion it would almost be insulting if the gameplay wasn’t so much fun.

At least 15% of Modern Warfare 2's script is just soldiers shouting "Oscar Mike".

Recently, and perhaps because of improved story-telling techniques available to modern developers, I’ve noticed a shift in tone, especially in games that cover real-world conflicts. Unlike those that portray fictional events – typically those with a modern or futuristic setting – developers need to consider historical accuracy, authenticity, and the representation of military forces that may still be active, have living members, or surviving relatives. When it comes to the First and Second World War, developers are increasingly trying to capture the societal and individual impact of the conflict, while at the same time crafting an enjoyable gameplay experience. Admirable but this disconnect is problematic.

The first WWII shooters – think 1999’s Medal of Honor and 2003’s Call of Duty – may have touted “historical authenticity” but “historical accuracy” went out the window when your protagonist conveniently found themselves involved in every major battle, and gunned down hundreds (if not thousands) of Nazis, while your allies – unless mission critical – dropped like flies around you for dramatic effect. These events were framed as moments of heroism in the face of overwhelming odds, however, the simplistic nature of combat and braindead AI did little to capture the horror of war.

As someone who always wants narrative context for their gameplay actions (and has a passing interest in history), I often thought these games could have done more. In hindsight, however, I realize that even amongst veterans and their families, tales of heroism or triumph against terrible odds are the most common narratives; stories that give hope, rather than highlight the despair or futility of major conflicts.

I felt this disconnect most keenly while playing Battlefield 1's “War Stories”. The game has an impactful opening sequence that is both harrowing and an excellent example of how gameplay mechanics can highlight the impersonal nature of violence. After several deliberate cuts between soldiers – each triggered when the player falls in battle against overwhelming numbers – you are tasked with storming a hilltop fortification, each death listing the name of the soldier you briefly controlled, their date of birth and death, before respawning you as yet another soldier. You continue in this desperate attempt to overrun the hill through sheer numbers alone. For the first time in a video game, it gave that all too common gameplay cycle of live-die-respawn some impact - and I didn’t like it.


Storming an armoured train on horseback my not have been tactically sound in real life but it makes for an impressive set piece in a video game.

By the time the credits rolled, I only truly enjoyed two of the five campaigns; one that focused on controversial historical figure, Laurence of Arabia, and another that recounted the remarkable piloting adventures of an untrustworthy narrator. Although events in both campaigns are historically dubious - and only briefly highlight the cost of war - they were the campaigns that made me feel empowered, able to make an impact against a seemingly unstoppable force, hopeful that one man or woman can make all the difference.

While I’m still looking forward to experiencing DICE’s portrayal of the Second World War in Battlefield V’s War Stories, I hope developers continue to provide us with predominantly fictional or historically suspect stories of heroism and victory, rather than try too hard to impress upon us the real cost of major conflict. I’ll concede this fantasy may not always be beneficial or respectful to actual military forces - and we could do with less white male American protagonists - but there’s enough real-world tragedy to take in daily that escaping into these brief empowerment fantasies remains appealing.