Designing War: Call of Duty 3 as a Straightjacket for Meaningful Historical Inquiry

Stephanie Fisher

Extended Abstract

There is a movement within the discipline of history to divorce from the tedious memorization of facts and master narratives that characterize traditional history education and instead embrace active methods of historical inquiry such as critical analysis, debate and constructing histories that consider minority, cultural, and social, and personal accounts. Innovative history educators suggest using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) video games in formal education environments to teach these skills, as most of skills are akin to the type of natural learning that occurs in gameplay and are also attuned to the learning styles of "digital native" students (Prensky, 2001). While these games breathe life into an otherwise dying discipline, it would be irresponsible to assume that a historical game automatically teaches historical thinking.

This research investigates how history is packaged within a popular COTS first-person shooter (FPS) video game, Call of Duty 3. In light of the pedagogical potentials found within well-designed games (Gee 2003; Squire 2004), popular commercial war games that guarantee a faithful representation or experience are in a position to persuade players to adopt certain ways to view history. As a designed experience, these games contribute to the formation of historical frameworks that may influence how the player perceives the event, conducts historical inquiry, or even understands present international relations.

Using analytic frameworks developed by Frasca (2003) and Bogost (2007), I analyze narrative and procedural rhetoric found in the representational elements and game mechanics of Call of Duty 3. Frasca offers three levels for analyzing where designers can convey meanings and ideology: narrative representation and events, game mechanics, and mandatory goal rules. Bogost's theory of 'procedural rhetoric' further explores Frasca's second and third levels, where meaning is created through user interaction with the game's algorithms.

This research shows that potential learning through narrative is effectively restricted by loyalty to the classic Good v.s. Evil dichotomous structure of FPS games while the army-ludus rule structure discourages interactions that are critical of the master narrative presented. Call of Duty 3 presents WWII in an overly simplistic, univocal, white, masculine, American-led Allied liberation narrative that is framed by a black-and-white morality of good v.s. evil. This narrative framework is not explicit, but is rather communicated through speech acts, notably the persuasive labeling function of ethnic slurs and foreign languages.

There is a standard assumption that the player simultaneously occupies a double role as passive consumer and active point of interpretation. It is ultimately the player creating meanings and interpretations of WWII through gameplay. However in Call of Duty 3 these interpretations are constrained by the defined ludus rules of military engagement. Opportunities to seek out evidence that threatens the validity of the master narrative are sabotaged by game mechanics. By restricting player movement to areas that are directly related to finishing objectives and denying independent goal formation or exploration, the player is forced to follow the virtual master narrative without an option to deviate. Therefore, although history is presented in an interactive new medium, the game continually denies the player opportunities to critically examine, analyze and interpret history, ironically mirroring traditional history education.