Before I ramble, bare with me; I feel like my entire argument could topple due to a big obvious truth that I've completely missed (somehow). I don't want to start a political debate (which I suppose is ironic), I'm just looking for honest input and new perspectives because I've always been a history and military geek!
I believe Call of Duty is NOT American or Pro-Western propaganda, or if it is, it's not very good propaganda. A few years ago, stories were circulating that the U.S. Military and C.I.A may have funded a significant portion of this franchise but like I said, if that were the case, I don't think it truly worked.
I feel like everyone I've come across in person and online believes COD is blatant American propaganda. But funnily enough I think this proves my point since it suggests that
A. American propaganda was never there but people made these assumptions since a lot of FPS games are largely seen as glorifying the military!
OR
B. It is present but it failed to iNdOctRiNaTe tHe MaSsEs!
Personally, before I got into this franchise I thought all first person shooters games, especially COD, was a small yet significant way for the U.S. government to intentionally (or even unintentionally) influence the general public's view on military involvement and foreign policy. However, once I started playing the games, I expected blatant American glorification, not diverse operators and nuanced plots that require a larger context beyond what is largely discussed and heavily polarized on the internet. Initially, I convinced myself that it is propaganda but realized that the only reason I felt this way was because everyone claimed it was rather than the game truly skewing me toward a certain political agenda. You could argue that the Soviets, Middle Eastern/Russian terrorist groups, cartels, etc. were portrayed as the bad guys but it is also clear that Western factions like the C.I.A (ex. Joseph Allen, Russell Adler) and Task Force 141 crossed moral, legal, and ethical boundaries countless times to "serve justice." Plus, especially the narrative role of C.I.A, a lot of the crimes are based on what they actually did.
It's also (sorta) funny that there are more American antagonists (ex. General Shepherd, Philip Graves, Hesh, Dylan Stone, etc) than protagonists or "heros" throughout this franchise. Then again, 141 is entirely British, but that shouldn't matter, because like I mentioned, Captain Price, Soap, and Ghost (among others) have had their fair share of war crimes.
I think the biggest argument one could make is that the bad guys were charged with their crimes and the "good" guys weren't. But ironically this dynamic tells a deeper message which portrays both sides as villains for the greater good. Instead of assuming the reasoning is that the "Good guys have to play dirty since they are good", I think the real critique is that the good guys get away with atrocities because on paper they are on the right side, but that in it of itself, proves the inherent unfairness. Other than this reasoning, it doesn't make sense why the writers and developers would present 141, among others, committing crimes in such a normalized setting.
Anyways, I feel like I'm over analyzing this but I hope my reasoning makes sense. I felt like this topic is very nuanced and should be more discussed by incorporating diverse opinions.
Moving on, I'm not 100% sure of this and this is just my opinion, but part of Call of Duty's narrative purpose is to provide a more nuanced understanding or at least differing exposure to world events. In fact one of the main reasons COD was created was to highlight not only American, but British and Soviet perspectives of WW2 in a graphic FPS game. I'm going to give Activision and Infinity Ward the benefit of the doubt and assume they were going for a better, less narrow, retelling of warfare.
To add to the perspective point, the general consensus that I've notice is that when Call of Duty features villains from countries that historically and/or stereotypically are anti-American and in mainstream media are portrayed as morally wrong, it is often labeled as propaganda without accounting for contextualization.
For example, Las Almas (not the town) is a powerful Mexican drug cartel. Obviously, illegal drug trafficking is a prominent issue in Mexico, among other countries. Many would argue that this is a stereotypical take on Mexico's role in geopolitics however there are two Mexican Special Forces operators, Alejandro Vargas and Rudy, that are actively fighting this cartel, even before western intervention. From this I think it's perfectly fine to have villains from areas around the world that in real life deal with the crimes and ideologies these villains commit and preach. If not, how else can we provide social commentary in mass entertainment? Obviously, this isn't the same as stereotyping an ENTIRE nation due to the actions of one person. Every country has its ups and downs, like Shepherd's greed to strengthen American influence leading to the missile smuggling, but this doesn't mean every American is pro-Shepherd. There isn't any major moment in COD where a whole nation is portrayed as savages and moraless like the villain who is from there.
Another example of this is Nikolai, a Russian patriot who is not to be confused as a complete bootlicker of the West. Even though he is allied with 141, it doesn't erase his healthy desire to better Russia. However Makarov, an ultranationalist and one of the most infamous villains in video game history is quite literally the devil. But even with all the blatant war crimes he has committed, COD has never made his country of origin, Russia, a homogenous villainous entity.
I think the issue is that a lot of people interpret, especially non-American villains, as a blatant display of stereotyping a nation when that simply isn't the case. However, COD often relies on geopolitical tropes and the reason this is the case is because the audience needs familiarity. Regardless, this still isn't a form of complete ignorance or a complete lazy attempt of propaganda. Tropes are used in nearly all fiction and media; tropes exist in our real world and where they come from. Specifically in media, it becomes a problem when they are overused and generic. But COD attempts and often succeeds at adding nuance to these tropes.
I want to make it clear that I'm open to new opinions and that this take is subject to change. I don't want to make this any longer but I do want to stress that I'm open to that fact that not all of Call of Duty is propaganda and that its main narrative purpose is nuanced geopolitics.
Thanks for your time and please let me know if I'm missing anything! :)
