'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4' (hereinafter 'Modern Warfare 4') was released on the 23rd. The campaign centers its narrative around a North Korean invasion of the South. However, even before its release, during pre-launch promotion and early access, the game was brought up by politicians first. A single new title ended up becoming the subject of debate over national security perspectives.
On the 20th, People Power Party Representative Ahn Cheol-soo criticized President Lee Jae-myung's "final defensive weapon" remark made on the 19th, writing, "If you don't understand the danger of North Korean provocations, try playing the game CoD4: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4." On the 21st, People Power Party Representative Joo Jin-woo called the game "the title that gets the left wing most triggered these days," adding, "It doesn't deal with past events, but with a scenario that could happen in the future." On the 23rd, the release day, independent Representative Han Dong-hoon noted as a premise that "of course it is a fictional story," while writing, "If that day comes again, are we 'prepared'? This question is directed at the Lee Jae-myung administration's security policy."
Concerns were expressed from the exact opposite direction as well. Kim Sung-jae, Chairman of the Kim Dae-jung Peace Center (and former Minister of Culture and Tourism), voiced concern in an op-ed for the Hankyoreh that the game turns war trauma into entertainment and could adversely affect inter-Korean relations.
Thus, one side advocates using the game for security education, while the other worries it will harm inter-Korean relations. Their conclusions are polar opposites, but their premise is identical: the premise that a game shapes a player's security perspective. Politicians have made targets of one another and picked up the game like an arrow.
However, playing 'Modern Warfare 4' directly reveals a game that hardly deserves to be called a controversy. A game truly becomes controversial when it isn't fun. The 'Modern Warfare' series has always translated real-world tensions into virtual warfare; this time, the setting simply happens to be the Korean Peninsula. Even North Korea within the game does not present a single face, making it difficult to read as propaganda depicting North Korea as a monolithic evil.
The developers' explanation aligns with this perspective. Narrative Director Jeffrey Negus explained that the title is not intended to convey a specific political stance. He noted that in a place where gun barrels have been pointed at one's own country for decades yet people take it for granted, he posed the question, "What if a war actually starts?"
Of course, one cannot erase the fact that some people feel uncomfortable. In a nation under an armistice, there will inevitably be players who feel a sense of aversion to scenes of familiar streets being destroyed. Yet discomfort is distinct from controversy. Discomfort is an individual impression, whereas controversy is an issue that society as a whole must question and debate.
In the end, whether 'Modern Warfare 4' is a well-made game and whether it portrays Korea accurately are matters for players to judge through playing. A video game is neither a security education textbook nor a weapon that harms inter-Korean relations. What politicians ought to do is put down the game and debate policy instead.
