Glen Schofield Explains Shift in Call of Duty Antagonists
Glen Schofield, a key figure behind early Call of Duty titles, recently shared the pivotal moment that led him to stop depicting real-world nations as enemies in his games. This decision profoundly influenced the narrative direction of future Call of Duty installments, moving away from national armies to more complex antagonists like Private Military Companies (PMCs).
The turning point for Schofield occurred during a global press tour for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. At the time, Activision studios frequently portrayed foreign armies as adversaries. Schofield recalled being exhausted after weeks of travel and receiving an unexpected request to fly to Russia for more interviews, despite Russia being a primary antagonist in Modern Warfare 3.
"I spent 30 days on the Modern Warfare 3 press tour. I went all over the world, and the last stop was the UK. I was having dinner with British journalists, and suddenly I get a call: 'We need you to go to Russia tomorrow and do a few more interviews,'" Schofield recounted. His immediate thought was about the in-game enemies. "I said, 'Do you know who the enemies are in Modern Warfare 3?' They replied, 'Don't worry, you'll have a bodyguard.' And I thought, 'That doesn't make me feel any better.' That moment really bothered me. In the end, I didn't go."
This experience solidified his resolve. Right there at the dinner table, he declared, "You know what? In my next game, the enemy won't be a country. Because I want to be able to visit these countries." He had no clear plan then, but the commitment was made. This led him to consider private military companies as a new type of antagonist.
This innovative approach brought forth the private military companies and the power-hungry corporate leader Jonathan Irons in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. Schofield noted that this choice was not only safer for developers but also creatively more compelling, as audiences typically have little sympathy for mercenaries and mega-corporations.
Schofield's decision wasn't solely driven by personal comfort. During that period, he was also pursuing an MBA and engaging with colleagues from diverse international backgrounds. These conversations prompted him to reflect on themes like chauvinism, colonialism, and American interventionism—subjects often presented uncritically in major American action games. He was particularly struck by the story of an Iraqi student whose family fled Saddam Hussein’s regime, but whose uncle refused to leave, arguing that Western "democracy" brought only chaos, while under dictatorship, he at least had water, food, and stability.
This profound anecdote became the foundation for the main villain's speech in Advanced Warfare. The scene was ultimately penned by then-Activision President Eric Hirshberg, a gifted writer, and its final inclusion in the game set a crucial tone for the entire story. Schofield's decision not only allowed for more nuanced storytelling but also avoided potential real-world political sensitivities, demonstrating a commitment to global understanding in game development.
Post a Comment