As a preface to this essay, I'd like to mention that I make some rather bold statements although I do realize there are quite a number of counter-arguments, and differing points of view on what I'm going to be discussing. When I first posted this article Geekydad wrote a response to it that made me take it down and think for a while as to whether or not I'd end up posting this, which I'm thankful for.

But anyway, all that might just be adding too much gravity to the essay. So anyway here it is:

As I bet all of you know, Infinity Ward released a new story trailer for the highly anticipated Modern Warfare 2. All I can say was I was thoroughly stunned, and the wait is pretty much unbearable at this point. But not all were as wowed as I was over the trailer. Toward the end, a pretty big reveal came in the form of what seems to be an all-out ground war in a realistic Washington, D.C., and people are upset.

The main reason for the upset is that it hits too close to home, and is too soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But personally, I'm upset over those kinds of statements. The game might be somewhat realistic, but it's fictional, and if the story and themes from the first Modern Warfare are kept up, it's a game that's damn near art, and I think it's unacceptable to argue that art should have to be tame, and not controversial on any level. If art cannot be upsetting, much of the power of select pieces of art is taken away.

Think of the film Schindler's List. It's a very powerful film, right? Well, think what that film would be like if all the depictions of the atrocities committed during the Holocaust were removed. It might still be an inspirational story, but the realism, and the truly effectual qualities would not be there. If it helps push a productive, or powerful theme, upsetting things should be included in art (if it fits the story one tries to tell, of course).

It seems to me as if Infinity Ward has a reason for placing part of the campaign in D.C. beyond just the possible shock-value, or excitement stirred over a new set-piece moment. The narration at the end of the trailer, who's voice I assume to be Makarov's, describes that where he comes from, and many other places across the globe have been the world's recent battlegrounds, but no place that is truly familiar to someone like me. That's why the ensuing reveal of Washington, D.C. as an all-out battleground is so powerful, or shocking to some. There are wars going on all over the world that a lot of us don't truly stop and think about on a regular basis, and Makarov, despite his role as the game's antagonist, brings up an interesting point which is that war can't be understood unless it hits one on their homeland. If the "Infamy" trailer is any indication, even the fictional depiction of such a thing can be upsetting, but at the same time, I hope, powerful and maybe even informative.

The truth is that, from time to time, it's important to bring up upsetting memories, current events, and possibilities in the realm of fiction, because the thematic, and informative qualities of whatever stories that may ensue are, if done for a real reason, could be considerable. Fiction that holds real power shouldn't always have to be quiet in tame (though that kind of mood may fit the story perfectly well). Sometimes the strongest, most influential themes a story has to offer can only be delivered in a way that might go beyond one's comfort zone, but it's nothing to condemn, or cry out against; it's fiction, it's art, and if the artists include something controversial within their fiction for a real reason, then you might just learn something if you hear what they have to say.

So there it is. You might have a strong opinion about the specific instance I'm talking about or that subject in a more general sense, you might not, but anyway I'd like to see what you guys think, so leave a comment.