Game Theory - Call of Duty: Modern War Crimes

I think you hit the nail on the head! Researching this episode, I was surprised to find that the first game doesn't have that many ridiculous moments and stays pretty accurate to its title of "Modern Warfare." But as the series went on, the war crime tally started to go through the roof and the "set piece" moments occurred every mission--very Michael Bay-esque. It became less about "What's the story we want to tell" and more of "What cool thing can we blow up next?" As a result, the soldiers went from being fairly realistic soldier characters to super soldier Jack Bauer taking no prisoners. Which is too bad. I do think the series could have had something powerful to say without me having to overthink (am I allowed to say that?) the whole thing.

You have my axe.

Thanks for the comment Ben. Your comparison with Michael Bay is right on. I was surprised that the first game was fairly true to its "Modern Warfare" title, even down to protecting the church in the "Death from Above" mission. But as the series went on, the Bay mentality took over and realism went out the window. Set piece moments became the norm and with those big scenes came the romanticized version of the solider as a vigilante "one-man-army." Inevitably, this brought with it more incentive to breach wartime protocol like you said.

Had they at least mentioned the conventions to acknowledge that they're breaking them, that would have been a big step. I think Metal Gear Solid did a great job with that. In the first game's torture scene, Ocelot specifically mentions the Geneva Conventions, then dismisses them as a means of justifying his actions. At the time, the allusion went over my head, but looking back I think that detail makes all the difference and could have saved Call of Duty from some of the grief it's taken from the Red Cross.

They should just make a movie called Transformers: Call of Duty.