Is Playing the 'Korean War' as a Video Game Acceptable?

The "Call of Duty" series is a popular first-person shooter franchise that has sold more than 500 million copies worldwide. "Modern Warfare 4," the latest installment in the series, was released in South Korea last Friday, October 23. Despite being a game primarily played by young people, it has generated immense buzz. This is because the game is set on the Korean Peninsula and revolves around an armed conflict between North and South Korea. It is not merely a matter of one mission involving infiltrating North Korea for a small-scale special operation. The entire storyline is set against the backdrop of a second Korean War. Players bomb North Korea's Presidential Palace and destroy statues of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. In the game's opening, Seoul suffers heavy damage from a North Korean military assault. As a result, controversy is running high: Is it okay to play through a second Korean War as entertainment?

The "Call of Duty" series has historically drawn both immense popularity and fierce debate whenever a new title is released. "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," released in 2009, is a prime example. One of its missions involves joining a group of extremist terrorists to commit a massacre of civilians at a Russian international airport. Although the player character is an undercover operative trying to stop terrorism, players could watch the massacre unfold alongside the terrorists or even take part in attacking civilians, drawing harsh criticism for commercializing terrorism.

In the 2019 reboot of the original Modern Warfare series, there was strong backlash from Russia, which was portrayed as the villainous nation. The depiction of a Russian general as a villain slaughtering civilians became a major controversy. Within Russia, sales of the game were suspended and its release was rejected.

There is also the case of "Six Days in Fallujah," released in 2023. It recreated the 2004 Battle of Fallujah in Iraq and faced intense pushback during its development from Iraq War veterans and families of fallen soldiers.

In South Korea, a country that suffered the fratricidal tragedy of the June 25 Korean War, turning a second inter-Korean war into the subject of a game inevitably sparks multi-layered debates.

① Freedom of Creation and Expression

Proponents argue that video games, like movies, literature, and television dramas, are a narrative art form whose creative autonomy must be guaranteed. They point out that making certain subjects taboo due to real-world constraints or political reasons risks creating cultural sacred cows and leading to absolute censorship. In contrast, opponents counter that given the division of the Korean Peninsula under an armistice, consuming an issue directly tied to national survival as mere commercial entertainment for thrills carries too heavy an ethical burden.

② Security Perspectives and Perception of Reality

Those in favor explain that it can raise public awareness regarding North Korea's actual military threat and the possibility of asymmetric provocations. They argue it serves as an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of security and a practical defense posture that might be overshadowed by peace discourse. On the other hand, opponents point out that the horrors of war, civilian casualties, and the collapse of social infrastructure are downplayed, while the thrill of military operations and win-or-lose logic are highlighted, thus distorting the gravity of reality.

③ Audience Perception and Characteristics of the Medium

Audiences, including gamers, say they possess the media literacy to clearly distinguish virtual narratives from real-world politics. They argue that fears over game content influencing perceptions of reality are unfounded, questioning whether there is any evidence that people who play games are more prone to violence. Conversely, some argue that because the game belongs to an immersive genre like first-person shooters, it should be approached with greater sensitivity. Since players directly carry out shooting and military operations, they are more likely to become desensitized to violence and war compared to consumers of other media. Critics argue that even if shooting game enthusiasts do not go shooting people in the streets, there is a high likelihood of becoming desensitized to the dangers of firearms and the necessity of regulations.

Recently, the risk of accidental clashes in actual border areas has been escalating due to North Korea's fortification of the Military Demarcation Line, as well as landmine laying and explosions within the Demilitarized Zone. In this context, a game that envisions a second inter-Korean war could have an even more profound socio-psychological impact.

① Amplification of Social Anxiety or Security Fatigue

When news of real-world military provocations overlaps with the visual stimulation of a virtual war scenario, it can excessively trigger psychological stress and a sense of crisis regarding an "actual conflict" among the general public. Conversely, in a society where tension has become normalized, a paradoxical desensitization could occur where even real crises are perceived unrealistically as "events in a game." Neither outcome represents a healthy psychological state.

② Polarization of Public Opinion and Intensification of Ideological Conflict

Surrounding the acceptance or regulation of the game, hardline stances against North Korea intertwined with "freedom of expression rights" are sharply clashing with calls for regulation based on "pacifist tension reduction." The realm of cultural consumption is escalating into a battleground for political partisan conflict. In fact, arguments calling for regulations on the release or distribution of the game are attacked as "being overly cautious of North Korea." Some opposition lawmakers have even referred to this game as if it were security educational material and recommended that the president play it. The debate over the appropriateness of the game's content has effectively devolved into a wasteful dispute over grand strategies toward North Korea.

③ Support for Deterrence Against North Korea and Formation of Hardline Public Opinion

Depictions of military responses such as precision strikes or decapitation operations could bolster hardline public opinion that favors military pressure and strikes at the origin over dialogue or negotiations during an actual crisis. This could positively impact military morale or the strengthening of deterrence. However, it could also serve as a factor that restricts policy flexibility when managing crises or seeking diplomatic exits.

As with everything in the world, positive and negative effects coexist in the game in question. However, it is clear that the game's content is uncomfortable for some citizens who experienced the June 25 Korean War either directly or indirectly. Furthermore, unlike overseas gamers for whom it is merely watching a fire across the river, it is certain that if the scenario in the game were to become reality, we would have to fear for the future of our nation and people. This is by no means a game that can be enjoyed mindlessly shooting and destroying. Even if one plays it, there must be an awareness of such reality, and society must ensure that such awareness exists.

To add, for about 15 minutes immediately following the game's release, users were unable to access the online purchase process. Rumors spread that the South Korean government had artificially blocked access to the game. However, the situation was resolved shortly afterward, and purchases can now be made freely. It appears to have been an internal issue on the game publisher's end rather than a government measure.

※