The Metal Gear franchise has always explored the darker aspects of war. There is no real debate as to whether or not this is the case. The threat of PTSD, the question of governmental ulterior motive, the shaky state of deterrence, the unethical treatment of prisoners of war. The games carry a strong anti-war message that is usually enhanced by the games treatment of said message.
However, I believe MGSV completely and utterly dropped the ball in its depiction of child soldiers.
Let me draw a comparison. The FROGS, an all female combat unit featured in MGS4. I believe the frogs, with their superior mobility to the player and the extreme rate of fire of their weapons, force the player into an uncomfortable decision. Should you continue to use nonlethal means, as you've more than likely been attempting to in your playthrough and face an extremely difficult fight or should you ease the burden the game has placed on you and switch to faster, stronger, lethal weapons? The players decision was likely influenced more heavily by the fact that the FROGS were female, I believe that if the FROGS were male, the decision to switch to lethal means would have been much less difficult. But I am simply speaking from personal experience.
From a game design perspective, the FROGS were placed to see how much a players moral compass would erode under pressure. From a narrative perspective it serves another purpose, showing that the constant warfare that has engulfed the world at the time of MGS4 has gotten so bad that army's are becoming desperate and have begun deploying women in combat roles.
Metal Gear Solid 4 had a good mechanical and narrative purpose for the FROG's, what I'm saying is that it understood what it was doing with them and used them to further explore the darker aspects of war as the series has always done, though this aspect was more of a hypothetical one than the series had previously explored, it was still executed in a way that benefited the art. Intentional or not, Kojima made a statement in the depiction of the frogs.
Now, the problem with child soldiers. You can not kill them in this game.
Now, you might be asking "Why on earth would you want to kill the child soldiers?" The answer is quite frankly, I don't...
And that would be the point.
If you want to depict child soldiers from the perspective of an adult combatant like Big Boss properly, you would have to depict the cold, hard reality of facing a child soldier. The moral decision of opening lethal fire on a child would be a difficult one, not only in a real battlefield, but in exploring a fictional environment.
This has a dual benefit, it would make your fictional world more believable and it would add another fundamental moral choice embedded in the game's mechanics.
The problem would be that the game makes the decision for you. If you open fire on a child soldier, the game ends. You're booted out of the mission, chastised by Kaz and sent back to a checkpoint where you can make the decision the game wants you to make.
Compare with MGS4, the game doesn't demand you go easy on the FROGs, neither does it demand you step up your arsenal, it's an elective decision by the player, happening entirely in their mind. The art loses nothing and gains deeper meaning in its core gameplay.
While this game does depict child soldiers well in many other areas, for instance their difficulty keeping their weapons steady, showing that their weapons were not designed for them. This game fails to deliver a meaningful mechanical decision when they are encountered.
In all honesty, I feel that this cheapens the art.
And I understand why of course you wouldn't want the player killing children. Yes, children have a taboo protection in popular media. Yes, killing a child in a game would get the moral panic brigade in such a huff they'd puff and blow the whole world down. Yes, censors with no respect for art all across the world would become erect at the prospect of removing the death of children from the game.
But still, I believe that the depiction of child soldiers in this game is lacking, not lacking narratively, not lacking emotionally. It's lacking from the perspective of game mechanics.
However, I believe MGSV completely and utterly dropped the ball in its depiction of child soldiers.
Let me draw a comparison. The FROGS, an all female combat unit featured in MGS4. I believe the frogs, with their superior mobility to the player and the extreme rate of fire of their weapons, force the player into an uncomfortable decision. Should you continue to use nonlethal means, as you've more than likely been attempting to in your playthrough and face an extremely difficult fight or should you ease the burden the game has placed on you and switch to faster, stronger, lethal weapons? The players decision was likely influenced more heavily by the fact that the FROGS were female, I believe that if the FROGS were male, the decision to switch to lethal means would have been much less difficult. But I am simply speaking from personal experience.
From a game design perspective, the FROGS were placed to see how much a players moral compass would erode under pressure. From a narrative perspective it serves another purpose, showing that the constant warfare that has engulfed the world at the time of MGS4 has gotten so bad that army's are becoming desperate and have begun deploying women in combat roles.
Metal Gear Solid 4 had a good mechanical and narrative purpose for the FROG's, what I'm saying is that it understood what it was doing with them and used them to further explore the darker aspects of war as the series has always done, though this aspect was more of a hypothetical one than the series had previously explored, it was still executed in a way that benefited the art. Intentional or not, Kojima made a statement in the depiction of the frogs.
Now, the problem with child soldiers. You can not kill them in this game.
Now, you might be asking "Why on earth would you want to kill the child soldiers?" The answer is quite frankly, I don't...
And that would be the point.
If you want to depict child soldiers from the perspective of an adult combatant like Big Boss properly, you would have to depict the cold, hard reality of facing a child soldier. The moral decision of opening lethal fire on a child would be a difficult one, not only in a real battlefield, but in exploring a fictional environment.
This has a dual benefit, it would make your fictional world more believable and it would add another fundamental moral choice embedded in the game's mechanics.
The problem would be that the game makes the decision for you. If you open fire on a child soldier, the game ends. You're booted out of the mission, chastised by Kaz and sent back to a checkpoint where you can make the decision the game wants you to make.
Compare with MGS4, the game doesn't demand you go easy on the FROGs, neither does it demand you step up your arsenal, it's an elective decision by the player, happening entirely in their mind. The art loses nothing and gains deeper meaning in its core gameplay.
While this game does depict child soldiers well in many other areas, for instance their difficulty keeping their weapons steady, showing that their weapons were not designed for them. This game fails to deliver a meaningful mechanical decision when they are encountered.
In all honesty, I feel that this cheapens the art.
And I understand why of course you wouldn't want the player killing children. Yes, children have a taboo protection in popular media. Yes, killing a child in a game would get the moral panic brigade in such a huff they'd puff and blow the whole world down. Yes, censors with no respect for art all across the world would become erect at the prospect of removing the death of children from the game.
But still, I believe that the depiction of child soldiers in this game is lacking, not lacking narratively, not lacking emotionally. It's lacking from the perspective of game mechanics.
