I know this is strange timing, but recently I began replaying COD4 and MW2's campaigns in preparation for COD:BO (I think that game needs a new acronym...), and I was struck but an obscure thought, which became more profound after COD:BO's ending.
What if General Shepard, Mr Shoot-You-In-The-Face-And-Burn-You-With-Cigar, was the game's good guy?
I think it's fair to say that the game has a fairly...confusing (ie: clusterfuck) plot, and I never understood it. I understood why I was in one place, and why I was doing such and such, but I never understood why I was there doing that thing in relation to the overall story.
My theory is this; General Shepard is not actually that bad of a guy throughout most of the game, he seems to only want to help America (which is 'good' I suppose), so his shooting you in the face at the end is completely nonsensical. We get hammered with the idea that the 'Victors write History' or whatever, but how is the story changed by killing the 141? Makarov still killed a bunch of civilians at an airport (which he now has the intelligence to prove), Russia still invaded the US, and he would probably tell people Makarov launched the Nuke at America, rather than pinning it on Price. Killing them does not allow him to change any story (he doesn't need to anyway), in fact now he has to explain the death of the most elite force in the world.
"But if he was the good guy, why would he kill them?" you ask. Simple. What if (dare I say it) Price was the bad guy? He's been in a Russian gulag for five years, and suddenly he's waging war with you like nothing's happened. What if he was compromised? In fact, it doesn't really matter, because as far as Shepard, our good guy general is concerned, he is. Here's all Shepard knows about Price; He was kept in a Russian gulag for five years, he then leads your 141 force on an eronious attack on a sub bay so he can launch a nuke at America. This is all he knows. As far as any logical person is concerned, Price would have been compromised in that gulag and has turned against America. So why shoot up the whole 141? Well despite the aforementioned nuke launch, the whole 141, or at least the parts with you, seem totally cool with Price continuing to run around with a gun and aerial support. General Shepard has an invasion on his hands, and the world's most dangerous terrorist to find, he can't deal with the 141's shit right now.
He can't waste valuable time that could be spent killing Russians trying to figure out who is compromised in a heavily armed and highly trained group of soldiers and who isn't, so he just cuts his losses and kills them all to be on the safe side. This may seem harsh, but given his situation, he really has little other choice.
If we assume this theory, then suddenly the whole third act makes sense.
So what was the point of the 'Victors write History" stuff? Here's the thing, you and Price are the victors, you and he have 'written' history as Shepard as a bad guy.
tl;dr: Price was compromised in the gulag (or at least Gen Shepard thinks he is, which is logical), so Shepard kills the 141 to prevent the rest of them going rogue, while he deals with Makarov and the Russian invasion. The "Victors write History" thing is referring to Price changing the story so Shepard is a bad guy.

Log in to comment