Is Call of Duty deviating from realism with new skins or mil-sim is the answer?

Call of Duty has been dealing with a lot of criticism lately. Apart from the cases of rising cheaters, false bans, and more, numerous fans have raised quite an interesting concern — the skins. Titles in the franchise, including the latest Black Ops 6, feature an in-game store that lets players buy cosmetics such as Operator skins, weapon Blueprints, and more.

However, many fans opine that these skins aren't designed around the game's central themes and rather take away from immersion. For instance, one recently added skin was that of a Shark Operator, which as many would point out, doesn't quite fit in with the game's 90s Gulf War theme. Hence, they believe CoD games should focus on mil-sim skins, for a push toward realism instead of adding skins that can detract from realism. But not everyone agrees.

We explore whether the new skins in Call of Duty are breaking realism and most importantly, whether COD should even be focusing on realism.

Note: The article is subjective and reflects the author's opinion.

Should Call of Duty focus on realism?

Before we dive deeper, I'd like to clarify that Call of Duty doesn't stand to deliver a realistic experience. Even if we go back to the series' initial days where it truly picked off with Modern Warfare (2007), the game was nowhere close to being realistic, especially in Multiplayer.

Sure, MW tried to push a Campaign that focused on realistic themes, but the main focus was narrative and accessibility.

Similar themes could also be found in its Multiplayer component, which had guns built on real-world weapons but behaved quite differently. For instance, the AK-47 in the game was based on a real-world rifle but wouldn't act like the real firearm. The recoil was toned down, making it easier to use, making it more accessible.

Gold AK-47 in Call of Duty 4 (Image via Activision/@ The Jawz on YouTube)

You could even equip a Gold Camo on the weapon, giving it the appearance of an AK-47 that was wrapped in gold. But no one would use it in a realistic scenario; hence, Call of Duty has always been an "arcade shooter." This has been the genre this game fits in. It's not a realistic shooter like Insurgency or Arma.

Simply put, all Call of Duty titles aim to infuse real-world themes and items into a mass-accessible video game. This type of game doesn't have a huge learning curve.

Sure, mastering the game would take a long time, but at its core, grasping the basics is quite easy, and even someone who doesn't play games regularly can adapt to it unlike titles like Insurgency, Arma, and Escape from Tarkov, which asks players to devote a lot of time to learn the basics.

The same guns in CoD might behave completely differently in any of the games mentioned above. Hence, the focus isn't on realism but on a simple way for players to enjoy a shooter based on realistic elements. This is what made Call of Duty so popular and differentiated itself in the market.

We have established that Call of Duty is not inherently a realistic shooter, but the question of whether it's headed in the right direction with its new skins remains.

Also read: IDEAD Mastercraft Bundle in Black Ops 6 and Warzone: Price, what's included, and is it worth buying?

Are the new skins in Call of Duty ruining realism?

Fans argue that the new Call of Duty skins, especially in Black Ops 6, like the ones discussed earlier, don't fit with the game. While many might not agree with this claim, it is not completely baseless. Developers themselves previously stated that they would not want to integrate weapons from MW3 and MW2 into their game as it would not be authentic.

Expand Tweet

Since the game was based in the 90s, the weapons and items should also reflect this to deliver a realistic and authentic experience.

So, if we consider the words from the developers, it might seem ironic that they didn't include guns from a different game that behaved quite like the ones already in the title, and instead added Operator skins and weapon Blueprints that are quite frankly goofy and "out of this world."

However, the other side of this debate claims, and as we have already discussed, that Call of Duty has always been an arcade shooter and hence, players shouldn't be mad at the developers for including items that may not directly fit the equation. They also bring up examples from the past.

For instance, Black Ops 2 was one of the best COD titles to date, and hardly any fan would disagree. In that game, they had "Bacon skins" which sold for $2.

With that out of the way, you might wonder what the answer is. Should the developers focus only on the mil-sim skins to deliver a more "authentic" experience or are the new skins fine? Check out our final thoughts below.

Conclusion: Are new skins ruining Call of Duty and is mil-sim the only answer?

The simple answer is no, and it goes for both. New skins aren't ruining Call of Duty nor should developers focus only on mil-skim skins. As we've discussed, one of the main differentiating factors for CoD is that it delivers an arcade shooter that wrapped in a skin of realism.

So, it can accommodate any Operator skin or weapon Blueprint it wants. In fact, many of these Blueprints and Operator skins have been praised in the past despite having nothing to do with mil-sim or a realistic wrapper that all CoD games carry.

Expand Tweet

Let's not even go to the past and focus on the present skins. For instance, the BO6 Vault Edition came with Mastercraft skins which have items such as a knife with an eye embedded in it or a Shotgun that has electric bolts. These skins at the time of the reveal, received nothing but praise from fans.

However, these cosmetics had nothing to do with realism, and they don't fit with the 90s theme either. Yet that appealed to the masses. Allowing Call of Duty developers to innovate on these aspects has led to truly some of the best pieces of cosmetics in recent times.

Focusing only on mil-sim skins would make the game dull and wouldn't appeal to a lot of players. These out-of-place skins keep things interesting and fun, ensuring the arcade theme of Call of Duty remains alive.

So, criticizing a particular skin that might not be well made or might charge fans an absurd amount for the quality it delivers seems apt.

However, if developers focus only on the mil-sim skins, it might tighten the fabric of realism at the cost of losing the spirit of Call of Duty.

Hence, most of the debate surrounding skins, which players have the option to not buy, shouldn't be a concern.

What should concern the community right now is the abysmal surge in cheaters in their games, improve the servers, and allow for a seamless gameplay experience for all. These factors will ruin the series way before a Shark skin will.

For the latest COD news and guides, check out the articles below:

Edited by Angad Sharma