I’ve reached the final level of Call of Duty: World at War, my troops within spitting distance of the Reichstag, the last icon of Nazi dominion that must be toppled before we Russians can enjoy a quadruple vodka while watching the end credits roll.

In what’s become something of an annual sadism ritual, I’m playing Call of Duty through on Veteran, the toughest difficulty level. I’ve done this with every game in the series now, and each year I get bruises on my leg from where I’ve punched out my frustrations.

Last year’s Call of Duty 4, a masterpiece by most criteria, was a bitch of a game at Veteran level thanks to the way its enemy spawning worked. In every shoot-out, enemy troops would continue to reappear indefinitely, replacing those you’d shot down until you passed some invisible trigger point and the onslaught subsided. As such it became a game of charging forward, sliding to the ground behind a sandbag and praying.

When I sat down with Activision’s Noah Heller one of the first things I asked was whether the team at Treyarch had changed the way the system works, assigning each area of the game a set number of enemies who, once killed, would never reappear.

He answered:

“I can’t say that there’s no place in the entire game where enemies might be infinite, but believe me, it was a big concern to us. I’m pretty sure we reduced it down to nil in almost any situation. Except one, where from a plot perspective, it was important for enemies to keep pouring out to get the player to move on.

A lot of people are completists, and they want to kill every enemy before moving on, so we wanted to make sure that there was something for those players as well. Basically, we get it; we get that it’s bad gameplay when you show how the engine works to people.”

On this final point I disagree with Heller. Players absolutely want to know how the engine works because that’s how they come to understand the rules of the game.

The assault on the Reichstag is one of those places where enemies infinitely respawn until you’ve gained enough ground. You can shoot down out the grenadier on the building roof a hundred times but he will always be replaced ten seconds later. It’s immensely frustrating because the narrative of the game is telling you to clear out the enemy so you can storm the Reichstag, but the game system is telling you that killing the enemy is pointless and victory can only come from charging into the jaws of death while praying like a madman.

Mixing the two systems was arguably the worst possible decision because it confuses players as to what the rules of the game are at any given point. In every area you have to work out whether to act with a sniper’s patience and precision by removing threats one by one or to take the Rambo approach instead. It can be beneficial to create a game system in which the player isn’t always sure of how to approach a problem, but this is not one of those situations.

The Reichstag assault is comfortably the most difficult part of the game so far and I’m progressing at a rate of about one checkpoint per hour. The only reason I’m forging on is sheer bloody mindedness and the fact that I‘m now so invested and near to the final prize that I’ve convinced myself it would cost more to walk away.

When I do complete the level there will be no sense of achievement, just a wave of relief that I can at last move on. This is a ridiculous and tragic reason to continue to play a game, something highlighted by an excellent post on GameSetWatch from EA designer Brice Morrison.

The article outlines the reasons that games no longer appeal to him but it’s not all negativity. This line leaped out at me: “Games have the potential to not only be entertaining, but to have the player put down the controller and say, ‘Wow. I am a better person for having played this game. Those last few hours have contributed to my well being and will continue to enrich my life long after I’m done playing.’”

This point of view made me question the time I’m spending with Call of Duty 5 as, when I look back at my assault on the Reichstag, those last few hours have done the opposite of contribute towards my well-being and enriching my life. They gave me leg bruises.

In search of an antidote Brice is running a competition on his blog, inviting proposals for life-enriching games. He writes: The challenge is to design and create a small, simple, 5-10 minute game that is more than entertainment: a piece of software that actually enriches the life of the player. The deadline for the competition is Sunday so hurry to it. If you have even the germ of an idea, I urge you to take the time this evening to grow it into a word document. These conversations are important.

Edit: I just noticed that it’s a year to the day since I wrote The Difficulty with Call of Duty 4. This makes it look like I have a better handle on life and organisation than I actually do. Just thought I should come clean.