Re: Call of Duty 5 confirmed
Interview: How Treyarch wants to exceed expectations
Interview: How Treyarch wants to exceed expectations
You had everyone speculating over whether or not the series would return to WWII after such a successful run in a modern era with CoD 4. When do you think games will be finished with WWII?
Noah Heller: I think it will be a long time before WWII is done. The real line here is whether you can tell new stories and whether you can present something in a contemporary and new fashion.
The consumer doesn't want the same old thing, and if you deliver that, he shouldn't buy it any more than he should buy a repeat police drama or a Grand Theft Auto game set in the same genre. The challenge to us was to present something new.
Rich Farrelly: For instance, with CoD: Modern Warfare, arguably there are a lot of modern-era war games out there. But what they did is come into the market and redefined it.
That's what we want to do with the WWII genre - we want to press the Reset button, we want to say: "This is not the WWII you're used to seeing. This is something new. Yes you're firing similar weapons and yes, you've seen these locations before, but this is nothing like you've ever played."
Heller: We're not coming in to be second best. The only way we're going to make a WWII game - the only way we're going to make any game under the Call of Duty name - is if it's the best in the genre, and any genre that we enter we want to own it.
We're getting rid of the number in Call of Duty for a very specific reason. We want you to know that when you're playing CoD: WaW, you're playing the best WWII game ever. Likewise when you're playing Modern Warfare, and when you're playing any game called Call of Duty. So the bar for us isn't that this is another game in the genre, it's got to be the best game of the genre. Players only have time for the best games. They only have time for the best games that show polish and passion and love from the team.
Noah Heller: I think it will be a long time before WWII is done. The real line here is whether you can tell new stories and whether you can present something in a contemporary and new fashion.
The consumer doesn't want the same old thing, and if you deliver that, he shouldn't buy it any more than he should buy a repeat police drama or a Grand Theft Auto game set in the same genre. The challenge to us was to present something new.
Rich Farrelly: For instance, with CoD: Modern Warfare, arguably there are a lot of modern-era war games out there. But what they did is come into the market and redefined it.
That's what we want to do with the WWII genre - we want to press the Reset button, we want to say: "This is not the WWII you're used to seeing. This is something new. Yes you're firing similar weapons and yes, you've seen these locations before, but this is nothing like you've ever played."
Heller: We're not coming in to be second best. The only way we're going to make a WWII game - the only way we're going to make any game under the Call of Duty name - is if it's the best in the genre, and any genre that we enter we want to own it.
We're getting rid of the number in Call of Duty for a very specific reason. We want you to know that when you're playing CoD: WaW, you're playing the best WWII game ever. Likewise when you're playing Modern Warfare, and when you're playing any game called Call of Duty. So the bar for us isn't that this is another game in the genre, it's got to be the best game of the genre. Players only have time for the best games. They only have time for the best games that show polish and passion and love from the team.
What did you think of the reception to you last game, CoD 3?
Heller: I'd say that one of the things that it's hard for a player to understand is that CoD 3 was in development for about eight months. It's very hard to make a great new game [in that time]. CoD 3 is a very good game, and it sold well. But it's not the game that this team could have made if they had the time to polish it. Even so, with two years on this game for the first time ever, we're going to pull it from Rich's cold fingers when it's time to put this game into the box.
That's the real difference between this game and CoD 3 - we have the time to iterate and to make things feel right.
Farrelly: Our game is actually very close now to where we were at with CoD 3 when we were trying to wrap it up. So we have the game laid out, and now we're got time to iterate things, and see how they work. See if the level orders are correct, if the flow is good, take out events that seem superfluous, and that don't meet the very high standard set by us and our predecessors.
Heller: A team that, after years and years of single-year development cycles, finally have the chance to open up and show what they've got. I feel like it's a little bit of an underdog story almost. Here's a team who's never actually had a chance to make a game with much time. Modern Warfare has come along a raised the bar really high and now the team says we've got to show what we've got, or else the players aren't going to want to play it - expectations are so high.
Heller: I'd say that one of the things that it's hard for a player to understand is that CoD 3 was in development for about eight months. It's very hard to make a great new game [in that time]. CoD 3 is a very good game, and it sold well. But it's not the game that this team could have made if they had the time to polish it. Even so, with two years on this game for the first time ever, we're going to pull it from Rich's cold fingers when it's time to put this game into the box.
That's the real difference between this game and CoD 3 - we have the time to iterate and to make things feel right.
Farrelly: Our game is actually very close now to where we were at with CoD 3 when we were trying to wrap it up. So we have the game laid out, and now we're got time to iterate things, and see how they work. See if the level orders are correct, if the flow is good, take out events that seem superfluous, and that don't meet the very high standard set by us and our predecessors.
Heller: A team that, after years and years of single-year development cycles, finally have the chance to open up and show what they've got. I feel like it's a little bit of an underdog story almost. Here's a team who's never actually had a chance to make a game with much time. Modern Warfare has come along a raised the bar really high and now the team says we've got to show what we've got, or else the players aren't going to want to play it - expectations are so high.
Talking of multiplayer, you said before that you wouldn't be taking anything away from the CoD 4 formula, only adding to it. Can you elaborate on that?
Farrelly: We recognize that CoD 4 is a great multiplayer game. We would not want to take that engine and then remove things from it. We're not going to keep in game types, for instance, that don't fit in with our game setting. But the philosophy of map building, the way the perk system works - that's a great foundation. And then on top of that we'll build new perks, specialty perks, and vehicles.
We can't get away with delivering tight infantry gameplay and sloppy vehicle support. That's what we mean when we say we want to add to it.
Farrelly: So people that are used to playing Modern Warfare will be able to easily slip into our multiplayer game and then say: "oh, they also have this."
Farrelly: We recognize that CoD 4 is a great multiplayer game. We would not want to take that engine and then remove things from it. We're not going to keep in game types, for instance, that don't fit in with our game setting. But the philosophy of map building, the way the perk system works - that's a great foundation. And then on top of that we'll build new perks, specialty perks, and vehicles.
We can't get away with delivering tight infantry gameplay and sloppy vehicle support. That's what we mean when we say we want to add to it.
Farrelly: So people that are used to playing Modern Warfare will be able to easily slip into our multiplayer game and then say: "oh, they also have this."
CoD is known for being a great for it's infantry gameplay. Aren't you afraid that introducing vehicles might endanger that reputation?
Farrelly: Absolutely, and that's why we're spending a lot of time on vehicle balancing.
Farrelly: And also creating maps that are geared towards specific gameplay. And even on the vehicle maps, there are sections where we've got no vehicle allowed, and that's going to ensure support for infantry combat in those regions.
Also, we provide many maps that are infantry only, so if people don't want to play with vehicles, they don't have to.
And will the vehicles be team-operated - so you have one guy driving while another mans a gun?
Farrelly: Yes, we think that team gameplay is a great thing to support. There'll be LVT vehicles that go through the water. Water and fire on maps will be a new feature in multiplayer, and we'll have to see how that plays out.
Farrelly: Absolutely, and that's why we're spending a lot of time on vehicle balancing.
Farrelly: And also creating maps that are geared towards specific gameplay. And even on the vehicle maps, there are sections where we've got no vehicle allowed, and that's going to ensure support for infantry combat in those regions.
Also, we provide many maps that are infantry only, so if people don't want to play with vehicles, they don't have to.
And will the vehicles be team-operated - so you have one guy driving while another mans a gun?
Farrelly: Yes, we think that team gameplay is a great thing to support. There'll be LVT vehicles that go through the water. Water and fire on maps will be a new feature in multiplayer, and we'll have to see how that plays out.
How will the new gameplay elements introduced for the Japanese gameplay - hiding in holes, ambushes and things like that - be crossed over into the multiplayer?
Farrelly: We're not ready to talk about that just yet.
It must be quite tough to translate these new mechanics into the human-vs-human multiplayer...
Farrelly: Yeah it is. We'll be ready to talk about that soon, I promise.
Farrelly: We're not ready to talk about that just yet.
It must be quite tough to translate these new mechanics into the human-vs-human multiplayer...
Farrelly: Yeah it is. We'll be ready to talk about that soon, I promise.
Comment