|
On a
similar subject with the AI, in the previous game I think it was noticeable
that, when you ramped the difficulty up to Veteran, the enemies basically
cheated. They had prescient AI which knew when and where you were about to pop
out, and so they'd just take your head off straight away. Have you handled
difficulty increases in this game?
NH: There are a couple variables we can tweak, like
how accurate the enemy is, how aware they are of you.
But the main thing we
tried to do is honestly make the placement just more brutal. You've
always got an advantage on the enemy; you've been through the level before, you
know where they're going to be, but in Veteran mode you're going to find that
they're not going to cheat.
You're really going to have to be going for
headshots using the most effective weaponry. You're going to have to use that
bolt-action rifle and aim for the head if you want to take an enemy out at a
distance. It's a different sort of gameplay. We heard those
concerns and we tried to address them.
You
mentioned about the need to aim for the head at the game's highest
difficulties. One of the inherent limitations of the World War II setting is
surely the 1940's weaponry, which by definition is always going to be less
accurate and more unusable than those in the modern or a future-set shooter.
That
restraint from the premise translates into a weaker interactive tool for the
player. How do you compensate for that weakness? In the most recent Brothers in Arms there were lots of
situations where I found myself just plugging away for ages because my gun wasn't
very accurate and that soon gets old...
NH: You'll have to forgive me for disagreeing, but I
think it's a perception issue. We made sure that our weapons were doing very
realistic damage. On normal difficulty a shot to the chest with a
bolt-action rifle will kill an enemy instantly. On Veteran we might want to
require a more targeted hit, but the weapons are very deadly and very accurate.
It's going to be more about choosing when to use
what. The flamethrower is a great example, a weapon we want you to use not only
to alter the environment but also to be a shield and to flush out an enemy from
a region.
You're not going to use a flamethrower for a long-range engagement,
and you're not going to use a bolt-action rifle to do up close and dirty work.
You're going to use something like a shotgun.
We also wanted players to know that these weapons
were nastier and dirtier. Not Geneva Convention approved. And that should be
reflected in the kind of damage they do.
That's also why we added the limb-capping solution. You can detach a hand, detach a forearm, detach a shoulder,
because we also wanted to show the power of the weapon very visually to the
player, and give them the appropriate feedback. If you're taking a .30 cal to
the enemy you're going to see feet and hands fall off. And that's good visual
feedback, that you're doing some real damage.
What we don't have are engagements from 500 yards
or a mile away based on super-telescopic sights, which are more akin to the
modern era. We actually feel that it can be more visceral when the war is closer
up. It's never fun to do a pixel hunt.
Other games do the hunt game, where you see
a red dot over there and you know there's an enemy in that distance, and then
you zoom in with your scope and you find him. That's not as interesting to us.
Does that make sense?
|
Printer-Friendly Version
I can just see Leiberman having a field day with this quote. Hey Call of Duty guy, you just did the industry a great service stating the obvious. Spoken by a man who probably thinks a pixel shader is a cardboard screen placed around your plasma TV to keep it cool. I wish tools like him would keep their traps shut.
burning flesh=yes.
yay!
Six months' time from now, you think YOUR game is going to be viewed as the one that brought realism to a war game? Uh...maybe you're not familiar with the Ghost Recon series. That series has been incredibly realistic since the first one came out in 2001. You missed the boat, buddy.
"I think also it's really going to be showing people the way cooperative play is done. Co-op needs to be about a team working together, not special game modes, not special scripting. It's about a shared experience, and I think we're really going to deliver on that."
Right, because Gears of War doesn't do that already. Resistance (1) certainly didn't do that. MMOs don't do it. And just to bring up Tom Clancy again, even the OLD Rainbow Six games do it. You know what, let's go back even further. We'll ignore DOOM's coop in the early 1990s for the moment, but Hexen did an astonishing good job of cooperative play.
Seriously, CoD guy. How much crap that you didn't invent are you going to take credit for? Your game isn't new and revolutionary and groundbreaking. I'm not saying it sucks, but don't go claiming that your game is the one that brings "realism" to the table when seriously realistic, hardcore, team-based, tactical shooters have been around since 1998.
Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe the guy just doesn't hasn't looked on store shelves for tactical shooters recently. And by "recently," I mean "in the last ten years."
There are improvements that can be made in co-op play and realism, and I hope this title delivers. Personally I thought this was a great interview and gave some insight as to how 2 seperate developers work on the same title. The press has a general (albiet unfair) bias that Infinity Ward are the top developer and these guys are second string. Hopefully this title will change this attitude.
What... do you resent him being honest? I'm sure it would make for fascinating interviews if everyone kept a weather eye on how their remarks would look on the 10 o'clock news.
I resent that the industry can be perceived as juvenile, which is exactly what this "senior" producer is guilty of in this interview. Face facts, the lowest common denominator for flash in the pan games is violence. Sex will never be a factor, because mom and pop turn a blind eye to violence. Head shots are where they draw their parental line in the sand. I, for one, do NOT want Lieberman and the rest of the government using such quotes in some senate committee as a means of censoring my industry.
Regarding COD World at War, they could have taken that franchise in so many directions, but instead they went backwards. Time to pick apart the game...
Tanks. I've played COD4 regularly for a year, the most consecutive kills I racked up were 16, and that was mostly luck. On a good day, I call in a chopper, but mostly I am happy if I get a UAV (3 consecutive kills, for the uninformed). World at War beta? 22 consecutive kills with the tank. Less then 5 games in, 22. They set the game right back to wonky unbalanced COD3 multiplayer of getting pinned behind the house while you get shelled to death. Only now, it's worse, because they have omnipotent dogs.
Don't get me wrong, I love COD3, it used to be my favorite game. COD4 just did multiplayer better. It has the right balance. It doesn't have the Clancy TMI HUD, with drop down menus in the middle of the game, and too realistic bullet mechanics. COD4 is successful for a reason, they properly balanced frustration with fun. World at War missed the mark, and this idiot producer is probably the one to blame, since he's the one with the job title (and yeah, if I resent anything, it's how this 31 year old schmuck became a senior producer).
Are you listening Infinity Ward? Do you want to take COD5 to the next level? Persistent statistics and clan based gameplay, first. Nothing says random more then interchangeable clan names that don't even have a bearing on which team you're on. The winning dominant clan names can be spray painted on the walls instead of random (albiet authentic and atmospheric) graffiti. This gives players not only the initiative to join a clan, but also a purpose beyond prestige icons. For the record, as fun as it is to tally head shots, some of us do have lives, to get a gold AK47 taken away for a lobby icon is really demoralizing.
I would like nothing more then to pick a side, marines or russians, goto multiplayer, see a world map of which clan holds what territories, and see how much I can influence the outcome of a war. This is not far reaching. It's just keeping track of a clan name, kills for the clan in a given map, then applying that number to an overall world map. Isn't that what the icon in prestige mode is all about? Reward for your time and effort?
So Rob, this is why this Heller character rubs me the wrong way. As technically savvy as the flamethrower is, it's a gimmick. It's a gun with a chainsaw. At the end of the day, I would like my kill to death ratio to be some sort of contribution to my teammates win or loss. Statistics plays into all other sorts of successful real life games, and it could play into a fun FPS game without becoming a Second Life, or World of Warcraft, look at me I unlocked the velvet boots of Saddam. Just make my persistence into racking up head shots persistent beyond a stat I can share with my friends.
A flamethrower does not make a game nearly as well as it does a flame war between IW and Treyarch.
But no.
Instead they talk crap like this guy Heller does. Agreed that the game may be okay, but the fact is that they're taking credit for things that have already been done.
What's next? Treyarch claims to have invented the internet???
So my suggestion is to vote with your dollar. Buy or don't buy.
P.S. I've had the luxury of working with a number of publishers and devs and can say that Treyarch is on par with IW in a number of instances...it's just bigger...
And why are they obligated to thank Infinity Ward in every interview. I'm sure the engine is great, but they've also added on to it. IW will no doubt be able to use Treyarch's improvements as the two studios cooperate back and forth as I understand it. Should IW thank Treyarch for their additions in every COD6 interview?
As for not developing the franchise... IW has done COD, COD2, and COD4, Treyarch has done United Offensive (if you count Grey Matter as Treyarch), Big Red One, COD3, and now World at War. It's unfair and inaccurate to say that Treyarch hasn't "developed the franchise" in important ways, though IW obviously created it.
Criticize people for valid reasons. That's all.
He may be wrong, in our opinion, but I'd be much more worried if he WASN'T excited about the game.
Regardless, we all get to have our opinions. I don't find anything wrong with the interview.
Sounds great!
Can you get the AI to behave like "Vietcong's Fist Alpha" AI does...then you will definately have a hit...
otherwise im not interested...not other game has beaten Vietcongs Fist Alpha AI...hands down!!! Those sneaky VC make you jump off your seat while playing. To me, that is entertainment!!!
And guess what...Vietcong FA comes with an editor and and SDK. Does this game come with that?
Rick Copeland (aka Chavez_US - Co-founder www.freewebs.com/VietnamEliteTeamwork/ , pursuing bachelors degree in Game and Simulation Programming - 2nd year)
Female FPS gamers are on the rise...provide characters for them to choose from...