Activision On Iterating, Innovating Call Of Duty Series

Activision's Noah Heller sat down with Gamasutra to discuss the refinements made in Call of Duty: World at War to keep the popular FPS franchise moving forward. He points to cosmetic things, like realistic burning and the ability to set just about everything in the environment on fire, as well as bigger gameplay improvements, such as making the AI more difficult to beat without having it "cheat." "... 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."

Comments

ah yes, the PC low hanging fruit.

[gandhi_2]

the "killing nazis" genre. beyond moral reproach.

Re:ah yes, the PC low hanging fruit.

[Ant P.]

When are we getting a game where you kill Americans instead?

Re:ah yes, the PC low hanging fruit.

[WDot]

Screw that, when are you going to get a WWII game that shows you the real horrors of war--pitting you as a German SS soldier committing war crimes and implementing "the final solution" in the name of Hitler?

It's really not meant to be flamebait--I'm tired of war games that show war as this epic struggle that only involves soldiers vs soldiers destroying each other with cool toys. You never have to make tough moral decisions--you either shoot him or he shoots you. Where's a game where you're commanded to search for hiding Jewish families, arrest them, and ship them off to concentration camps? Would you? It's only a game, right? You need to do it to complete the objective. Is that all the prompting gamers need? It would be an interesting experiment anyway.

Call of Duty 4½. Scratch that, Call of Duty 3

[boarder8925]

I lost any and all interest in Call of Duty 3½ as soon as Activision happily announced that the next iteration in the Call of Duty series would take place during World War II.

Total respect...

[vudufixit]

For the warriors who had to use these weapons in combat. I fired a BAR, Thompson and M-1 carbine (not a Garand) at Knob Creek. They're not as accurate as I thought they'd be and except for the Thompson, a bit punishing to shoot.

I may be in the minority here...

[Fallingcow]

...but I liked CoD and CoD:UO. They were (and are) the best WWII shooters around, IMO. I don't much like the genre, and IMO you can toss out most of the rest (including CoD2), but those are keepers. Cinematic when they needed to be, action-packed at other times. Just good.

They've gone downhill since, but man, those first ones had some great moments and some intense gameplay. I didn't read anything about the games before getting them on a whim, and when one level in UO faded in and I realized they'd put me on a friggin' B-17... man, that was some good stuff! Battle of Stalingrad, also excellent. The shelling on that hill.... Jesus, no wonder people came back messed up from that kind of thing. Trench fighting on the eastern front--man, just good. The game offers experiences more than anything else, which is what I like about it, and what I think those sorts of games should do. I think it helps them communicate better, and makes them more than just a mindless shooter (if only for a few moments here and there).

The only weak parts, IMO, were the tank levels, and only because they were too small to get a feel for the machine. I kept trying to go in what I thought were reasonable directions for the levels, and running in to invisible walls :(