Modern Warfare arrives in less than a month on November 8. Ahead of the release of what's in all likelihood going to be the biggest entertainment launch of the year, we sat down for a chat with Glen Schofield, general manager and co-founder of Sledgehammer Games, the new Activision studio initially formed to take the series in a fresh direction.
Things didn't turn out as originally planned though, as staff departures at series creator Infinity Ward resulted in Sledgehammer taking on Modern Warfare 3 co-development duties. In part one of our interview, former EA Visceral Games GM and Dead Space executive producer Schofield explains how the unlikely marriage with Infinity Ward came about, and how gameplay innovations will make Modern Warfare 3 the most accessible Call of Duty game yet.
Well they hadn't kicked off, they were about to kick off. They knew they had to get started on it but they had personnel issues, so before they could get started and feel confident they were going to make the game, they needed another team to help them out.
What were the core design principles for the single player campaign?
Basically, we sat down, talked to each other and one of the things we came out and said was: 'We want to tell a story. We want to tell a good story, we don't want it to be confusing, I want to know who I'm playing.' We came in and said here are some of the things, as a fan that we believe should be corrected. And they were pretty much like, 'You're speaking to the choir. We agree.' So that was like a big touchdown, first day, goal. So here's a big win on day one, sort of agreeing that we need to do that. There were so many things that we were agreeing on in the first few days of meeting and talking.
You said the game's going to wrap up the first two Modern Warfare titles nicely. Is the Modern Warfare series designed as a trilogy?
No. No, it's not a trilogy. The idea was that the other two were left on cliff-hangers - doing it again felt wrong. As a matter of fact, it was like, we just escalated this thing from the first game to the third game to World War Three. We could leave it hanging, or we could do an Iron Man and wrap it up. You feel good, you know. Is there a glimmer of something that says the series isn't done, if we wanted it that way? Yeah, but not in terms of a cliff-hanger, more in terms of the universe has blown up, if that makes sense.
I don't know.
Compared to the other games?
I've played each level four to five hundred times. You're just playing it and playing it, and I've been playing it since it was just boxes. So I don't know. All I can tell you is that from a design point of view, we sit down and write a story. We don't ever say 'Write a five hour story,' we just write a really great story, and at the end of the day if it comes out and it feels too short, we don't want to just add stuff. With that said, I don't think it's too short. It feels like a great story. The right amount of time. You and I are going to play it at different speeds.
Comments
15 comments so far...
Headsrinker on 10 Oct '11 said:
I think the headline should read: 'Theres lots of innovation here, we've just carefully hidden it from all our trailers'
KK-Headcharge78 on 10 Oct '11 said:
I can the fervent minds of those who will be picking that article apart........ can't wait.
craiglackenby on 10 Oct '11 said:
I got my deposit back for this yesterday. I was really hyped until the streaks got announced. Too accessible isn't good. People that aren't a noob will take advantage of flash/stuns getting assists with Hardline to get easy streaks. I say go the 3arch way and make you get kill streaks with your gun or not at all.
casshern09 on 10 Oct '11 said:
This really made me chuckle reading this. When asked how long the game was he just deflected away big time. Basically it will be about 4-5 hours again.
And then the part about innovation. All he talked about were some new weapons. That is not innovation mate.
I have to say I am kind of torn with this game release. I did enjoy the other two MW games despite their obvious flaws. But I played them for what they were, just balls out arcade shooters. I would like to see what happens with the story cos I liked the characters but I just dont want to support Activision anymore after their awful lack of support for PC.
gmcb007 on 10 Oct '11 said:
What a professional answer! Surely you would know seeing how you helped make the bloody thing!
I'm going to play MW3 for the SP & Spec Ops only. I just enjoy the quick explosion fest for a week and then move on. It's the settings that have got me intrested this time around. European cities and plane crashes (even if it is scripted) make a nice change to just your usual middle eastern or american setting ( I know NY is present).
As for multiplayer, not a chance. They just make it to easy for pricks to camp and get rewarded with easy killing machines to yet boost up even more cheap unearned kills. Most of the time the multiplayer just leaves you feeling annoyed than pleased.
Oh and CVG, please stop splitting interviews into parts just so you can get more hits by picking out flamebait headlines per section.
Sleepaphobic on 10 Oct '11 said:
OK so we put in better sound and added a few weapons. INNOVATION son!
versionr on 10 Oct '11 said:
It's a testament to how short and easy it is!
And you don't make it hard by having infinite spawning enemies till your reach the next checkpoint!
the688 on 10 Oct '11 said:
High on the list of "Jobs I wouldn't like right now" would be PR-spokesperson for Modern Warfare 3.
"we've got new stuff, like.. people.. talk.. to OTHER people!!.. and there are OTHER .. like you know.. AI-players that you work with.. and uh.. we've got dedicated servers!!"
Yeah, that's gotta be the hardest sell in a decade. BF3 has moved the genre on in terms of gameplay, team-play, the game runs better than we expected on midrange-PCs - my son has a DualCore 2.8 ghz E7400, 4 gigs and a 4850HD - runs BF3 in 16-10 resolution fine (not in high detail, but still *very* playable!)
BFBC2 was already a much more advanced game than MW2 (and MW1, but atleast that was a fresh new adrenaline fix) - MW2 felt "meh", and I'm pretty convinced MW3 will be just as "meh". Sure, if you're an adrenaline twitch-shooter who wants to be the hero, it'll make you feel like a superhero, but the way BF3 makes you *depend* on your mates for survival and succes, just goes so much deeper.
I'm sure MW3 will sell tons of games on the console - lots of fanboyism going round - and people are entitled to their tastes, but the hard fact remains that MW2 didn't move the game on at all (except even more annoying and unrealistic kill-streak rewards that turned multiplayer into complete idiocy), and MW3 doesn't look like it's bringing anything to the table except new maps... oh, and some of those are recycled too.
If they removed the "realistic" looking weapon skins, and just called it Quake 5, it might be a decent game, but trying to be a tactical shooter without tactics, and with "added silly" just doesn't cut it.
Oh, does anyone remember playing Quake 2 and 3?
TheCrimsonFenix on 10 Oct '11 said:
Not sure I count different campaign missions as innovation. Let's be honest, the only new mechanics they're talking about are some new multiplayer aspects and a few mission exclusive "exciting" moments.
kirankara on 10 Oct '11 said:
I know you're a fan kk, and whilst I refuse to flat out abuse cod anymore , as as end of the day, it's clear many ppl enjoy it, so it can't be all bad , but c'mon , even you gotta recognize that after the headline if it's full of innovation, you were left going "where?" . I am trying to give thi game a chance, but it hardly screams innovation based on that interview, if the best he had was a grenade launcher, an alternative to flash bangs and a good story, does it??
Im not saying that will stop it being a good game, as gears 3 isn't really innovative either, but the headline wasn't justified by the interview content.
KK-Headcharge78 on 10 Oct '11 said:
I get about 8-10 hours on veteran and thats enough for me (although i play all the other modes too) As a side note what with me been thick what would innovation actually be in a military FPS shooter, many speak of it but no one ever seems to describe what it would be or look like?
KK-Headcharge78 on 10 Oct '11 said:
Oh I agree 100% mate, leave words like that out, I wish the discourse was more realisitc and said if you liked MW2 you'll love this as it's more of the same plus some new guns, settings, modes, perks, kills streaks, maps etc etc etc', if they actually said' it's nothing like MW2, runs differently, is slower paced etc' I would probably be more inclined to pass it up. This innovation bulls**t with COD is the same as it is with BF, over-hype the 'innovation' and the proximity for underwhelment is huge.
EvilWaterman on 10 Oct '11 said:
The SP will go as follows:
Start at A shoot never ending amount of enemies through corridor until you reach b, repeat.
I shan't be getting this this time. I'm fed up with the idiots who play on line. (I know not everyone is an idiot)
xxx128 on 11 Oct '11 said:
Now there are two things that give me a nervous eye twitch. One is "photo relistic"- graphics in real time and the other is "innovations in fps shooters". Wanna try that again?
beaky09 on 11 Oct '11 said:
just another camp fest i suppose little dickheads sitting in corners with there baby monitors (heartbeat sensor) .so annoying lets get back to how cod4 was wen it was just snipers camping & every one else running around its a lot more fun