The world wide war! Exclusive Brothers in Arms interview

Game developers are very enthusiastic chappies. Yet, in all our years of journalism, we don't think we've met anyone quite as passionate on the art of gaming as Gearbox's very own Randy Pitchford.

The gaming supremo, who still appears remarkably young despite a CV that consists of Halo and Half-Life versions, could literally talk for weeks about his upcoming WWII D-Day shooter Brothers in Arms. Which made it both a shame and lucky (especially in light of the fact that lunch was soon to be served) that we only had 20 minutes with the man.

Recorded from our recent Paris trip, the Gearbox founder/president talks about the game's extra freedom, the devotion to artificial intelligence, its realism, and best of all, its remarkable sense of time travel...

You really seem to have given the characters in the game very strong personalities and identities. So what happens if they're killed during a mission - doesn't that affect the story?

Pitchford: Well, we all dream about a game where we're part of a squad, and we're one of the guys, and that's exactly the type of game we wanted to create.

We want it to be meaningful when a guy dies so of course, soldiers in your squad can be killed. But at the same time we don't want that to screw up the story later on because some of the main guys have been lost. So how do we do it?

Well, the actual history really helps. When the game starts in Normandy, you and your troops are scattered everywhere. So one of the aims is collecting your squad over time. There's a lot of guys in Baker's unit, but at the most, he's only able to command two teams of three men [a fire and assault team]. And this means that even as I'm collecting and losing guys, I will only have managed to max out with six at a time.

So there's this progression of having new guys continuously coming into your squad and that helps with that.

Another thing is that often in battle, a lot more soldiers are wounded rather than killed. The human body is actually amazingly resilient. So we kind of use that to our advantage.

If a guy's important to us and he's a part of your squad and he's not ready to die yet, then yes, he still goes down because the player's made a mistake, but another squad member might go to him and say: "He's okay, he's just unconscious."

It's a trick we use to keep guys coming back in future missions.

We're actually debating now whether a player can go out and patch up a fallen soldier, as it will give them a chance to rectify mistakes that they've made.

So, with your squad constantly changing throughout the story, does that mean you won't be in command of a three-man fire and assault team in every mission?

Pitchford: No, in fact in a second mission in the game, there is only one other member under your command, who's the leader of the fire team. It isn't until the end of that mission that you run into more of your guys, who then become part of your squad. At certain times, you'll have a full fire team, at other times you might even be in command of a tank.

It's not fair to call the tank a fire team or an assault team, though, because tanks, well, they can do anything! You can use the tank for cover, use it to lead you into tough positions, use it to attack, but you can't just push it out at the front all the time because it's also vulnerable to anti-tanks.

Throughout the game there's different ways the combat unfolds. Ultimately, because the player is an independent operator, he can play the role of either a fire or assault team. This can be changed at will at anytime during a battle. Some people always want to be an assault team, but maybe they'll try and suppress the enemy instead, and it'll work, and they'll be rewarded by that.

There seems to be a wealth of tactics available for each scenario. Do the German soldiers ever respond to your decisions, or even employ their own counter-attacks?

Yes, the system we have is called situational AI. And that's what our designers use to give the enemies commands in the same way I give my Allies commands. The battlefields are more alive - this is not a corridor shooter where you're taken through a very narrow path and the makers use tricks to lead you past obstacles - you know, all that linear stuff.

In Brothers in Arms, that path is wider. We've taken you out of the corridor and more into the real world. That means I can make decisions, such as flank left, storm through the centre etc.

But that also means that the enemy has tactical options too - they're not just brainless types standing behind a door, or popping out from a closet, or jumping around a corner and firing. When you play this game, the level designers have ensured that the decisions you make affect the German movements.

But it's different every time you play. You might have a situation where you advance and the enemy unit's in trouble so they'll fall back, but another time they might make a decision which you, the player, doesn't know about, and they'll try to flank you. Sometimes they'll react to your movements wisely, sometimes they react to it poorly.

It's very dynamic. We've really tried to craft the experience of war.

It seems that the AI is a major strength of the game?

Pitchford: Yes. The things we invested in most are the characterisation and facial expressions and the way the characters act. We want players to feel part of the squad and there's some real characters in there.

In line with that, we wanted real squad combat, so we invested a lot in the artificial intelligence. We wanted real places and real battles, and created a battlefield that felt much wider and more real.

Not to mention the fact that you've also recreated what seem almost inch-perfect maps of the original battlefields...

Pitchford: A lot of the worlds in other games is completely invented as far as the space goes. It's just the texturing that makes them reminiscent. When I play Call of Duty, it's reminiscent of WWII, but the map is nothing at all like the actual place [it features]. We wanted the player to fight across authentic terrain.

What has been the reaction of the WWII veterans who have seen the game?

Pitchford: These guys are very humble. They can't understand why we're spending so much effort into telling their story. One veteran remarked that we've invested more time into making this game, than they spent training for the invasion itself!

The truth is that that battle changed the world. Time Magazine published a special on major events, and the cover was dedicated to D-Day. It was predicted that 80 percent of the guys involved would not make it, which underlines just how heroic those who fought in it were. It's not surprising that a lot historians rate it as the single most important battle in the modern era.

So when we meet this guys in the flesh, it's a weird humility. I sit there and think 'you guys are better are me'. You guys did it and the best we can do is simulate it.

And one decorated veteran said it was like stepping in a time machine...

Pitchford: I know! I was like, man you said that and I didn't even have to pay you!

Brothers in Arms is due to release on PC, Xbox and PS2 in February next year, published by Ubisoft.

Stephen Daultrey