Call of Duty: Ghosts producer says fully destructible environments 'not very interesting'

Infinity Ward executive producer Mark Rubin says the dynamic maps in Call of Duty: Ghosts are intended to add a layer of strategy, rather than a simple visual flourish of blowing up structures.

10

Call of Duty: Ghosts is introducing some new elements to the series, like dynamic maps in multiplayer modes. Those points aren't entirely dynamic, though, instead relying on particular fracture points. Infinity Ward executive producer Mark Rubin says that decision was made to encourage strategy as players get to know the destructible points, rather than what they feel would just be a visual flourish.

"Everyone knows that can happen there, and someone's going to use it intelligently," Rubin told Eurogamer. "Some maps have traps you can set, that you can then use as part of your play strategy. So it's not always about destruction. Destruction isn't what everything is, from a dynamic maps sense. It's changing things. It's moving things. In some maps we haven't talked about, it literally is moving objects out of the way, or moving them back into the way. It becomes more of a map strategy rather than just, oh it looks cool to blow up a building."

Rubin said that they didn't want to make everything destructible, because that runs the risk of players leveling everything to the ground and making the map "just flat and not very interesting."

He also pointed out that since it's not limited to destructibility, they have freedom to try a variety of strategic wrinkles. A gas station in Octane can collapse, which will create new cover, while blowing up a particular wall in Strikezone can expose a hidden enemy. The most dramatic change comes in Freefall, a structure that slowly creates more destruction as it collapses.

As for the similarities to the Battlefield series and its well-known destruction mechanics, Rubin says that was coincidental. "I don't know if there was something in the air that made us both want to go in that direction," he said. "For the map designers, it just came to the point of natural evolution, and wanting to do something new with our maps."

Editor-In-Chief
From The Chatty
  • reply
    August 16, 2013 3:00 PM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Call of Duty: Ghosts producer says fully destructible environments 'not very interesting'.

    Infinity Ward executive producer Mark Rubin says the dynamic maps in Call of Duty: Ghosts are intended to add a layer of strategy, rather than a simple visual flourish of blowing up structures.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 3:06 PM

      lol

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 3:33 PM

      When there are no lemons, say lemonade sucks.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 3:49 PM

      female models, dogs, dynamic fish AI and proper bump mapping is where the future is, guys.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 3:53 PM

      What a load of shit.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 3:56 PM

      Yeah, Red Faction: Guerrilla was TOTALLY boring. I don't have it installed on my hard drive still or anything, ready to fire up if I feel like making a mine processing center explode into a thousand tiny fragments as I drive a space truck through it.

      Dammit, now I have "Space Asshole" stuck in my head.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 4:31 PM

      quality troll while swimming in money. well played.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 4:32 PM

      Wish you guys wouldn't even give a 'story' like this exposure.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 4:59 PM

      If you look past the flippant remark about "visual flourish" he makes a point. Not every game works with fully destructible environments. Demolishing all the walls in a Quake make would make for a pretty lame scenario.* Battlefield is a big huge game and destroying buildings is a part of the gameplay. CoD tends toward smaller maps without vehicles and I feel that fully destructible everything would make the game worse.

      * I really hope I didn't just put Quake and CoD in the same awesomeness category. Because I did not intend to.

      • reply
        August 16, 2013 5:24 PM

        Exactly, he should have just said something like "hey, destructible environments are pretty cool, but it's not something we feel would lend itself to our style of game"

      • reply
        August 16, 2013 6:34 PM

        You don't have to allow every building to be leveled. But, having an RPG stopped by a piece of plywood is stupid.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 5:01 PM

      Because, removing what was a spot camped by snipers from being a viable shooting position isn't strategic? Or, say, destroying a way into a building to create an entrance otherwise not present.

      Or, maybe the guys at IW are too inept to design and balance levels for complete destructibility. Perhaps they didn't have the expertise to a create engine on par with Frostbite and are currently incapable of producing dynamics environments. Or, more likely, they're afraid to take risks and will continue to produce 'same shit different disc' up until the point people stop buying it.

      Meanwhile, DICE is letting us blow up skyscrapers....

      • reply
        August 17, 2013 12:37 AM

        It's a different style of game. Destructible levels, for better or worse, would completely change the game. Just like if they made the environments 40 times bigger and added huge vehicles battles, for better or worse, it would change the style of the game. They sell an unbelievable amount of copies every single year to people who are huge fans of the game and so far the fan base has only grown, not shrunk. It doesn't make a lot of sense to change the style of the game and potentially alienate their fans that like the COD style of game. If they were going to change the style of the game copying what BF does is probably not as good as coming up with something totally new. If they sold battle field numbers it would be financial disaster. Stock price effected. It would costs them billions probably.

      • reply
        August 17, 2013 2:34 AM

        DICE haven't said if the skyscraper blowing up is just a scripted event. It probably is, same as the radio mast collapse in BF3.

        I do hope you can remove cover more though in BF4. Hit box issues meant snipers could be pretty impossible to hit without a height advantage on some rooftops that had indestructible ledges.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 5:17 PM

      This is up there with "not balanced for lean".

      • reply
        August 16, 2013 5:22 PM

        I just visited Know Your Meme for that ... very funny

      • reply
        August 17, 2013 5:29 PM

        Except that afterwards in Black Ops 1 & 2 they had lean and Ghosts will have it as well. But yeah, that was some funny shit back then.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 5:20 PM

      Destructible environments aren't interesting, scripted events however ... those are positively riveting!

      • reply
        August 16, 2013 5:27 PM

        Hey, watching a scripted building collapsing was an exciting, groundbreaking moment in duke3d.exe

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 6:25 PM

      lol

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 6:32 PM

      ...Is today opposite day? Because I'm agreeing with Mark Rubin here.

      Instead of allowing with open changeable terrain that could result in a ton of performance problems and reducing dynamics of the level, having key breakaway points could introduce enough variability to change the flow of a map, while not threatening to imbalance it, and not having to plan a whole region as destructible, lengthening playtesting. It's almost like how I feel insanely bored with open-world games, where there's waaaaaaay too many variable elements, when I find the most fun modifying a few key variable elements.

      Don't get me wrong: I hate corridor shooter fests, and I really hate what has happened to the Call of Duty multiplayer formula in terms of perks, persistent stats, dudes with dual shotguns, balance problems ruining the game (and not being patched aggressively enough because the developers didn't know specific weapon balances would be a problem... essentially what plagued MW2 and MW3's multiplayer, from the anecdotes I heard). But I'm at peace with this. Which is odd, because I'm not at peace with most of the rest of the Call of Duty program as it has stood since 2009.

      • reply
        August 17, 2013 5:30 PM

        This is a good comment.
        Kudos.

    • reply
      August 16, 2013 8:07 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      August 17, 2013 12:17 AM

      Of course a CoD Producer would say this. He's played the same recycled game for so long his brain has gone lethargic from the pure lack of exercise.

    • reply
      August 17, 2013 8:35 AM

      This is a terrible and sensationalist headline. I want to know about how the dynamic maps work in the game, not remarks that can be taken out of context.

    • reply
      August 17, 2013 4:07 PM

      Small scale, calculated destruction (blow up wall X or gas station Y) has be been in working order since like "Day of Defeat" in year 2000. Probably sooner but that's as far back as i can think of it being reasonably used. Remind me why i should think COD is doing anything new or exciting? Even though i hate EA they did a decent thing with BF series and I'll happily put my $ behind a refined version of such. Feel free to disagree, its your right (unless you live in Egypt,Syria,Russia or China where you clearly have none).

    • reply
      August 17, 2013 5:27 PM

      Lol @ the literal 100% hating here.
      He has some valid points actually. Of course there's the usual PR bullshit as well, but that's to be expected. Not really news.

      I'm looking forward to Ghosts. I took a break from the franchise, because MW3 wasn't overly exciting and I was tired of the series. It helped that Black Ops 2 sucked ass (read a lot about it, watched videos and played the free weekend), but now after an entire year off, I really feel like getting back into it with a few friends of mine. As long as the maps and the gunfeel are good, I'll buy it, but fuck full price. It shall be a 20 bucks key for PC in my case. ;)

      Feel free to hate on me or something. I don't give a shit, CoD can be very much fun. Team Fortress 2 is the ultimate multiplayer experience for me though. Love that to death.

      My two cents. :D

      • reply
        August 18, 2013 2:41 PM

        I agree to a point. Nintendo has made a fortune off their philosophy making the most out of antiquated technology. The same can be applied to game mechanics. Just because something uses the latest and great technology, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a great game. Crysis, case and point, was regarded as an average game by and large when it came out. Good for some but hardly anyone clamored for GoTY. The indie market has been thriving on old mechanics and exploring them in many interesting ways.

        Destruction, while going to be real cool, has the potential to break BF4 with a wide array of exploitables and other bugbears that are near impossible to balance. EA has a bad track record for abandoning ship too.

        Now at the same time, I have to say, CoD has not had the greatest track record in making strides forward to evolve the franchise in any meaningful way. Do I expect them to take the concepts and models they've been riding on for the last (nearly) 10 years and explore them in new and interesting directions? Probably not. Will it be at least a solid entry in the same thing that people tend to like en masse? Sure. I wouldn't doubt it will be a worthy CoD game. I just don't think it will be a meaningful enough iteration for me to rush to buy on release day... or at all.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 9:10 PM

          Original Crysis was regarded as average? Your memory is busted: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crysis

          That's the same score as Fallout 3, Arkham series, Dragon Age: Origins, etc. Yeah the game had it's haters (what doesn't) but the critical reception was hardly "average".

          You must be getting confused with the more recent Crysis games.

    • reply
      August 19, 2013 7:40 AM

      It's just a laughable response on their part, really. It showcases an unusually shocking amount of cluelessness on the part of Rubin. Just wow.

    • reply
      August 19, 2013 10:33 AM

      "I don't know if there was something in the air that made us both want to go in that direction," he said.

      He said, 4 years after DICE already started doing this stuff.

      Is anyone even fooled by this?

Hello, Meet Lola