Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

[Shawn Zipay]

According to an interview with the heads of Infinity Ward (Issue 37 of the Official PlayStation Magazine), Activision was fighting tooth and nail to prevent Infinity Ward from developing for home consoles and creating a "modern era" shooter.

Here is the head honcho of Infinity Ward, Vince Zampella, explaining how his team had to give in when it came to Call of Duty 2, and how they faced harsh opposition from Activision.

"With Call of Duty 2, we were dead set against it being World War 2," Zampella told OPM, "but Activision really wanted it, the compromise sort of being that we'd get some dev kits for consoles in exchange for doing a World War 2 game.

"We always wanted to be on consoles and Activision saw us as more of a PC developer," he said.

"And something I'll add to that, Activision also did not want Modern Warfare. They thought working on a modern game was risky and [thought], 'oh my god you can't do that, it's crazy!' They were doing market research to show us we were wrong the whole time," he said.

"We had to fight for everything," chimed in CoD project lead, Jason West. "They wanted it to be World War 2. Again."

You have to hand it to Infinity Ward. Their fierce determination paid off big time with over 14 million units of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare shipped to date.

[Stev0esque]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

So it WAS Infinity ward that turned their backs on us...?

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

Yeah, what I got from that is IW fought like hell to break away from PC gaming development. Looks like they're still working on it, and may have succeeded this time.

[JoMaMaz]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

:|: ... talk about an eye opener. I knew LONG ago from other interviews that IW did not want to do WWII after CoD2, but I did not know they barely even did CoD2, no wonder it felt a little lackluster. That means they only did WWII wholeheartedly for MoHAA and for the first CoD. And yeah...this definitely explains why they push for consoles...wow. My jaw is still a little dropped. I mean, we all saw their apparent love for consoles now, but it seems they were heading that way a long time ago, gg. Well, Treyarch, please don't forget us also...they have seemed to do pretty well with the PC for CoD:WaW, hopefully they'll do the same for CoD7.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

:|: ... talk about an eye opener. I knew LONG ago from other interviews that IW did not want to do WWII after CoD2, but I did not know they barely even did CoD2, no wonder it felt a little lackluster. That means they only did WWII wholeheartedly for MoHAA and for the first CoD. And yeah...this definitely explains why they push for consoles...wow. My jaw is still a little dropped. I mean, we all saw their apparent love for consoles now, but it seems they were heading that way a long time ago, gg. Well, Treyarch, please don't forget us also...they have seemed to do pretty well with the PC for CoD:WaW, hopefully they'll do the same for CoD7.

Youre looking at this from an entirely wrong perspective, and Im probably the biggest opponent of cheap and sh!tty ports you will ever find.

This article basically shows us that dev. groups have more between their ears than the corporations do, and shows that people with money, resources and the power to say "yes/no" to ideas in videogame industry, are basically idiots. In short, Activision wanted a safe bet, IW wanted a modern shooter (which means a *lot* more creative freedom). Guess which one of them knew which setting would sell more and be much more fun to make?

If IW knows a lot more about making money than Activision does, then a lot of people need to get sacked from the industry. Its an alarming news which means that we´ll be getting a lot more broken PC games in the future.

-

And lastly, what is up with people and their desperate cravings for "another WW2" shooter? They are all the same, creatively crippled, with all immersion sucked out of them. Or is that just an "American thing"? :|:

Because people should be looking for "close future" or "science fiction" genres with true creative freedom to come up a lot of gameplay features, weapons, settings and levels which are not just fun, but look creatively cool and badass at the same time. Sure, there have only been a couple of single player games that have nailed the idea (Mass Effect, AVP2), but I would love to think that both the audience (who should get over their Saving Private Ryans dream) and the industry (who should get over from trying to patch up shoddy games with marketing) would smart up.

And just for the record. No, BF2142 is not a good example of well used creativity freedom of science fiction genre.

A good spot for IW to rush in and go for warfare concepts, weapons, toys and tactics from the Pentagons drawers for the next 10-15 years.

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

I see where you're coming from, but that's not where I was even looking. The modern warfare/near future warfare aspect is fine, but trying to shun the PC side of things is a kick in the nuts, man.
I'm all about the freedom to create stories. And near-future is probably the best way to do that. But to admit to actively campaign against one of your loyal markets? That's f-ing cold.
If it were up to IW we wouldn't even have CoD 2-whatever on the PC.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

I see where you're coming from, but that's not where I was even looking. The modern warfare/near future warfare aspect is fine, but trying to shun the PC side of things is a kick in the nuts, man.
I'm all about the freedom to create stories. And near-future is probably the best way to do that. But to admit to actively campaign against one of your loyal markets? That's f-ing cold.
If it were up to IW we wouldn't even have CoD 2-whatever on the PC.

I cant dish a companies decision to depart from PC gaming when COD4 sales figures said COD4 consoles versions outsold PC ones 9 to 1. Im a PC gamer through and through, but facts cant be ignored. Piracy and lower sales will dictate the future trends.

[Stev0esque]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

:|: ... talk about an eye opener. I knew LONG ago from other interviews that IW did not want to do WWII after CoD2, but I did not know they barely even did CoD2, no wonder it felt a little lackluster. That means they only did WWII wholeheartedly for MoHAA and for the first CoD. And yeah...this definitely explains why they push for consoles...wow. My jaw is still a little dropped. I mean, we all saw their apparent love for consoles now, but it seems they were heading that way a long time ago, gg. Well, Treyarch, please don't forget us also...they have seemed to do pretty well with the PC for CoD:WaW, hopefully they'll do the same for CoD7.

I dont think Treyarch are on our side either. If they were they would have started on PC, not strived to make console games first. I have heard its easier to make on PC for a small company, they usually go to console when they get bigger. I actually think Treyarch were supposed to be the console developers and IW was for the PC side of things untill they decided to flip us the bird.

[AnOldFriend]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

Youre looking at this from an entirely wrong perspective, and Im probably the biggest opponent of cheap and sh!tty ports you will ever find.

This article basically shows us that dev. groups have more between their ears than the corporations do, and shows that people with money, resources and the power to say "yes/no" to ideas in videogame industry, are basically idiots. In short, Activision wanted a safe bet, IW wanted a modern shooter (which means a *lot* more creative freedom). Guess which one of them knew which setting would sell more and be much more fun to make?

If IW knows a lot more about making money than Activision does, then a lot of people need to get sacked from the industry. Its an alarming news which means that we´ll be getting a lot more broken PC games in the future.

And lastly, what is up with people and their desperate cravings for "another WW2" shooter? They are all the same, creatively crippled, with all immersion sucked out of them. Or is that just an "American thing"? :|:

Because people should be looking for "close future" or "science fiction" genres with true creative freedom to come up a lot of gameplay features, weapons, settings and levels which are not just fun, but look creatively cool and badass at the same time. Sure, there have only been a couple of single player games that have nailed the idea (Mass Effect, AVP2), but I would love to think that both the audience (who should get over their Saving Private Ryans dream) and the industry (who should get over from trying to patch up shoddy games with marketing) would smart up.

And just for the record. No, BF2142 is not a good example of well used creativity freedom of science fiction genre.

A good spot for IW to rush in and go for warfare concepts, weapons, toys and tactics from the Pentagons drawers for the next 10-15 years.

Dude i understand you view to bring forward modern warfare and future games, a wide verity is great. but dont call everyone who likes world war 2 games thick, i really dont agree with your "but I would love to think that both the audience (who should get over their Saving Private Ryans dream) and the industry (who should get over from trying to patch up shoddy games with marketing) would smart up"

Because you dont like WW2 games, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't, I happen to enjoy WW2 games over Modern warfare games, the only Modern Warfare game i like is BF2, its getting old now but its still a good game, but i gotta say, i can play COD2 and really enjoy it, i like the weapons, the era and the history, i get annoyed with future games, i cant stand stupid guns that fire 100 rounds per second and just noob rape the game, thats what most future games are like. hate um, look at Halo, the only thing i like about halo is the Warthog Jeep, thats it.

Modern warfare games, i love the settings, the era, the environments, but these modern weapons that can shoot you from a mile away is noobish. My opinion, cod 4 only sold that many units purely because it was a new concept of game and was the first ever cod modern warfare game, Modern warfare 2...i forsee a fail.

To the fact of IW being for the console, well that blows rear, less and less companys are out for PC gamers, and honestly i have mixed opinions on that.

It sucks that they turned their backs on us, but on the other hand, would you keep trying to help ungreatful people?

Treyarch have done brilliantly for PC gamers, and it was about a month ago they posted an update which was clearly trying to tell everyone that they had missed something on Der Reise, what did the cod community do? F***in treyarch sh*t company telling us all this crap" I dont blame companys these days turning their backs on PC gamers, they're ungreatful. Over the years of PC gaming, back from DOS based games, the complaints of PC gamers have increased by about 1000x, PC Gamers these days just Pee and Moan about everything, theres always summat they dont like and they slander the companys for it when more than enough times, its gamers who take advantage of the faults and make it hell for other gamers, so if anyones to blame for faults it gamers, dont get me wrong i hear and read complaints from console gamers, but not near the amount i do about PC gamers. I know its all different from PC to Console, so many different formats and systems to cater for, but thats not the Companys faults, they're doing the best they can, and its still not good enough for PC gamers.

I've driven far from the track about this, but my point is, yeah they've turned their backs on us, and im the first to say, no honor at all from them and its annoying as hell, but i can see more reasons for them to turn their backs on us than them not too.

But dont get me wrong, im a PC gamer all the way, but reality is, PC gaming is dying fast, and you gotta ask yourself...is it because of the companys, or is it infact the gamers killing it.

[Mavrik347]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

Now they've got their way they are on console and have abandoned PC players, yay.

Mixed feelings, were they right then to make MW? Yes.
Are they right now to screw over PC players that got them where they are today now? No.


Still not buying.

[iQue]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

I think it's pretty rude of developers to ignore or at least not be very interested in supporting a game platform... I'm primarily a PC gamer but I feel bad when 360 or PS3 fans have a game that gets delayed or similar...

If you release a game for a platform, you are going to support it as good as you can damnit! Although it's only a matter of time before CoD becomes an xbox exclusive ^^

[Immortal_Joker]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

Dude i understand you view to bring forward modern warfare and future games, a wide verity is great. but dont call everyone who likes world war 2 games thick, i really dont agree with your "but I would love to think that both the audience (who should get over their Saving Private Ryans dream) and the industry (who should get over from trying to patch up shoddy games with marketing) would smart up"

Because you dont like WW2 games, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't, I happen to enjoy WW2 games over Modern warfare games, the only Modern Warfare game i like is BF2, its getting old now but its still a good game, but i gotta say, i can play COD2 and really enjoy it, i like the weapons, the era and the history, i get annoyed with future games, i cant stand stupid guns that fire 100 rounds per second and just noob rape the game, thats what most future games are like. hate um, look at Halo, the only thing i like about halo is the Warthog Jeep, thats it.

Modern warfare games, i love the settings, the era, the environments, but these modern weapons that can shoot you from a mile away is noobish. My opinion, cod 4 only sold that many units purely because it was a new concept of game and was the first ever cod modern warfare game, Modern warfare 2...i forsee a fail.

To the fact of IW being for the console, well that blows rear, less and less companys are out for PC gamers, and honestly i have mixed opinions on that.

It sucks that they turned their backs on us, but on the other hand, would you keep trying to help ungreatful people?

Treyarch have done brilliantly for PC gamers, and it was about a month ago they posted an update which was clearly trying to tell everyone that they had missed something on Der Reise, what did the cod community do? F***in treyarch sh*t company telling us all this crap" I dont blame companys these days turning their backs on PC gamers, they're ungreatful. Over the years of PC gaming, back from DOS based games, the complaints of PC gamers have increased by about 1000x, PC Gamers these days just Pee and Moan about everything, theres always summat they dont like and they slander the companys for it when more than enough times, its gamers who take advantage of the faults and make it hell for other gamers, so if anyones to blame for faults it gamers, dont get me wrong i hear and read complaints from console gamers, but not near the amount i do about PC gamers. I know its all different from PC to Console, so many different formats and systems to cater for, but thats not the Companys faults, they're doing the best they can, and its still not good enough for PC gamers.

I've driven far from the track about this, but my point is, yeah they've turned their backs on us, and im the first to say, no honor at all from them and its annoying as hell, but i can see more reasons for them to turn their backs on us than them not too.

But dont get me wrong, im a PC gamer all the way, but reality is, PC gaming is dying fast, and you gotta ask yourself...is it because of the companys, or is it infact the gamers killing it.

-applause-

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

Dude i understand you view to bring forward modern warfare and future games, a wide verity is great. but dont call everyone who likes world war 2 games thick, i really dont agree with your "but I would love to think that both the audience (who should get over their Saving Private Ryans dream) and the industry (who should get over from trying to patch up shoddy games with marketing) would smart up"

The only reason WW2 games are made is because theres a large group of people who like the historical aspect of WW2 games, and there are far, far, far more of those, than there are of the decent modern warfare kind. And Im not even going to talk about good sci-fi shooters. There was a period, when the gaming scene was literally saturated with WW2 games, and they just kept pouring in. Its not even about variety. I know that most PC gamers arent really as open minded about games as they like to think and they try to defend their taste, but the reasons they got such "taste" are really trivial.

Which is why the internet is filled with posts about arcadeish games not being realistic enough. So even if you like WW2 games, you can not deny that a few years ago the industry went nuts over WW2 era shooters and that wasnt a terribly good thing for artistic and gameplay creativity.

Because you dont like WW2 games, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't, I happen to enjoy WW2 games over Modern warfare games, the only Modern Warfare game i like is BF2, its getting old now but its still a good game, but i gotta say, i can play COD2 and really enjoy it, i like the weapons, the era and the history, i get annoyed with future games, i cant stand stupid guns that fire 100 rounds per second and just noob rape the game, thats what most future games are like. hate um, look at Halo, the only thing i like about halo is the Warthog Jeep, thats it.

I actually dont mind WW2 games, but I am far not the first to say it out loud that WW2 era games need to take a step back. People are trying way too hard to not to fail today and hence we get a lot of "sure bet" games. Even sci-fi shooters arent really pushing the envelope because they are afraid that gamers will just do the old "scifi is gay" trick.

HALO is a perfect example of wasted science fiction potential. Even the novels are perfect for 5th graders who think that "plasma" makes a game great sci-fi game by default.

100 rounds a second is not noobrape, its actually f*cking awesome fun, because sci-fi concept allows you to create enough defensive toys to balance it up. Thats the beauty of sci-fi. You get endless potential to come up with some pretty nasty and awesome sh!t to blow stuff up with, and on the same spectrum use really nice stuff to balance it out. A lot can be taken from RTS genre. Imagine a tank, for example, which can lock itsself down to the ground and with improved stability, transform its main gun to an artillery piece (a´la Starcrafts Arclite Cannon on the tank). Or automatically transform a HMMWV kind of vehicle into a moving anti-infantry, anti-tank, medic or resupply vehicle depending on which kind of kit is being used by the driver (the vehicle gets a mounted Anti-Tank missile launcher on the top for the gunner if the driver is AT). And of course VTOL-s, which during the past 5 years noone could pull off, even though the concept was nailed down *perfectly* in 2002!

Sci-fi is awesome and its about damn time someone recognized it.

Modern warfare games, i love the settings, the era, the environments, but these modern weapons that can shoot you from a mile away is noobish. My opinion, cod 4 only sold that many units purely because it was a new concept of game and was the first ever cod modern warfare game, Modern warfare 2...i forsee a fail.

It can easily be balanced. Look at COD4. Weapons are accurate, but you lose power with range. Its a far better system which immediately sets good grounds for both close quarters lethal combat and long range shootouts. The alternative is BF2, where infantry combat is simply a big joke.

It sucks that they turned their backs on us, but on the other hand, would you keep trying to help ungreatful people?

I know I wouldnt. But the good news is that they are going to get around it by just making internet connection mandatory for the game (which means "bye!" for LAN games), at some point PC gaming will make a return but at a nasty cost.

[iQue]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

100 rounds a second is not noobrape, its actually f*cking awesome fun, because sci-fi concept allows you to create enough defensive toys to balance it up. Thats the beauty of sci-fi. You get endless potential to come up with some pretty nasty and awesome sh!t to blow stuff up with, and on the same spectrum use really nice stuff to balance it out. A lot can be taken from RTS genre. Imagine a tank, for example, which can lock itsself down to the ground and with improved stability, transform its main gun to an artillery piece (a´la Starcrafts Arclite Cannon on the tank). Or automatically transform a HMMWV kind of vehicle into a moving anti-infantry, anti-tank, medic or resupply vehicle depending on which kind of kit is being used by the driver (the vehicle gets a mounted Anti-Tank missile launcher on the top for the gunner if the driver is AT). And of course VTOL-s, which during the past 5 years noone could pull off, even though the concept was nailed down *perfectly* in 2002!

Damn straight! Developers are afraid to pull through with their ideas and goes with the safe stuff all the time.

BF2142 is a good example - great game, but it was developed in like a year and DICE took the easy way out in many ways. The only thing that's truly futuristic is titans and stationary anti-vehicle turrets (Rorsch). They should have gone all out on that one personally and use their imagination to come up with something a little bit more unique than "knife, pistol, rifle"

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Activision Did Not Want Modern Warfare

Damn straight! Developers are afraid to pull through with their ideas and goes with the safe stuff all the time.

BF2142 is a good example - great game, but it was developed in like a year and DICE took the easy way out in many ways. The only thing that's truly futuristic is titans and stationary anti-vehicle turrets (Rorsch). They should have gone all out on that one personally and use their imagination to come up with something a little bit more unique than "knife, pistol, rifle"

Yeah. I remember I was throughly disappointed with BF2142 because none of the concepts were really "futuristically cool, banging", the game completely had no wow-factor. In retrospect, it seems as if most of the conceptual work and design was based on what BF2 majority "needed" from their game. Lots of points, lots of "balanced weapons" (balanced by BF2 standards), nerfed vehicles and all while the gameplay was sluggish, slow. Even the walkers didnt feel "****ing awesome!!!!" as they should have.

Anyway, Im still waiting. Its entirely possible. "Mass Effect" had en entire sci-fi universe built up from scratch. Weapons, tactics, defensive and offensive warfare, infantry and vehicular weaponry.