Preview: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Branches Out

After the gameplay demonstration, I had a chance to sit down with Treyarch Studio Head Mark Lamia about how we can expect Black Ops 2 to perform on PC, lessons they've learned since Call of Duty: Black Ops, and the possibility of mod support.


GameSpy: So, after that Oliver North scare video, do you think people will be too depressed and afraid they'll die horribly to play videogames?

Mark Lamia: God, I hope not. But you are going to need to put on your big-boy pants for this Call of Duty. As far as I can tell we're not able to actually predict the future. But these are real issues, they're out there, and I think a lot of people who play Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 will actually be pretty aware of these issues. Who knows? Maybe something can be done about them. And certainly, if you play Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, you can do something about them.

GameSpy: So your team seems very devoted to the idea of playing at 60 frames per second. That's where you feel powerful, and anything below that is a problem.

ML: I think that's a critical, distinguishing element of Black Ops 2; it's a very important feeling and sensation. Between the ability to upgrade your hardware and/or modify settings, PC gamers have always understood how important the FPS can be, how critical it is to gameplay. And for PC gamers, I think what's good about that is, if it looks and runs that good on this kind of hardware [the Xbox 360], on your hardware it's going to run great. And not only that, you'll have the ability to go at higher resolutions and have hardware that doesn't exist yet (in consoles), like DX11-based hardware, on the PC, that this game will take advantage of.


GameSpy: With the minimum requirements, can we expect to hit 60 frames per second on, say, the equivalent settings for the console?

ML: Well, we haven't set our minimum specifications, so I can't tell you. But I can tell you that, because we're doing a lot more with this game, that the minimum specs will be higher. I think there's a recommended spec, typically, and that's where you want to be if you want to get that kind of framerate. There's a reason we call it the recommended spec: it'll have a good framerate for you and you'll be able to enjoy it at that pace.

GameSpy: So what you're saying is you'd recommend the recommended spec?

ML: I absolutely recommend the recommended spec! But that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the game and it won't play acceptably. I just think that there's a reason why you put it there. I think it's one of the benefits, like I said, of a PC game: you can actually play it on this pretty wide variety of hardware, and it works. It's a good thing for this franchise as well, where there's a lot of different types of players. There are those vets, people who've really invested in their rigs, and for that they get rewarded with better visuals and greater fidelity and higher resolution and better frames per second. But there are people who are just coming into gaming, even, or into the franchise. This is a franchise where we've been fortunate enough to have a lot of people try out gaming. They hear about Call of Duty and they want to try it, and they can have a great experience on it too, but they don't have to invest in the latest rig.

GameSpy: If the console version is getting "PC-quality graphics," how would you describe the graphics on the PC?

ML: The PC is getting PC-quality graphics on the PC! I mean, it's looking amazing on a generation of hardware that's not anywhere near the PCs that are selling, or that are going to be selling this holiday. So that can only mean really good things for them in terms of the visual fidelity and the performance that you're going to see if you've invested in your rig, even just recently.

GameSpy: One of the big criticisms of Black Ops was that, at points, at least, it kind of played itself. I don't know if you saw the video of somebody going through the first level without firing a shot, and just having his squadmates kill everything while he took cover. Are you targeting maybe a slightly higher level of challenge and requiring more player interaction to get through it this time?



ML: If you want to play on a higher difficulty level, we have them there for you, and I would argue that you probably wouldn't be able to play through it. But if you want to, you can actually play strategically and allow your forces to really help you, that's a valid play style. And I have no question that our games are appropriately challenging if you play at the level that you want to be challenged at.

GameSpy: Another significant issue with the PC version, last time around, and this applied to Modern Warfare 3 as well, was that at launch there were some performance stutters that lasted for a few weeks. Do you know if the PC version's going to get any extra attention to ensure a smooth launch this time?

ML: Well, we did learn a lot about that. That was really frustrating for a PC team that worked really hard and put a lot of cool features in for the PC audience. To see that there were some people still having compatibility issues that we hadn't actually had, and then worked really hard to correct those... I think that's something you have to learn from and get better with. So yeah, absolutely, we're going to be stressing the hell out of it.

The PC team continued support for that product for a long time, and really dealt with whatever those issues were. It's one of the challenges, of course, with PC gaming. As you know, there are lots of different configurations. Certainly when we shipped that, we weren't aware of those things, otherwise that would've been corrected. And as soon as we were made aware of it, the team went to work on it. It's a team that worked pretty hard -- they want nothing more than to make sure the PC audience has a great gaming experience. So that was something that we want to make sure we have with Black Ops 2, for sure.

GameSpy: A couple of old standbys: What's the word on dedicated servers?

ML: Well, I don't think there's been a call that's been made officially on it. But I can tell your readers that the architecture for the game on the PC is very well intact, that we shipped with Black Ops. We're always trying to balance the benefits that you get with a dedicated server infrastructure with the game that we're creating, the progression and the stats. I can tell you that we're going to great lengths on this one already, very early on, on anti-cheat measures. That's one thing that we definitely spend a lot of time on trying to ensure. I think that ruins the fun for a lot of people if they see people cheating. So this is by far, already, we've put in more measures than we've ever had or seen in any of our other games. At least as far as we're concerned, it's the best-protected game, and we're committed to making sure it stays that way for players.

GameSpy: Will it use Steamworks?

ML: Well, that's a publishing side decision, where it gets distributed. But to my knowledge that hasn't been decided yet.

GameSpy: And what about mod support?

ML: Um... We're not talking about that right now. I think for Black Ops, we released some limited mod tools. As these games get more demanding, the tools that we create become increasingly complex. Setting them up for commercialization is sometimes hard. It relies on very expensive software, which isn't readily available. But if you like working inside the engine or you're a mod person, obviously there's some great COD4 mod tools out there. For World at War, we released a lot of mod tools and have a great wiki with a lot of information for people. And then on Black Ops we have some of that. Even on this project, we've hired a few designers who come from the mod world.


GameSpy: I'm really interested in the Strike Force levels. Frankly, surprises like that are not something that you expect from the Call of Duty franchise at this point. It has a bit of a reputation for doing more of the same. But it's very refreshing to see such a step outside the box. Where did the inspiration for that one come from?

ML: Exactly that. We wanted to step outside the box. I think the challenge with that one is, we wanted to create non-linearity inside the campaign structure, at the highest level. So that it could change up the story, but also just give some choice at that level. We just wanted to introduce entirely new gameplay inside the campaign. But yet we also know that a lot of people love that cinematic gameplay mode. So how do we do that? You introduce something like that in the middle of the campaign, it might be difficult for the player to understand that suddenly there's all this functionality and features that they didn't have at another point.

Frankly, it almost didn't make it. It was something that we prototyped pretty heavily and iterated on pretty heavily. But the team has worked really hard to get this mode in and it's a lot of fun. I'm glad you've responded to it, because it's something that the team worked really hard on. I think it's one of the surprises of the day. You expect us to maybe show you a cinematic level, but not to show you a sandbox level, in the middle of the campaign.

GameSpy: Do you know if they'll be giving any attention to the mouse and keyboard controls in that? It's kind of RTS-ey, and there are a bunch of attempts at RTS on the console that haven't worked out all that well because the controls are a little bit funky. Porting those over to the PC, they get even more funky...

ML: Yeah. Well, with the PC, the benefit of having a mouse and keyboard on the PC is if you go into what we call the Overwatch mode, having a point-and-click interface where you can drag the mouse around makes that mode pretty easy. To have all the different keys associated so you can access all the different tools on the battlefield with a button, it's pretty easy. On the console, you have limited amounts of buttons and we have to make it accessible on the console. I don't see why it shouldn't be super-easy on the PC. Your question kinda threw me off, because it actually feels like it should be the other way around. It should be super-easy to command and control and to move between all points. I don't see that as a problem, I actually see that in a way as an easier problem for us to solve, because you have more interface inputs and options. Those game modes originated on the PC. Shooters and RTS's originated on the PC, so depending upon what mode you want to play it's a pretty natural interface.


GameSpy: That's what I like to hear. I just see a lot of those games designed to be played with a game pad, and then when it's transferred over to the PC it gets a little bit...funky.

ML: No, it plays naturally, I think, on the PC.

GameSpy: Great. Can the Strike Force levels be played in multiplayer, either co-op or competitively?

ML: That's a great question. Right now, it is campaign only. It's not a multiplayer mode. But you know, who knows where these things go or how they evolve? It's an entirely new mode. We're totally focused on getting it right in the campaign, allowing you to play it but also get the AI to play it effectively. It's a pretty complex AI, it's like a sandbox level. We don't know how you're going to play it. We need to make sure that the other side has all the tools of the battlefield at times, right? So there's a lot of new AI.

GameSpy: On that topic, one of the big controversies of late has been the idea of multiplayer affecting single-player. With your branching story endings, I was wondering if you had any plans for multiplayer performance to affect the single-player story outcome?

ML: No. One does not impact the other. There's plenty that impacts your campaign within the campaign, between all the new modes and everything else, but the multiplayer is its own experience, and its own setup. The Zombies is the same way, that's its own thing. We're not doing any sort of, "Oh, if you play more in this, then it affects you over here" or whatever.

GameSpy: No happy endings that are unlocked if you do multiplayer?

ML: No, no. Your ending is based on how you play the campaign, and how you play the strike force levels in the campaign.

GameSpy: Can you opt not to play the Strike Force levels?

ML: No, it's part of the campaign. But you don't have to change how you play. You could just play it with your weapon in your hand and never play any of the other guys on the battlefield, never go to Overwatch mode, never take over any of the drones on the battlefield if you don't want to. So it's really just about how you want to play it. There's objectives, right? You take on those objectives. However you want to take that on. One of the challenges for us was making sure that if players wanted to play it that way they could. I think, after playing it the first time, you're really scratching the surface. People are going to want to go back and replay those things. That would be achieving one of the objectives, actually, saying that there's a Call of Duty campaign experience that's really challenging and that people want to replay in different ways. It's great value for the player and replayability. Even designing levels that they might not experience on their first playthrough, they can go back and play them, play through at different difficulties.


GameSpy: That leads to my next question, have you created content that people won't see the first time they play through? Full levels?

ML: Yes. Well, first off, there's some content just in the story, there's going to be choices in the levels, there might be some things that happen where you'll make one choice or another. That's on maybe a more micro level. Of course it affects the story at the end, how your ending is, right? But on a more fundamental level, on a much broader scale, there are levels you won't actually play if you don't go back and play it. In particular it's these Strike Force levels. You're going to be presented with a choice of multiple levels. You'll be given the state of the world, what's going on inside the Cold War, you're going to have access to intelligence, you're going to pick one of those levels, and then the story is going to keep moving. We'll make it so you can go back and play those, and hopefully people will want to, because they want to check out all the different Strike Force levels. But that's purely the player's choice. And as a completionist -- I think a lot of gamers are completionists, you know -- they'll hopefully want to do what I'm going to do, which is go back and play them all.

GameSpy: Has that affected the overall length of the campaign?

ML: I think it will, but we're not done, so I can't tell you. But I do think players will play through and it'll feel like a Call of Duty campaign. I think that players who are into the gameplay and into the fiction, they're going to want to go back and replay it, and I think they might want to play at different difficulty levels, because it'll have a different challenge...

GameSpy: With the branching endings, there's another game, you probably haven't heard of it, that was criticized for giving players an A, B, or C choice in the end, rather than having their actions throughout the campaign determine the ending. So will Black Ops 2 endings be the result of all of my decisions, or will it be just the result of the last decision I make?

ML: It'll be the result of the decisions that you've made along the way. Some of them, you'll understand the implications when you're making them. Some of them, just like in real life, we don't fully appreciate until later in time. There will be choice all the way up until the end of the game, but, you know, we're not going to present it to you. It's not like a multiple choice type of thing. There's going to be a situation and you're going to choose your path, and maybe there will be multiple choices towards the end that you'll have to make along the way.

There are multiple story arcs that are going on. There's the overarching geopolitical arc in the Cold War campaign, and what's going on with that second Cold War, the tensions between the US and China. And there's the story arc of the villain, that takes place through the entire campaign, and how your decisions might affect what's going on with him and his endgame. There's the story arc of the player, there's a story arc of some of the player's squad, and also some of the villain's henchmen. So different choices that you make might affect those story arcs along the way. Some of them you'll learn about along the way, and some of them will all lead up to the very end.

GameSpy: But can I cut off one possible ending, like, halfway through the game? Say I make a choice at 50 percent of the way through the game, would that make it so I can't get ending B?

ML: If you're saying does something that I do affect a story arc? Yes, is the answer. Yes. So you may decide to go back and make a different choice later because there is a ripple implication. Yeah. Like I said, sometimes it's obvious to you. But like sometimes in life, it doesn't become more clear until later that the implications of what you've done.


And with that, my interview time ended. Treyarch's made a lot of promises here, and given the ambitious new directions it's taking with Black Ops 2, I'm hopeful that this November's inevitable big seller won't feel as phoned-in as others have.


Spy Guy says: Near future? Over Watch? Branching storylines with real choices that lead to different conclusions? Are you sure this is a Call of Duty game, Dan? What do you make of all these new features, dear readers? Are they enough to reignite your interest in CoD?