It's What? AGAIN?!
So... one of the things I've noticed lately is that there's a rise in the buzz about Call of Duty 5, now that some details have been released. The first thing to note is that it is, once again, set back in World War 2. Again. The second thing to note is that there are a lot of players who are unhappy with that, because at least 10 million people all liked Call of Duty 4 enough to buy it. That's a hard act to follow for certain, and now people are getting up in arms and angry about it being a WW2 game.

What a lot of folks just don't seem to understand is where the studio begins and where the publisher ends. Let's look at a couple of things, in order to better understand the situation.



The first thing to note is that most games take around 2 years to develop. It takes time to make a good product. You need time to design the features. Time to iterate to see if the ideas are fun enough. Time to polish. Time to build content around those features. Grand Theft Auto 4 had a team of over 1000 people, was in development for 3 and a half years, and cost around $100 million to make. That's not chump change, folks. Specifically with Call of Duty 5, you have to look at the timeline. They are shooting for a release this year (late 2008). This means that, working backward, Call of Duty 5 was started late 2006.

Now... when did Call of Duty 4 ship? November 12th, 2007. As much fun as modern warfare is (and don't get me wrong, it is an excellent game), Call of Duty 4 at the time was still in development. Activision did not know how well it was going to do. They made a choice at the inception of COD5, and decided to go with 'old reliable' - a WW2 setting.

Now, it's easy to look back with hindsight and say 'well, they should have followed it anyway'. And maybe that would have been the right choice. However, I would like to point out that it's just the way the publisher/development studio dynamic works. There are usually two different approaches out there. The PRO and CON are from the dev studio's perspective.

#1. Independent Dev Studio is working on a game, pitches it to several publishers and tries to get them to bankroll the project.

PRO: You get to make the game YOU want. Artistic integrity!
CON: You run the risk of being unable to find a publisher. No publisher, no money.

#2. Publisher has an idea for a game they want made, and offer the project to dev studios. Dev studio accepts the contract, and makes a game based on the publisher's idea.

PRO: Steady Income! Dev studios don't make games if they have no money. I like eating, and would prefer to be able to keep doing it.
CON: Sometimes the idea is kind of lame, and you're forced to work on something you don't quite like.

This isn't specific to Activision, or EA, or anyone. This is business, and how stuff gets done. If I ran a dev studio and EA came up to me and said "Hey, we'll give you $30 million if you make us a game about racing dolphins across rainbows", then I'd make a game about racing dolphins across rainbows. I'd have more creative control, of course. Third person vs first person? Different types of dolphins? Do some dolphins swim faster, or some corner better? Can the dolphins attack each other? Can we distract enemy dolphins with rainbow fish? etc. etc.

These would all be within my power as studio head. However, I've got the contract with the publisher still, which says stuff like "We want at least 5 different dolphins" and "You are not allowed to kill anyone at all". The publisher will also want to periodically check on our progress, to make sure that their money is being well spent. They don't want to come by and see some crappy 2D flash game while the dev team plays world of warcraft and sips hawaiian drinks.

In reality, sometimes you don't get a choice about what the game is going to be about. The game I'm working on right now, for example, is a movie-based game. We're trying to make the game as good as possible, but we're limited by the rules set forth by the license-holder. They say 'The main character must be this way' and he must. For example, our main character can never kill an unarmed person for no reason. He can never shoot first without probable cause. He has to be a hero, and can never be shown in a villainous light. The license holders reserve the right to yank it if they see something they don't like.

Bringing it all back... I'm not in disagreement that WW2 games are probably old hat by now. However, sometimes it's the publisher that says "This is how it's going to be", and then that's all you can do about it. The only thing to do in that situation is to make the best game that you can given your restrictions, and hope people judge the game on those merits rather than circumstances beyond their control.

--Rawr