Black Ops Will Be Brutal, But Not Gratuitous, Says Treyarch

[Logan Westbrook]

Black Ops Will Be Brutal, But Not Gratuitous, Says Treyarch

Call of Duty: Black Ops might push a few people's buttons, says Treyarch, but only to make the story better.

Modern Warfare 2's "No Russian" level, which asked players to gun down scores of unarmed civilians, earned the game a certain degree of notoriety. But when asked if Black Ops would have a similar section, Treyarch's Josh Olin said that it was immersion, rather than controversy, that the studio was aiming for.

He said that Black Ops was a mature game intended for adults, and it wasn't going to shy away from the realities of war, but that nothing that Treyarch did with the game would be gratuitous. He said that the game would get under people's skin and make them feel "angry or righteous or sad," but that it would always be in service of the story, and to make the experience more compelling for the player.

Adding a little grittiness to the storytelling could make Black Ops really shine. While "No Russian" was about as gratuitous as it gets, the first Modern Warfare had some of the most memorable moments in gaming in recent years, because the Infinity Ward wasn't afraid to play rough with its characters. If Treyarch is willing to do the same, especially when it comes to subjects like the Vietnam War where at least part of Black Ops is set, we could be in for a very memorable game.


Source: Gamerzines [http://www.gamerzines.com/ps3/news/black-ops-controversial-scene.html]




Permalink

 

[Colonel Alzheimer's]

If you aim for controversy, you're doing it wrong. I don't say this often, but nice job, Treyarch.

 

[SalamanderJoe]

Go Treyarch. I'm glad that's what they've worked for. Immersion is always better than contraversy. It's why Medal of Honor won't sell very well in October because no one can get beyond the whole, 'play as the Taliban, kill US soliders' thing.

 

[Lacsapix]

Why is shooting down unarmed civilians so bad?
I've killed over tens of thousands of civilians in GTA.

 

[threetoedsl0th]

This will be a game for the bloodthirsty. I can't wait to explode a few heads.

 

[lostzombies.com]

Everything I have read about Black Ops makes me belive it will be a stand out, fantastic game. Treyarch won me over with WaW due to the sheer effort and listening to the community for ideas. They seem to be building on this attitude which enabled WaW (mainly due to zombies) to be an unforgettable game. IW should have taken notice for MW2 and maybe it wouldn't have been a disposable generic throw away shooter that will be easily forgotten.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Why is shooting down unarmed civilians so bad?
I've killed over tens of thousands of civilians in GTA.

Killing the civilians is something you CAN do in GTA, and if you're caught, you're punished. In MW2, it was the POINT of the level. SLAUGHTER. It made the player kill them. It told them to.

I think controversy COULD be an interesting way to go, but no one likes controversy and it gives everyone a bad name. The only problem with this immersion is that come people might still see it as controversy. People are stupid that way.

It's a good thing they learned from MW2

 

[cainx10a]

Why is shooting down unarmed civilians so bad?
I've killed over tens of thousands of civilians in GTA.

Killing the civilians is something you CAN do in GTA, and if you're caught, you're punished. In MW2, it was the POINT of the level. SLAUGHTER. It made the player kill them. It told them to.

I think controversy COULD be an interesting way to go, but no one likes controversy and it gives everyone a bad name. The only problem with this immersion is that come people might still see it as controversy. People are stupid that way.

It's a good thing they learned from MW2

You didn't have to kill any civilians in that level. You could just tag alongside the bad guys, and not fire a single round, except at the Russians soldiers who came after. I guess it was just in bad taste considering that terrorism is something of a visible issue nowadays.

 

[MarsProbe]

Why is shooting down unarmed civilians so bad?
I've killed over tens of thousands of civilians in GTA.

Do you really need to ask that question? You may have gunned down hundreds of faceless people in GTA, but none of those actions can be compared to what happened in MW2. The main issue with the killing of the civilians in MW2 was the concept surrounding it. Initially, you were basically assisting terrorists with the needless slaughter of innocent people. Secondly, you were carrying out said act in a busy airport. The only way they could have picked a more sensitive location was if they dropped you into a school playground. Or a nursery. I would presume IW wouldn't be able to be that careless anyway.

That, and the whole No Russian, was inherently flawed, mostly in the premise and the way it did (or didn't) fit into the whole scenario.

Not to mention the fact that in the GTA games, you have so for always played, if not a criminal, then someone out on the fringes of society. Such a person, thnking simply for the sake of this discussion, would be more likely to gun down a crowd of innocent people than the US soldier you were in the shoes of at that point in MW2.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Treyarch's Josh Olin said that it was immersion, rather than controversy, that the studio was aiming for.

This is close to having me sold on the game, if they'll be taking this kind of approach. I still want to wait and see some reviews after it comes out, though I like World at War, so I'll have to wait and see.

 

[flipsalty]

"He said that the game would get under people's skin and make them feel 'angry or righteous or sad,'"

I sure did get angry at Treyarch's last COD game, because it was terrible.

 

[Banana Phone Man]

Why is shooting down unarmed civilians so bad?
I've killed over tens of thousands of civilians in GTA.

I don't think it was th killing of civilians but more of the playing as a terrorist (well pretending to be one anyway). That way it was seen as almost advertising terrorism and encouraging it or at least that's how some people viewed it anyway.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well that's good. Things like No Russian and MoH's Taliban thing are mostcertaintly not what gaming needs right now when it's desperately attempting to become accepted.

 

[David Sterling]

"He said that the game would get under people's skin and make them feel 'angry or righteous or sad,'"

I sure did get angry at Treyarch's last COD game, because it was terrible.

Dunno about you, but I'd take WaW over MW2 any day.

 

[Woodsey]

Why is shooting down unarmed civilians so bad?
I've killed over tens of thousands of civilians in GTA.

Killing the civilians is something you CAN do in GTA, and if you're caught, you're punished. In MW2, it was the POINT of the level. SLAUGHTER. It made the player kill them. It told them to.

You can go through it without shooting any civilians.

OT: Still can't get interested in this. This is what, the 8th fucking one now? Modern Warfare was pretty good, but the series hasn't had any heart since the first two.

To quote Eurogamer's retrospective on the first game:

"Never mind the fact that they might have just made the biggest-selling videogame of all time. Playing the original game again, I feel like this series could have been more than that."

 

[Caligulove]

Well when you do anything set in Vietnam, and try to make it realistic, I imagine it would be hard not to make it dark, gritty and controversial to someone. When I watch gameplay, I think I'm looking forward to the quiet stuff more than the crazy, whiz-bang shooting and chaotic battles. I would like to see missions where there's little fighting in them at all. It's been done before but it always ends the mission with a mandatory 'things go tits up' part.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Do you really need to ask that question? You may have gunned down hundreds of faceless people in GTA, but none of those actions can be compared to what happened in MW2. The main issue with the killing of the civilians in MW2 was the concept surrounding it. Initially, you were basically assisting terrorists with the needless slaughter of innocent people. Secondly, you were carrying out said act in a busy airport. The only way they could have picked a more sensitive location was if they dropped you into a school playground. Or a nursery. I would presume IW wouldn't be able to be that careless anyway.

That, and the whole No Russian, was inherently flawed, mostly in the premise and the way it did (or didn't) fit into the whole scenario.

Not to mention the fact that in the GTA games, you have so for always played, if not a criminal, then someone out on the fringes of society. Such a person, thnking simply for the sake of this discussion, would be more likely to gun down a crowd of innocent people than the US soldier you were in the shoes of at that point in MW2.

Clicking a button labled fire and making a batch of polygons and pixels recieve damage, eventually falling over when their damage limit is reached and they are labeled as dead is the same no matter what the arrangement of polygons is supposed to look like (terrorist, civilian, alien, Spiderman, etc.).

Simple fact is killing anything in any game is exactly the same, it is all a hodgepodge of little triangles covered in little squares processed by something tha tonly reads in 1's and 0's.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Well when you do anything set in Vietnam, and try to make it realistic, I imagine it would be hard not to make it dark, gritty and controversial to someone. When I watch gameplay, I think I'm looking forward to the quiet stuff more than the crazy, whiz-bang shooting and chaotic battles. I would like to see missions where there's little fighting in them at all. It's been done before but it always ends the mission with a mandatory 'things go tits up' part.

Yeah, my favourite level of the entire series I've played was the first sniper mission in Modern Warfare, and no one catches you at all if you're good enough. I thought that was a lot more fun...

 

[Jared]

Well, It seems to be the thing at the moment, seeing how far things can be pushed.

But, at least it keeps things intresting

 

[Simple Bluff]

There's a lot of potential for gruesome and disturbing moments in a Vietnam game...

My Lai massacre, anyone?