Call of Duty: Ghosts & Objective Markers

[Ambient_Malice]

I've mentioned before that I'm very fond of CoD: Ghosts, but there's one area I think truly deserves discussing. And that is how for most of the game, it doesn't lead the player around with compass arrows or hovering icons, with the exception of sections where you drive a vehicle or play as Riley the Dog.

As far as I can tell, and my memory may have failed me despite multiple playthroughs, CoD: Ghosts almost never displays objective markers during "on foot" gameplay, and that is really, really impressive. The series has long used objective markers as a way of compensating for bloated, confusing level designs and unclear objectives. Ghosts instead relies on character dialogue and interactable objects glowing yellow. The game feels like the series finally taking off its training wheels and putting some faith in players, that they're not plebs who need to be constantly show what to do in order to enjoy a game. "Check the left window," is so much more organic and "immersive" than a massive arrow appearing on the screen directing you to the window and then a glowing icon showing you which people to shoot. I suppose it helps that Ghosts is set in the near-future with modern day tech, which gives it a more grounded feel. The other CoD games are moving towards sci-fi tech which fully justifies HUD elements directing your every step.



In Operation Clockwork, during the entire mission, there is a single HUD objective marker, and it displays to show you which side of the room the doorway to escape is located. Since you can be anywhere in the room when the files finish copying, it feels like a fair enough concession.

To compare...





It feels as though Ghosts uses objective markers sparingly, when there is a good chance the player would get confused. For example, if you move too far away from an NPC who is leading you, a HUD icon will appear showing you where they are. So long as you stay reasonably close to them, nothing displays. Or if you're running through chaos and smoke and explosions with no clear sense of left/right, hindering verbal guidance, such as when on the deck of the aircraft carrier, the game will use a HUD marker to show you where your goal is. But the other games in the series are very prone to using them to show everything from PUSH THIS BUTTON to WALK IN THIS DIRECTION. It often borders on the insulting.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Wonder if you'll do one of these for Blops 3/MW3/CoD3's campaigns.

MW3's problem is very similar to AW's problem. Poor pacing, and a lack of fresh ideas. It slugs along with one menial firefight after another. You run, you shoot, you run, you shoot. There's no nuance. It is everything wrong with MW1 & 2 distilled into a single game. There's a very thin plot spread over a lot of missions. MW1-3 have some of the bigger design problems in the series, with MW1 being an especially awkwardly designed game, most notably with its love of enemies spawning from closets and general "gamey" design. It was a Delta Force: Black Hawk Down wannabe with scripting that repeatedly got in the way of gameplay.

Of course when you look at AW, you're faced with the fact it's a *poor* Syndicate knock-off. It is uninspired and longwinded and monotonous. Call of Duty: Ghosts is a knock-off of everything from The Dark Knight to Mission Impossible 3 to Transformers 3, but it has the benefit of an Academy/Emmy/Golden Globe winning writer to massage its not-exactly-original story into something that crackles and feels fresh. Advanced Warfare steals the basic plot structure from Syndicate, replaces Brian Cox with Kevin Spacey, and then jams it all together with the grace of a fan fiction writer.

Black Ops 3 is one of the worst games in the series. Its mechanics were stolen from Syndicate, without any grasp of why they worked in Syndicate. The game feels fundamentally broken by its design concessions for cooperative play. Yes, let's steal the robots from Binary Domain, but neglect to implement a cover system, which was the only thing that made Binary Domain's combat work. The game is a series of bullet sponge firefights, especially against robots. Combat is relentless. There's no breathing room, something that is very crucial for story-driven FPS games. Levels don't know when to end. Without David Goyer, writer of Black Ops 1 & 2, the writing quality took a massive hit. Characters just talk and talk and talk with nothing meaningful to say.

Haven't played CoD3, since it was a console exclusive.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Not even three minutes into the second video before there's an objective marker...

But as for the actual merits of objective markers, I would hardly call them "inorganic". OK, yes, it is "game-y", but at the same time, the CoD games I played generally don't just randomly place them on the screen or compass. It follows from the mission briefing, events during the mission, or commands yelled out during the mission. The thing is, with CoD's structure, it is possible that we may be distracted when an important event occurs, miss an order amidst gunfire and music, don't have a map and compass we can bring up, and didn't spend hours studying maps and training before the mission. Sure, you can fix the sound, but you can't really undo the other problems without taking control away from the player or fundamentally changing what CoD is. Even most "realistic simulations" don't bother putting us through hours of studying and training. So in this situation, having an objective marker seems like a good fix for a lot of "problems".

And then there's the consideration that not everyone jumping into CoD has spent years playing video games. For some newcomers, getting used to simply navigating a virtual 3D environment is a challenge. Now you also want them to remain on top of dialogue, environmental cues, and other factors while struggling just to keep their movement and camera in sync? Maybe a developer can assume that all their players are capable if they are marketing towards experienced gamers exclusively. That isn't CoD's audience, though. Even among that more "hardcore" audience, there are still complaints about lack of direction in games. I seem to remember that being among the most common complaints about the first Dark Souls.

In short, I'm not going to complain about an objective marker.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Not even three minutes into the second video before there's an objective marker...

Good point. But the difference between that marker and the other CoD games is it isn't immediately followed by ANOTHER marker, leading you along like a trail of bread crumbs. It feels like something put there because players weren't able to spot a glowing yellow backpack on a soldier who is laying over a wall with most of his body hidden from view.

And then there's the consideration that not everyone jumping into CoD has spent years playing video games. For some newcomers, getting used to simply navigating a virtual 3D environment is a challenge. Now you also want them to remain on top of dialogue, environmental cues, and other factors while struggling just to keep their movement and camera in sync?

That is largely why developers put obtrusive HUD icons showing players where to go and what to do, yes. But at the same time, you end up with this extremely janky game design. If you strip out the objective markers and the game becomes confusing and/or unplayable, there's something wrong. In Black Ops 3, there are cases where you've got 4-5 objective markers on a single set of stairs, leading you down them like a toddler chasing jelly beans. They're integral to the game design because when you remove them, you're stuck with a bunch of confusing corridors and lots of character banter that doesn't actually have much to do with your current situation.

I think Ghosts struck an interesting balance. It tried to relay the information organically via dialogue, and with glowing yellow objects for the most part, and fell back on HUD markers where players might get lost. In the other CoD games, the game flow often consists of walking/running from one waypoint marker to the next. It destroys any real sense of progressing through real environments. Ghosts' approach is more organic, while making concessions in places.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Not even three minutes into the second video before there's an objective marker...

Good point. But the difference between that marker and the other CoD games is it isn't immediately followed by ANOTHER marker, leading you along like a trail of bread crumbs. It feels like something put there because players weren't able to spot a glowing yellow backpack on a soldier who is laying over a wall with most of his body hidden from view.

I actually missed the one with the backpack. I was more thinking the marker for the guy in the car you were supposed to kill. Granted, it still seemed a little less marker-heavy than other CoD games.

And then there's the consideration that not everyone jumping into CoD has spent years playing video games. For some newcomers, getting used to simply navigating a virtual 3D environment is a challenge. Now you also want them to remain on top of dialogue, environmental cues, and other factors while struggling just to keep their movement and camera in sync?

That is largely why developers put obtrusive HUD icons showing players where to go and what to do, yes.

I wouldn't say objective markers are inherently obtrusive. Can they be? Sure, if not implemented properly. To be obtrusive, though, I would say that they either would need to hinder the core gameplay (e.g. preventing you from seeing the target) or nag you when you want to deviate and explore. Plenty of games like Call of Duty, Bethesda games, BioWare games, Xenoblade Chronicles, etc. all manage to avoid those issues.

But at the same time, you end up with this extremely janky game design. If you strip out the objective markers and the game becomes confusing and/or unplayable, there's something wrong.

I'm not so much saying that it is unplayable. I'm saying that a newcomer may prefer an objective marker to help guide them while they get used to how the movement and camera work together. Even as an experienced gamer, I remember finding it very difficult to play an FPS on console when I first tried (I normally play on PC), and I know many people who play on consoles all the time but can't wrap their mind around PC controls.

And as much as some would say that this is dumbing-down for the stupid masses (not saying that you are saying that), I think we should be careful. Most of us have been playing games for years, sometimes decades. We've all forgotten what it was like to first jump into a game with three dimensions of movement and have just assumed it was always easy.

But all that said, I can definitely see making a case for giving the option to remove objective markers. BioShock, Dishonored, and I'm pretty sure Skyrim all did that. And at least in the case of BioShock and Dishonored, they put a ton of effort into environmental cues that could lead players that had turned off objective markers. I myself preferred playing that way. But I can also see why having objective markers on by default (since newcomers are less likely to fiddle with settings) would be beneficial as well.

In Black Ops 3, there are cases where you've got 4-5 objective markers on a single set of stairs, leading you down them like a toddler chasing jelly beans. They're integral to the game design because when you remove them, you're stuck with a bunch of confusing corridors and lots of character banter that doesn't actually have much to do with your current situation.

Treyarch is a bad game designer.[footnote]Yes, I know, some people like Treyarch, and maybe they have done a decent job with Blops2 & 3. Before that, the best they ever did was copy/paste from IW.[/footnote] I'm not sure using them as an example is the best thing to do.

Going back to Dishonored, that game had objective markers. But like I said, they put a lot of effort into the environment. Some levels had maps on the wall, signs pointing to the right direction, and various other environmental cues that indicated where to go. It was very easy to play that game without any markers, despite them having been there. Basically, markers are not exclusively used as a crutch. Good game designers will recognize their place but make sure the game can exist without them. But as I already said about Treyarch, they aren't among those good developers.