New Call of Duty 3 details highlight immersive environments [update 1]

by James Ransom-Wiley { Jun 15th 2006 at 3:55PM }

'MaK10' over on the SteakNBJ forums has posted a rough transcription of new details of Call of Duty 3, which were taken from a recent article in EGM. According to the post, Treyarch is focused on crafting immersive environments, adding new effects like:

Interactive foliage (e.g. grass remains flattened when walked over)
Scorch marks left from grenades
Surface-specific reactions to bullets
Destructible cover
Wind-altered smoke (from smoke grenades)
Smoke clinging to tanks
Bullets manipulating smoke clouds

There's a tendency to write off the hardware power of Xbox 360 and PS3 as simply creating 'prettier graphics.' But that hardware allows developers to build realism into physical environments, which in turn, greatly enhances player immersion. It's hard to imagine that these improved environmental effects will be carried over into the Wii version of COD3.

With that said, let's turn back to yesterday's topic, and ask a new question. What's more critical for player immersion: real world physical movements (i.e. the Wiimote's motion-controlled functionality) or in-game environments that not only look realistic, but exhibit realistic occurrences (e.g. interactive foliage, wind-altered smoke, etc.)?

Update: corrected developer (Treyarch not Infinity Ward).

Tags: Activision, Call of Duty 3, CallOfDuty3, Infinity Ward, InfinityWard

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

JimmyHACK @ Jun 15th 2006 3:58PM

Should Be Amazing

DSK @ Jun 15th 2006 4:00PM

I concur

Kevin @ Jun 15th 2006 4:01PM

Nice. Obviously Wii will have some nice graphics :)

Will @ Jun 15th 2006 4:03PM

If I had a Wii and a 360 and had to choose which system to get this game for, I'd choose the 360 version.

Papa @ Jun 15th 2006 4:04PM

Infinity Ward? I thought Treyarch was doing the console versions of CoD3.

Probot @ Jun 15th 2006 4:05PM

"What's more critical for player immersion: real world physical movements ... or in-game environments that not only look realistic, but exhibit realistic occurrences ...?"

I think the better question is why are we still using buzzwords like immersion, gameplay and innovation like they mean something?

nod @ Jun 15th 2006 4:07PM

Yay! Another WW2 Game!!!

(not)

CuddleFish @ Jun 15th 2006 4:12PM

Yeah but does it have real-time weapon change?

SickNic @ Jun 15th 2006 4:13PM

I was under the impression that Infinity Ward wasn't working on Call of Duty 3, but that Treyarch (COD: Big Red 1) was working on it. Infinity Ward was supposedly working on a modern combat type Call of Duty that had to do with the war on terror. I could be wrong of course, but I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere...

Charlie @ Jun 15th 2006 4:16PM

Correct me if I am wrong but every other game site on the net says that Infinity Ward is not developing COD3. Treyarch is developing it. Activision is producing both though.

HallwayGiant @ Jun 15th 2006 4:16PM

I wouldn't be suprised if the Wii version of CoD3 is produced in a similiar way to that of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory for the PS2/GC, aka a watered down port that doesn't take advantage of the system...

billychaos @ Jun 15th 2006 4:19PM

I think many people are underestimating the effect of the Wii is having on many casual gamers so far. Most people that have followed games like Call of Duty or Madden will most likely get the ps3 or 360 version. I myself as a casual gamer, have never gave any care to play any FPS on a console, or ever touch a sports game.

The first time i heard about the wii controls, I finally though...wow I may actually buy a FPS for a console. This still holds true, I will most likely buy Call of Duty for the Wii. I never cared about FPS games, War games, shooting games whatever you call them, but now i'm all excited. I definetly don't watch football or ever played any football games, and yes now i'm excited to try a wii controlled football game. Apparently, THIS is what nintendo is going after. Their plan seems to work pretty well on me. They never said they were going to steal over all the hard core players. They are trying to attract people like me who were turned away from games like Call of Duty. What this does is bigger than you may think. All systems could benefit. I just may be introduced to Call of Duty for the Wii, then later down the road start exploring these FPS games on other systems. As it stands now I don't care. It took a remote control to convince me to attempt FPS or sports games. I am their target audience, not hard-core players.

KR @ Jun 15th 2006 4:23PM

I'd say the 360 version will be superior for a few reasons.

1. The Wiivolution's controller will still be new when this game arrives, developers will not have had as much time to wrap their heads around how to make it work well than if CoD3 came out in, say, late '07.

2. If I want "real world physical movements" I'll play a PC FPS. I can move my controller all over the place.

3. Graphics add a lot to a game like this. If this were, say, Mario Party 9 (or whatever they're on), graphics don't really matter. But for a product like this, the more "real-looking" the graphics, the better the game feels overall.

I'm looking forward to the Wii for many reasons - but the main reason I'm NOT excited about it is because of this controller they are jamming down our throats. Good for you that you're growing your business, but I don't need the business to grow to me, I'm already there. Games are just fine for me with a standard controller. Hell yes I want to play Super Smash Bros on the new console...I just want to do it with a regular pad.

Dan Choi @ Jun 15th 2006 4:23PM

"I was under the impression that Infinity Ward wasn't working on Call of Duty 3, but that Treyarch (COD: Big Red 1) was working on it. Infinity Ward was supposedly working on a modern combat type Call of Duty that had to do with the war on terror. I could be wrong of course, but I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere..."

Yup, SickNic, at last count, Treyarch was working on CoD3, while IW was off doing its secretive CoD project somewhere else. Treyarch is in fact fingered in the story linked in today's post, so unless EGM goofed, we're probably at fault here:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/14/wii-call-of-duty-3-readies-for-frontline/

More on the Treyarch/IW division of labor and the Modern Warfare scuttlebutt on our original CoD3 confirmation post, linked below:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/06/call-of-duty-3-announced-leak-confirmed/

Quizzle @ Jun 15th 2006 4:25PM

BIA:HH > COD 3

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=10359&type=wmv&pl=game

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=3722

:)

Austin @ Jun 15th 2006 4:26PM

Sweet, a question that can only be answered accurately by those that have played both. Since i was not at E3 and I am not from the future I may have to bookmark this page for a later date.

www.smartasscomments.org4dumbassqestions

Vincent @ Jun 15th 2006 4:27PM

That question is impossible to answer definitively until we have the game--both versions of it--in our hands.

My gut reaction is to say that, in this sort of game, graphics and sound are very important, as the COD series goes for a very cinematic feel.

However, if the graphics are exceptional but the game controls are subpar, then pretty soon the game itself is frustrating to play and the graphics don't matter. And on the other hand, if the Wii offers something exceptional in the gameplay department, it has a chance at success despite a lack of real-world physics or ultra-realistic graphics.

I personally feel that, at least for this game, graphics most definitely matter. That is, as long as the game doesn't suck.

Something tells me, though, that the Wii version won't be the best, even if they manage to use the Wii controller in such a way that captures the imagination. A good controller does not a great game make. If they're focusing on cinematics, the Wii just won't have it.

reguy @ Jun 15th 2006 4:28PM

@ 10

hey billychaos, you dumbass, you cant be the target audience if you are on joystiq. the target audience has no idea what a video game blog is and esp that the wii has inferior graphics and sound.

IanC @ Jun 15th 2006 4:31PM

JOYSTIQ GRAPHIC WHORES!

Yet more Wii-bashing.

Ryan @ Jun 15th 2006 4:34PM

@5

Buzzwords are pretty. :P

I think totally immersive environments coupled with an immersive interface such as the Wiimote is the future of gaming. Give me an XBox 360 with the Wiimote and I'm happy.

This generation of consoles seems to have split in terms of philosophy (really they haven't, but their respective marketing teams would tell you otherwise).

Nintendo's "gameplay over graphics" mantra is pretty vague. I mean, I don't really know why a change in interface would somehow magically create amazing gameplay experiences in every single game (Red Steel anyone?). So basically they're creating a machine that is not as powerful as their competitors, uses an awkward (at least at first) interface, and plays Mario games. If you really want innovation, beg the big-N to create new genres, not more of the same thing (this is, of course, a paradox because I simply love Mario—except for Sunshine).

Microsoft, on the other hand, has opted to simply release an amped-up XBox. Of course, that's what video game console manufacturers have been doing since man put joystick to pixel. And they've got Halo, right?

As for Sony, people complain about the price of the PS3, but remember, this will be the cheapest Blu-ray player available. Being DVD-comapatible really helped the expensive PS2 take off. I'm not completely ready to write these guys off yet, but if rumors of third-party competitors dropping out of the PS3 game are true, then we might have another N64 on our hands.

So anyway, I don't think the future lies in any one console, but rather, a combination of the three: More powerful graphics engines churning out trillions of polys coupled with singular strands of hair and grass that knows its role and stays the hell down when you walk on it, intuitive control interfaces that mimic real life interaction, and a Blu-ray player (why the heck not?). And it's friggin expensive. Actually, the future doesn't look so good anymore. :P

KwadDamyj @ Jun 15th 2006 4:35PM

If all FPS games on the Wii are going to be as cringe-tastic in quality as Red Steel, I'll shamelessly go with graphical details.

I saw the Steel footage on the E3 videos and was flabbergasted at how nasty the thing looked in total.

billychaos @ Jun 15th 2006 4:36PM

I dont normally respond to trash talk like that, but knowing how to log on the internet and use a blog has absolutly nothing to do with playing an FPS. I work for a living and most people do, as a matter of fact I work in the IT field so I know how to use the internet and forums. That has nothing to do with me able to play FPS's or Sports games on a console. I recently found joystiq.com through a google search, doesnt take rocket science to find it.

Spence @ Jun 15th 2006 4:40PM

I'm a Nintendork at heart but I will admit, Sony, Microsoft and PC users are getting a better deal.

Gameplay can't make up for the sub par graphics.. I certainly won't be buying this game for Wii.. I've never liked war games personally but the controller can't save this game.

Everyone 1, Nintendo 0 on this one I'm afraid.. proof that not all Nintendo fans are one sided ignorant fucks. On the other hand I am very hyped about Red Steel.

Rootbeer @ Jun 15th 2006 4:41PM

Big deal. You know what game had "destructible cover" already? SPACE INVADERS.

Mal F4cti0n @ Jun 15th 2006 4:42PM

Realistic interactive environments are more immersive to me than a gimmicky controller. (Although I haven't used it yet, that is just my impression). I was annoyed the first time I realized a smoke from a smoke grenade in COD2 did not care that there was a floor above it and walls on other sides that would vent the smoke out in only two directions. It simply passed thru the environments.

I mean, c'mon, can't you get some basic mechanical engineering knowledge in there and do some wind flow/air exchange number crunching?

I have contacted a couple of design studios, and even this site, but never get a very positive response. I work with weapon effects and structural response software. Why can't some basic elements in this area be addes to a game? It doesn't have to be accurate enough to weaponeer a target, simply enough to add realism. If I want to get in that building, but I can't find the doorway and I have enough grenades to act as a shape charge and blow a hole to go thru, why can't that be hard programmed into the building model and explosion models?

Just for a basic example: 1 grenade equals 100 psi from 0 to 6 inches and use the cubed scaling law to go down from there. For simplicity, a concrete wall breaks at 100 psi. So if the grenade is right next to the wall, it would blow a 6 inch hole into the wall. If 3 grenades went off 12 inches from a wall in different areas and 'weakened' the wall a fourth grenade goes off to create a 24 inch diameter hole. A bullet equals 10 psi, so 10 bullets in the same location will create a hole a certain size. Enough bullets and you can separate a portion of the wall. Frags fly out from damaged walls and injure opponents and/or teammates on the other side.

Someone find someone to contact me about what I have in mind and how this can be done to include all the weapons effects considerations there are.....

cringer8 @ Jun 15th 2006 4:42PM

If all of this "realism" doesn't slow the game down too much, it's worth it. If you can't move around at rabbit speed, then it's useless. I thought that adding power to consoles was in an attempt to make games more fun (e.g. more on-screen enemies, faster game play, better AI, etc.).

If too much of that power is used to keep track of blades of grass and shrapnel bits scattered about, it could negatively affect the speed of screen redraws. Truly "great" FPS's allow lightning fast rotation (usually best performed with a mouse).

If COD is slow, I won't buy it on any console.

supersam @ Jun 15th 2006 4:44PM

Well the feeling of realism is dependent on many factors. Graphics do in fact play a role; however, as shown in RE4 it is the design not the power. Sound plays a role as well, RE4 again. Design not power, again.

Therefore, Wii has a clear advantage. It is capable of designs greater than RE4 and adds an unparallel control mechanism - no graphical effects can reproduce its feeling of realism/immersion, the Wii controller. So, essentially, the Wii has both.

Isurus (at work) @ Jun 15th 2006 4:46PM

"It took a remote control to convince me to attempt FPS or sports games."

I don't see how using the Wii-mote is any more intuitive as far as FPS games go than using a mouse found on a PC. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the mouse may be even more intuitive for these types of games. Personally, I don't see the wii-mote being any easier for people than a 'normal' controller or mouse when it comes to games like First Person Shooters because, no matter which controller you use, it requires a physical movement that is entirely different from real life. With a 'normal' controller, you are using your thumb to move your view, with a mouse you move your hand/arm, and with the wii-mote you will use your hand/arm (although differently than a mouse), whereas in real life you would use your head to turn and look around. They both have a learning curve that I think is probably equal for the everyday person. I'm not sure someone who has never touch an FPS is going to have an easy time with any of them at first, or someone that has soley used one method trying another for that matter.

Getting back to the topic though, I'd probably pick the more immersive enviornment over controls. I feel that, to a certain degree, I can always adjust to the controls, which I have basically proven to myself now that I play many FPS games on consoles when I used to soley play them on a PC. If the game is very immersive and the controls are appropriate for the given input device, it is very easy for me to forget about the controls and simply get lost in the game.

Alex @ Jun 15th 2006 4:53PM

When they make Virtually Jenna for the Wii, then all the Nintendo lovers will have an unbeatable argument for which is the best console.

/I feel dirty

vidGuy @ Jun 15th 2006 4:53PM

ATTENTION: The developers of Red Steel have previously stated that the E3 demo did not represent graphical quality of the game to be released. They focused on gameplay mechanics in the time they had to prepare for the show.

Actually, many developers have commented this way... seems to give reason for the Gamecubish graphics. I don't expect a huge jump, but the Wii is quite a bit more powerful than the GC, so it'll look better than that. Look at the Sonic and Mario clips on IGN to see some good footage.

bbelt @ Jun 15th 2006 4:53PM

I find it hard to be "immersed" in any game sitting 10 feet away from the box that my game is being displayed in. Im curious to find out how confined the space will be on the Wii version. It seems possible to have a control style completely seperate from point of view. Can I run down a corrider and (pointing the wiimote to my left) shoot into an open doorway as i run past it, all the while looking straight ahead? On traditional consoles you can only shoot where you can see. The crosshairs are on screen, so you are confined to that space. If someone is sneaking up behind me, do I have to turn completely around, or, using the wiimote, can I fire a blind shot over my shoulder? If these things are possible, that would make fora truly immersive game.

molecule @ Jun 15th 2006 4:56PM

Gameplay > graphics, plain and simple. So the obvious question to be debated on which version of CoD 3 is "better" all comes down to this: Does the Nintendo Wii legitimately enhance and innovate the gameplay quotient of a game? At the very least, I believe it has the POTENTIAL to do this, and I also believe if they take the same effort as they seem to be doing to produce hi-quality graphics on the 360 and ps3 and apply that same effort to max out the potential of the wiimote (including the capabilities of its very cool speaker, btw), then CoD 3 Wii should be the version to be the most excited about; it just depends on how much attention Activision gives to it.

Steve @ Jun 15th 2006 5:43PM

Does everyone live in a cave? The Wiimote is not the first motion based game controller!

Go to your local Dave and Busters or ESPNZone to play Konami mocap Boxing. Its fun for short bits but never did I ever feel like I was "IN" a ring like Fight Night 3. There is always a gap between you and the game. The controller is only a temporary problem (i.e. solved with 5 minutes of practice) compared to problems derived from the lack of realistic physics, AI, and animation. For example, Madden for the PS2 is a much better game than PS1 with much more realistic blocking, defensive AI, etc even though they use the same exact controller. Take WarioWare even. While the follow ups added touch and motion, the fun factor gained from the interface was only temporary. After 10 minutes, you might as well be playing the original.

Parsifal @ Jun 15th 2006 5:47PM

I can imagine it adding to the game experience (truthfully) but "interactive foliage" made me laugh out loud... It's so much programming and processor power for something that seems so ridiculous. I can imagine a PR guy saying "And when you walk over the grass, it stays trampled!" and the audience going "Wooooow...", acting like they had just seen the light.

N3k74r @ Jun 15th 2006 5:50PM

-Hand to hand combat compared to the way Condemed works.-

Too bad Condemned blew.

Thomas Cushard @ Jun 15th 2006 5:53PM

I am an avid pc fps player but haven't played one on a console since Goldeneye. If this uses the wiimote they just sold a game.

Joseph @ Jun 15th 2006 5:59PM

This is a no-brainer. Get the game on the 360. Did you guys even notice the E3 videos of Metroid Prime 3 and Red Steel on the Wii? The control was AWFUL. You have to move the cursor all the way to the side, sit there and let the screen rotate, then correct your aim back on the screen. It makes not only aiming but just moving around the level a huge chore. The Wiimote will suck for FPS games until they make the cursor always centered on the screen, or maybe have a button where when pressed it allows for free cursor movement but when you want to move around the level you can lock the cursor in the middle.

Besides, after playing CoD2 on the 360, I won't be able to go back to playing any CoD game with sluggish framerates and jagged edges.

jabbertrack @ Jun 15th 2006 6:17PM

I'm so sick of the "gameplay vs. graphics" argument because both are dependant on one another which again has been said a billion times and ignored just as many by fans of whatever. But I guess if we have the same game played in 2 different ways... the verdict really will be decided.

I fail to see how having to point the gun with my arm instead of my thumb is going to increase the 'gameplay factor' in the overall experience, and since I've already lost 5.1 and HD as well as some of the more immersive aspects that graphics and horsepower allow for... I'd say I'm at 2 strikes.

Jake @ Jun 15th 2006 6:17PM

The Wii can handle the things listed if they want it too, it just may be at a different extent. I mean, Xbox 1 developers could have made foilage that turns to flat foilage when something walks on it. Not a big deal. Smoke that doesn't go through walls magically, not a big deal. Even to have it go with the wind is very, very easy.

The difference will be in how good it looks doing it. For example, the Wii could make a standard smoke grenade cloud that floats and disperses in one general direction, while not going through walls. But, the 360 could maybe make the smoke bend around objects, condensing at stagnation points, twisting around moving objects with eddy currents behind them, all while conserving the amount of smoke you have. Something that you may not notice in the heat of battle, but would be very cool looking if you were ducked back observing and picking people off. Personally, I would rather the developers of any version of CoD to spend their time making the game longer and level designs better than making some super-complex alogrithm by which smoke acts "perfectly". I mean, smoke grenades are lame anyways. Give me a good ol' fashioned pineapple grenade that pops and leaves holes in nearby bad guys.

I mean, come on. Charred ground from grenades. Fricking 007, the game that made console shooters what they are today, had god-dang grenade char marks. That statement is very real-time-giant-crab-weapon-weak-point-changish. How about they have a high-power sniper weapon, that you can change to in real-time, that delivers massive damage at long range. The Wii could never handle that.

molecule @ Jun 15th 2006 6:42PM

36. Joseph-

Retro commented in an interview that there will also be an "expert" mode in Prime in which the "invisible box" that the wiimote is confined to will be minimized greatly to allow for quicker reaction time; they did sort of the same thing w/Hunters on the DS by allowing you to customize the touch screen sensitivity. The E3 demo of MP3 was probably just customized so as to be easy for someone who had never played an FPS--unlike you and me. Nintendo also did this w/their Zelda E3 demo in toning down the overall difficulty to be "easy for everyone to play"; in other words, the demos weren't COMPLETELY representative of the actual games. Finally, Nintendo demonstrated in the Zelda demo how the wiimote could work in an FPS when Link uses his bow: http://media.wii.ign.com/media/748/748589/img_3583547.html If you move outside the circle with the wiimote, then Link's body and perspective change.

apoc @ Jun 15th 2006 6:47PM

"Yeah but does it have real-time weapon change?"

what about WWII Axis Giant Crabs?

Joseph @ Jun 15th 2006 6:55PM

What games do you play Jake? Some grenades are lame? Okay...well I've used them a countless number of times on the hardest difficulty on CoD2 to get past almost impossible odds. I use them to get past corridors and to set up defenses after planting the bomb in Counterstrike. Smoke grenades rule if used right. Besides, not only are they an important mechanic in CoD2, but they look awesome and Infinity Ward prides itself on the immersiveness they were able to create with the grenades which they've stated over and over.

Joseph @ Jun 15th 2006 6:57PM

*Smoke not some in the first sentence.

WamBam @ Jun 15th 2006 7:07PM

Shouldn't great games have both great gameplay and great graphics? If we're at a point in gaming where it's one or the other, then something is seriously wrong.

As much as I'm excited at the prospect of playing with the Wiimote, it will nothing but a novelty if it isn't integrated with gameplay in such a way that it's natural and easy to play with. So, in that way I don't think that the Wii is, as yet, a good representive of pure gameplay. At least until we've seen what developers can do with it.

maddermadcat @ Jun 15th 2006 8:01PM

Everybody, I'd like you to remember Metal Slug.
Yes, Metal Slug. That arcade game on the Neo-Geo. It wasn't in any way realistic; far from it, in fact. But the gameplay was amazing, and that's what kept you hooked.
My point is: A game doesn't have to be realistic to be good. There is only one problem...
Good gameplay is a lot harder to implement than good graphics.

JPNR @ Jun 15th 2006 9:05PM

I know that a lot of you have said that is better in 30 for the graphics, well this is what i think:

A played this game of war dont remember name in 360. And really i didnt see such difference from past console. BTW I WILL pick wii. why?

1. We dont know how the graphics are gonna look, but it will be a lot better from E3(they said it)

2. Pointing at who i want to shoot is just to amazing in a game to give it up for a little better graphics.

3. I just imagine me in a world war 2, of course i dont like wars if are in the real world. But imagine what can you do with the wiimote. Shoot people aiming AT THEM, Brake there neck by hitting them with the gun (doing the action of hitting) When you dont have guns you go run and punch someone or try to steal their gung (BY DOING THE ACTION) they are too much things you can do.

And thats why im going to have call of duty 3 next to my Wii in the launch day.

RoboJones @ Jun 16th 2006 12:58AM

Apart from the wind and smoke effects (which im not to sure about) everything on that list has already been done before a million times over, so if smoke and wind effects are the only things making this game more immersive compared to the Wii then thats pritty damn laughable. Hey developers how about putting all that power to better use like making all the buildings fully destructable? When a tank shell makes the house your in collapse thats immersive, not when it drives through some smoke and makes a woosh effect.

Plus its a ww2 game played from the POV of the allies, snore. Wake me up when these developers put me in the role of a axis soldier.

Perri @ Jun 16th 2006 7:51AM

I'm sure most of those graphical promises can be done on Wii aswell. I don't understand why people expect the thing to have the power of a GBA. On paper it's like 3 gamecubes, and we all know that Nintendo is very good at efficiently pumping graphics out of small systems. The Windwaker engine created a real Wind that affected all smoke, sparks, or anything else in the air. The grass moved when you walked over it. Same with MGS3, the grass moved out of your way. With the added power Wii has I'm sure it won't be hard for them to tell that grass to stay down. The Surface specific reaction for bullets is pretty cool, but nothing Wii can't handle, thats just in the programming. I really don't see anything up there that Wii shouldn't be able to do. Sure it won't look as pretty as the PS3 or 360 version, but it will look good, and its the same game, they're going to push it as far as they can to get it as close as the others.