Interview du 15 aout 2002 par IGN PC
August 15, 2002 - Although developed at EA's Irvine studio, Command
& Conquer Generals is the most recent extension of Westwood's premier strategy
franchise. With a pedigree that reaches from Red Alert 2 all the way back to
Dune II, Westwood possesses one of the most recognizable and enjoyable series
in real-time strategy gaming.
Soon there will be a new series under the Command & Conquer. Generals is
coming together quite well as Steve Polak recently discovered. Steve took time
out from his busy schedule of go-karting and dingo rustling to talk with executive
producer Mark Skaggs.
Mark was kind enough to talk a bit about the game and address some of the criticisms
that have been levelled at previous games in the C&C line.
A word of warning: Although we tried to Americanize Steve's brand of English,
even the best editour can't catch every word a writre misspells.
IGNPC: So tell us about the basic premise behind Generals.
Mark Skaggs: The game is based in the modern world, or modern world plus
one, as we are calling it and the game is about three asymmetrical sides. These
are sides that are not mirrors of each other, but sides with different strengths
and weaknesses.
IGNPC: Indeed. Can you tell us about them?
Mark Skaggs: The first side is the US, which packs lethal high tech hardware.
The second side is the Chinese, they like massive armies inspired by propaganda
and fire based weapons that do huge amounts of destruction. The third race is
these sneaky low-tech guys from the Global Liberation Army.
IGNPC: Sounds good. How many missions will there be?
Mark Skaggs: There are twenty seven missions in story mode and you get
to play all of the sides and there is one continuous story which takes place
and involves all of the parties.
IGNPC: So the narrative path is different? More like Starcraft, eh?
Mark Skaggs: Yes. This is a little different from past C&Cs which
told the same story from different viewpoints, this time around the one story
takes you through until the end of the game controlling all of the sides.
IGNPC: How does the story get going?
Mark Skaggs: The first chapter starts off with China. China in the future
is no longer run by hard-core communist overlords, but instead it is run by
technocrats. These are guys who grew up being aware of the broader cultures
and ideas that exist in the world. They grew up with MTV and the Internet and
so they want to be a part of the world and are keen to try and get along on
better terms with the rest of the world. These guys are really smart and more
open to working with other nations, which means China is in the game. These
guys realise they have to play along and stand up and be good guys and to be
a respected superpower they have to clean up the problem of the GLA sneaking
about in Asia.
IGNPC: So the GLA seek refuge elsewhere?
Mark Skaggs: Yes. The GLA get pushed about and end up in marginal countries,
the countries we call the 'stans': Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan etc. With
the Chinese having taken control of the situation in Asia the Americans then
decide they will get involved too and so you get to play them next and then
finally the game finishes with you controlling the GLA.
IGNPC: The previous C&C games have relied too heavily on scripting
and this has meant it is easy to defeat the game when you work out what the
scripting is doing and circumvent it; breaking the AI in the process. What have
you guys done about this in Generals? Have you looked at the predictable enemy
attacks and obvious scripting problems in the previous games?
Mark Skaggs: Let me hit that from two levels. The AI and scripting system
and tool editor is completely different for this game. Previously we were always
limited by what the editor could do for us. It was really hard to write scripts.
It was hard to get soldiers to react. With the new system it is easier to write
good missions. If you write a great script too you can export it or easily modify
it and use it elsewhere, so the process is less laborious and should lead to,
no I correct myself IS leading to, better scripts as we aren't getting bogged
down by the process. The number of different AI conditions that we have implemented
with the scripts is also significantly higher and we have more control over
the sorts of conditions that will trigger a script and this is a great thing.
IGNPC: Sounds like welcome and overdue changes to the C&C system.
Mark Skaggs: Also when you look at AI we have looked at the classic problem
of a guy standing around ignoring an attack at the back of his base when he
should react. This one is a tougher call and I'll tell you the reason why. Lets
say you have a guy standing in front of the base and you WANT him to stand there
for whatever reason, now in this case him moving to intercept and attack would
be a problem. You might want the AI to keep your guy at the front of the base
because an attack on the rear is really a trick and you know that. In that situation
having him react would be a problem. So it is a double edged sword, but we now
have AI stances like defend, be aggressive and so on and these will help you
to determine the level of awareness and initiative taking behaviour your troops
indulge in. This will be the choice for the player to set this up and so hopefully
players will find a happy balance.
IGNPC: What sorts of AI stances are you implementing?
Mark Skaggs: Attack, patrol, defend, seek and destroy as well as a few
other we are experimenting with.
IGNPC: The degree to which players can control their troops and can
easily overcome inept AI is a real issue for the C&C games, so we look forward
to you changing this.
Mark Skaggs: Yes we are interested to change this and so we will look
at it in more detail. We have the Zen of what we are doing and it will involve
a better AI for sure. Also there is going to be something different that we
will be doing with this which we haven't done in the past and that is beta testing.
We look forward to throwing the game out to a million people worldwide as we
are smart enough to know that balance is something which we can get help with.
It makes us nervous, but it should be interesting.
IGNPC: Tell us about the economic system.
Mark Skaggs: We use a resource model that should make more sense. We
have ignored stuff like oil, wood, and metal management. We chose to go for
a simpler model. We have made supply depots which are posted around the map
and each of the sides uses these differently.
IGNPC: This is a step sideways.
Mark Skaggs: We didn't want to make resource management 60% of what you
do in the game. It is a factor, but there are other elements. There is the base
building, there is the combat, there is the exploration and there is the resource
stuff and we didn't want the last element to be too dominant.
IGNPC: So how does the new system work?
Mark Skaggs: We made supply depots that are placed around the map. Each
side collects resources from them differently. The US sends a Chinook helicopter
out to pick up from it. Now think about that for a minute. It flies over so
it doesn't have to worry about ground units, but it is vulnerable to air attacks
so you have to look out for those. The Chinese have the supply truck which is,
of course, on the ground so it is vulnerable to ground attack, but it is tougher
and cheaper.
IGNPC: Will you have to fight to control the supply depots?
Mark Skaggs: Yes, that is the idea, so you will have to maintain control
of these areas if you want to get resources from them, which is of course very
important. It is similar to the Tiberium patches in that you must control the
area.
IGNPC: So you are looking to blend combat elements with resource gathering
more?
Mark Skaggs: That is one way of looking at it.
IGNPC: Because you know harvester hunters could have a field day with
this.
Mark Skaggs: Yes, I see your point. By the way, the GLA uses peon characters
so these are the three resource gathering types.
IGNPC: And on the issue of harvester hunting?
Mark Skaggs: To deal with this we also have another way of gathering
resources. The Americans can build a resource dump in their base to receive
airdrops. The Chinese can use a hacker to log onto the Internet and steal cash.
You will have a bunch of these little guys with number above their heads indicating
the money they are slowly bringing in to your base.
IGNPC: How does it work for the GLA?
Mark Skaggs: The GLA has the black marketeers who bring money into the
base. That solves the issue of harvester hunters. If someone camps in the supply
centers you will be able to counter attack effectively and we think this will
help with the harvester hunter problem.
IGNPC: Can you accelerate your internal resource development, in case
your external depots are all controlled by the enemy?
Mark Skaggs: Yes, but they will never be capable of producing as much
or as fast as the supply dumps. They aren't as efficient, so the incentive is
to go out and conquer these.
IGNPC: Because otherwise if the internal base production was easily
accelerated past the level of the external dumps then it would obviate the need
for the external dumps, right? Instead it is a back door way of staying just
alive to organize a counter attack?
Mark Skaggs: Exactly.
IGNPC: Are there any anti-rush design elements?
Mark Skaggs: We did a lot of experimentation on this and we think we
have a set of units and structures which should stop or at least make this the
least efficient option. Indeed you saw in our demo a tank rush against the GLA,
it got clobbered, as you need a variety of unit types to successfully assault
a properly prepared enemy position. This is the key to the gameplay for us.
So the rushers will have to waste more money to get things done as well as those
who play cleverly with a well rounded force, with each unit type supporting
the other, which for us is the key to a good strategy game. We have the ego
to think we can get the design right in this area.
IGNPC: Are you going to be able to keep units between missions?
Mark Skaggs: No.
IGNPC: Isn't it a good thing in terms of the player getting attached
to his or her forces?
Mark Skaggs: We agree, but it isn't something we are going to do. Oh,
and one thing I want to stress is that we are looking to make the game both
better suited to the hardcore gamer as well as the entry level player who doesn't
even know what RTS means. We have put a lot of depth into the scripting and
made the game more open to player development as we are looking to even ship
with the editing tools we have used, a first for any C&C game as we are
investigating the open source approach.
We are also looking to make the game more of an epic and compelling story so
that people who have watched great stories in the movies will be able to feel
that level of excitement in the stories we create in the game. Special effects
and a strong story line are very important for us in this and while the games
have been good in this area in the past there is room for improvement and we
are keen to go down that path so that the thrill of the story is very real for
the gamer who is perhaps less experienced.
IGNPC: Will there be super weapons in the game?
Mark Skaggs: Absolutely.
IGNPC: I have found that in the past that super attacks have tended
to lead to patterns in the gameplay as the first person to develop the super
tends to get an advantage and then you just trade supers, or dominate the enemy
with your super unless they can knock it out. The gameplay becomes predictable
there.
Mark Skaggs: Yes, I know about the problem and it is just game balancing
stuff which we have been focusing on. We learned a lot from RA2 and Yuri and
it will show with Generals.
IGNPC: We look forward to seeing that.
Mark Skaggs: Here is an interesting fact...
IGNPC: Yes?
Mark Skaggs: We had a poll on the website asking people if they like
the super weapons, thought they were too strong or thought they should be stronger.
People responded with about thirty percent for each category, and so you say
'that is a good balance', but really it isn't because the truth is 66% of people
didn't like the way the super weapons were play balanced and so we know it is
an issue.
IGNPC: So back to the drawing board a bit then?
Mark Skaggs: Sort of, we will look at this issue very closely.
IGNPC: Balance is one factor relevant to dealing with super weapons,
but perhaps it might be worth also including in the game some sort of 'play
breaker' which is a very difficult 'back door' way of attacking your opponent
with the super weapons. This would be useful when you don't have any super weapons
yourself and will only get pummelled by nukes if things stay as they are. You
could have some sneaky means of making it harder for the super weapon to work
or sabotaging it so that even the player who is on the ropes and without a super
weapon has a one last long shot chance to break the deadlock.
Mark Skaggs: See if this is what you are thinking of: With the GLA you
can nuke the compound and then the GLA can have all of their buildings destroyed,
but they can have hidden their army under tunnels, so that they pop out and
have the ability to strike back. Sort of saying, "You nuked us, but who
cares because POW!, now we can hit you back with these undamaged forces so you'd
better not rely on super weapons alone". So we are thinking about those
issues you raised.
IGNPC: Sounds like fun can't wait to see it all brought together in
the game, thanks for your time. |
