Previous
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames Interview
Xbox 360
PC
PlayStation 2
PlayStation 3
Interview
by
Robert Purchese
Page 1 of 3.
Page 2 
Last July when we went hands-on with Mercenaries 2, the future looked bright for the World in Flames. After that it all went a bit quiet. For ages. Then in January this year, EA came clean about the hold-up, before everyone's favourite silver-haired boardroom fox John Riccitiello confirmed a goal of fiscal 2009. Earlier this month, Mercenaries 2 was given a firm 5th September date on PS3, 360, PC and PS2, meaning that it would be out four months after you-know-what - potentially a deal-breaker for an openworld action game. With all this in mind, we got Pandemic's creative director Cameron Brown on the phone to find out what's been keeping Mercenaries 2, how terrifying it is to go up against Grand Theft Auto IV, and why we should all draw circles around 5th September on our calendars and radio in a holiday.
Eurogamer: Was the delay to Mercenaries 2 unexpected?
Cameron Brown: It wasn't planned in the sense that it was some marketing strategy. It was pretty simple: the game wasn't going to be the quality we wanted to be. It's a huge game and very complicated, and we're on new technology - new platforms - and we're trying to do some pretty interesting stuff. We're doing the campaign co-op in the open world, and it brings a lot of challenges. We just realised we weren't going to be quite ready and we needed more time to polish. It was like, "Oh man, this is going to be uncomfortably tight and we're not going to deliver the game we set out to make on that schedule," so luckily we had the structural backing where we were able to delay it.
This is Chris Jacobs blowing things up.
Eurogamer: Was there something in particular that held things up?
Cameron Brown: Not really. Mercs is a very systemic game where everything is layered on top of each other, so it was more to do with getting it all to work simultaneously. It's a game that encourages the player to be experimental and to approach things in an uncontrollable way, so we had to put a lot of thought into error checking and safety nets and a robust engine. So it wasn't one specific thing, but we were scrambling to finish and didn't have that landing strip we needed to make sure this thing was robust enough to put in the hands of the general population. No one wants to buy a game that looks cool but is busted and won't let you do the things you want to do. This game in particular we really needed to spend a lot of time polishing, and making sure the player can't get us into weird states.
Eurogamer: Of course, this month sees the release of Grand Theft Auto IV.
Cameron Brown: Which game is that? [Laughs]
This is Jennifer Mui about to blow things up.
Eurogamer: Do you see yourselves as a competitor to it?
Cameron Brown: Not really. GTA is such a phenomenon; so huge that I don't think anyone is really a competitor to GTA in a manner of speaking. I guess we're a competitor in the sense that we're in the openworld genre, but I would actually call it more of a colleague. That's what we aspire to be. And not just in terms of sales - everyone working in the business would love to sell those kind of numbers - but more because we owe a huge debt to GTA. We all found GTA III to be a landmark game in terms of really bringing that open-world design philosophy to a mainstream audience. I still feel a warmth towards GTA III and I still acknowledge the debt we have there.
I think Mercs has gone in a different direction as it has developed and is a very different-feeling game. GTA IV and Mercs 2, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, have a very different emphasis. In Mercs 2 you're travelling across an entire country through all these cities and you're really focused on different activities to GTA, where it's much more about that city.
I don't get the sense that someone who's going to buy GTA IV is not going to buy Mercs 2; I don't think it's an either/or decision for anyone. I am really, really fascinated to play the game and see what they've got up their sleeves. Everyone's obviously got high expectations for Rockstar and they're constantly setting the bar in this area. We're feeling like they're expanding the market and redefining what games can be, and they're a very inspiring presence to us. So, not competitors, but we aspire to be colleagues. Let's call it friendly competitors.
Are you excited about Mercenaries 2: World in Flames on PlayStation 2?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Related Games
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames
Latest Features
-
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames Review [179]
-
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames First Impressions [32]
-
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames Interview [25]
-
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames Hands On [28]
Latest Videos
Mercenaries 2 - DLC [0] 16 December, 2008
Latest News
-
Free Mercs 2 DLC on Live today [13]
-
Riccitiello: "There will be a Mercenaries 3" [30]
-
Mercenaries 2 gets PS3 Trophies [10]
-
Free Mercs 2 downloadable this month [23]
-
Fracture, Mercs 2 demos now live [22]
Latest Screenshots
15 July, 2008 [14]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-23 of 23 in total
|
Camorrista
17/04/08 @ 11:07
0
That faux mohawk bazooka guy might just be the most ridiculous piece of artwork ever.
Is that supposed to be on the package? Please say so! :D |
|
0
"We also have a tank bike that players are going to have to work hard to unlock, and it is basically a motorcycle crossed with a tank and it has the ability to climb up on stuff and crush it but also preserve the speed and mobility of a bike."
I think this tank bike is the nemesis of all physics systems, laughing in the face of their puny 'reality'. Either that or it's Street Hawk incarnate. |
|
shamblemonkee
17/04/08 @ 11:30
0
Sounds pretty interesting, especially proper open world co-op. If they do it right then tearing up the place with a mate, pizza and beer should be mint man, wye'aye
|
|
0
"There has been a lot of effort and energy put into downloadable content. We have it up and running on the consoles"
Well they'd better not start trying to sell this shit as soon as the game is out. I get the impression that a lot of DLC is stuff devs decide to hold back from the game in order to make a few extra space bucks later. If you already have it up and running why not just add it in? if it's free everyone will download it anyway, if it's not then you're just taking the piss as you've obviously just held it back to make more cash. I do live in the UK though I suppose. Let me just bend over a sec... |
|
OutpostCommand
17/04/08 @ 12:20
0
Tank bike ?
Do they mean something along the lines of a Sdkfz 2 (aka 'Kettenkrad') ? A picture, for those too lazy to google it: http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/img...
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 17/04/08 @ 13:21
|
|
PlugMonkey
17/04/08 @ 12:51
0
meaning that it would be out four months after you-know-what - potentially a deal-breaker for an openworld action game.
I know GTA IV is going to be the be all and end all of gaming, and the last and only game I'll ever truly need, but four months? I think I might just about be ready for a new open world action game by then. I get the impression that a lot of DLC is stuff devs decide to hold back from the game in order to make a few extra space bucks later. You mean like when a movie studio makes a film and a sequel at the same time, and then make me pay separately to see them both? Oooh the very cheek of it. |
|
gav_and_the_gavster
17/04/08 @ 12:55
0
I personally enjoyed Mercs 1 a lot more than any GTA game (so far...). Everything seemed to control so well compared to GTA's locking-on shooting mechanics and twitchier controls. I understand why each game plays/controls the way it does, it's just a preference thing - I hope both GTA4 and Mercs 2 turn out as great as we all hope. But going on past games as evidence i'll spend more time on Mercs 2.
|
|
0
OutpostCommand: I was hoping for something more along the lines of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdbxnDQD9nE |
|
PlugMonkey
17/04/08 @ 18:32
0
It's a little bit like movie sequels being filmed simultaneously to save cost. It's also quite a lot like game sequels. Or game add on packs. Or the special edition DVD 'making of' featurette, which they also make during the main project and then charge you for it after.
I don't care if the movie sequel, game add-on pack or 'making of' featurette is made during the main project or after the main project. If I think it's worth the asking price, I'll buy it. If I think it isn't, I won't. I fail to see why the work itself being done in series or in parallel is such a massive area of contention. The work wouldn't be being done if it wasn't for the DLC revenue. See the other thread for the long version. Actually, don't bother, I think this one probably makes more sense. :) Edit: And by the way, if you look at the times of my posts, you'll see that I posted in this thread first and then moved into the other thread only when I found the same mistaken view points in there as in here.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 17/04/08 @ 19:35
|
|
hiddenranbir
17/04/08 @ 19:22
0
Am I at risking of ending up with an open world that is entirely rubble?
|
|
0
Fair enough Plug. I completely disagree but you made your point fair and square without the usual name calling shit that goes on here. I really think you need a better example then comparing your point to the movie industry but anyway.
My point is, pretty much every game ever made has features the developers would like to include but could not for some reason. You build the best game you can at the time. Once the game is released you listen to the feedback and try and improve the game with DLC. If you are developing it at the same time as the main game, it should go in the game. This applies even more so for a sequel then an original title in my opinion. But obviously you're not going to agree with me at this stage, so fair enough. We'll agree to disagree. |
|
PlugMonkey
17/04/08 @ 22:12
0
Crap analogy.
You're thinking of the analogy from the wrong angle, by which I mean yours. Think from the production side. What would have happened if Peter Jackson had gone to New Line Cinema and said "Hi! Give me $250m and I'll make you a movie." No deal. No, it was "Give me $250m and I'll make three movies at once." This is where it's similar to games and DLC. You can't just divide it up again. The budget from the production company is for a game and some DLC. If they were just doing the game, the budget would be smaller and there would be less content. The revenue from the DLC means the budget can be bigger, and more content can be made, but you can't just stick it on the disk and give it away for free, you need to recoup the extra expenditure. Whichever way you look at it, you're not being asked to pay for the same thing twice. Back to LOTR, without the revenue of three films, the project never gets off the ground. It's basically the same model, and doing them all simultaneously just makes better organisational sense. Hollywood does this all the time now. The Matrix. Pirates of the Caribbean. Sin City. I'm not saying this is the way everyone is doing their DLC. Some of it is just crap, but I think we should be judging this stuff on what the content is rather than a knee-jerk reaction based on when the content was created. |
|
YourMessageHere
17/04/08 @ 22:15
0
Hey Mr Inverviewer, I think you mean "is there much difference between all four versions of the game?", or did PC and PS2 coverage suddenly fall off your radar? Not all of us have, or indeed want, PS3s or 360s.
|
|
kangarootoo
18/04/08 @ 08:54
0
@BobsUncle
"Well they'd better not start trying to sell this shit as soon as the game is out. I get the impression that a lot of DLC is stuff devs decide to hold back from the game in order to make a few extra space bucks later." I get the impression you are paranoid and suspicious. "If you already have it up and running why not just add it in?" Would you say the same to a car salesman who has a porshe "up and running" on the forecourt when you happen pop in to buy a ferrari cap? "if it's free everyone will download it anyway, if it's not then you're just taking the piss as you've obviously just held it back to make more cash." If the DLC cost money to make, and they just give it away for free, they would lose money, and go out of business, which is bad for everyone. Do you see? Why do some people struggle so much with the concept that balancing your books is not the same as being greedy. NOT GIVING AWAY MONEY TO CUSTOMERS FOR NO REASON, IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING GREEDY. Its not complex really, is it? I await the day you ever run a business yourself and have your eyes pinned open. |
|
YourMessageHere
18/04/08 @ 13:11
0
here we go again. Kangarootoo, you do have something of a point but:
- do you really expect anyone to want/be happy to pay for some stuff when they can see other comparable or more attractive stuff getting given away (for example whole games such as Trackmania Nations Forever, out yesterday for free)? - we are being asked to believe that the devs rely on additional DLC revenue to make a profit, even though it's enough for others to sell a game and make a profit from that alone, and the prices of games are about the same. This seems as if someone is lying about the economics behind this, irrespective of whether they actually are or not. - surely the DLC isn't that costly to actually make? I don't have a clue about the reality, but I'd have imagined most of the money goes on creating the basic engines and code of the game, which DLC rarely if ever changes, and the tools for creating the art and resources and so on. Most DLC is simply another car or map or gun or game mode or the like, something all the tools are in place for and which is surely little more than a drop in the ocean. - the promise of free DLC is an incentive for fencesitters to buy the game (One reason I bought WipEout Pure was the DLC, which was all free). |
|
PlugMonkey
18/04/08 @ 14:09
0
"- do you really expect anyone to want/be happy to pay for some stuff when they can see other comparable or more attractive stuff getting given away (for example whole games such as Trackmania Nations Forever, out yesterday for free)?"
No, I don't. But I expect people to make that judgement based on the content being put on sale (which in this case hasn't been announced yet) rather than the scheduling of the work (which is the only piece of information being are basing their vitriolic opinions on). "- we are being asked to believe that the devs rely on additional DLC revenue to make a profit, even though it's enough for others to sell a game and make a profit from that alone, and the prices of games are about the same. This seems as if someone is lying about the economics behind this, irrespective of whether they actually are or not." Some games are in development for five years, while some are knocked out in 6 months. And some devs charge you £40 for a game that takes 80 hours to complete, whereas others charge you £40 for a game that takes 12 hours to complete. So you make a judgement on whether you think it gives value for money and decide whether or not to buy it. You don't make that judgement based on the scheduling, the budget, the project length, the size of the team or any other irrelevant piece of information. "- surely the DLC isn't that costly to actually make? I don't have a clue about the reality, but I'd have imagined most of the money goes on creating the basic engines and code of the game, which DLC rarely if ever changes, and the tools for creating the art and resources and so on. Most DLC is simply another car or map or gun or game mode or the like, something all the tools are in place for and which is surely little more than a drop in the ocean." I imagine the DLC for any given game is cheaper than making the main game. It also sells in lower numbers for a smaller fee. None of which really matters. The very pertinent point is that in the case of large scale DLC content, if there wasn't a source of revenue from it, it would not have got the greenlight to be made in the first place. But once again, you look at the content. If it's just a new gun for a fiver, you don't buy it. It's a rip off, and whether it was made alongside or after the main game remains irrelevant. - the promise of free DLC is an incentive for fencesitters to buy the game (One reason I bought WipEout Pure was the DLC, which was all free). That would just be an entirely alternative budgeting strategy. Some companies use loss leaders, others don't. Does the fact that Sony make a loss on the PS3 while Nintendo make a profit on the Wii mean that Nintendo are stealing off you? |
Comments: 1-23 of 23 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
