Interview with John Johnson, Producer, Company of Heroes
Before I travelled to E3 2005, I was able to send off these questions prior to heading out. Lucky for me, I didn’t get them until AFTER I got home.
I’d like to thank John Johnson for taking the time to answer these questions.
Without further adieu…
RelicNews - As far as we can tell from the released information, the single player story revolves around an American Company in action against the Germans during the Normandy campaign. Obviously this would imply heavy focus on American engagements with German forces. The question remains… will we get to see other nationalities in action against the Germans, such as Free French, British, Polish or the mighty and fearsome Canadians? Will we have a chance to play as those other units either in Skirmish, Multiplayer or single player?
John Johnson - We’re not talking much at all about the Single Player campaign at this time but you will see other nationalities in the Campaign.
RN - The trailer mentions that you follow the company that helped changed the world through the game. Are you able to reveal “The Company” at this point? If you are not ready to go there, can you clarify if the unit is a Leg or Airborne unit?
JJ - Well without giving too much away, the company that you play is “Able Company”. We’re revolving the campaign around events based on history but the story and missions are somewhat fictitious.
RN - Will we get to see Relic’s take on the D-day beach landings and the parachute drops of the night prior to the beach landings? Will we be controlling those portions of the action, or merely observing?
JJ - So many questions on single player already! The single player game will be very immersive, and more cinematic in nature than all our previous products. That’s about all we’ll say for Single Player at this time.
RN - Will we get to see or employ special use units in the game? Le Resistance? SAS? Rangers? Aircraft? Artillery?
JJ - Yes :-)
RN - It looks like you can pretty well blow up everything in the game. How does Relic intend to use this as a gameplay element?
JJ - This is one of features we feel will really revolutionize and breath new life into the RTS space. Up to now, we’ve all been playing RTS games on static (lifeless) maps. By adding fully destroyable, interactive environments we’ve changed the lifeless battlefield into something dynamic, which adds a whole new level of strategy to game. Imagine a chessboard where now the board comes into play, and can be used and manipulated throughout the game. We’re using Havok 3.0 for Company of Heroes, and the end result is an environment that is totally physics driven. Some examples would be units diving for cover along a road, when they come under fire, using craters that may have been left from an artillery attack that just happened. Units using buildings effectively shooting from not only the windows, but newly formed holes in the walls. The soldier AI understands the environment and all the objects that are in it, and applies this to the soldier when they are ordered to do something. You’ll never see your soldier standing in the middle of a road, waiting for you to tell him to move 5 feet over and use that object/crater to take cover.
RN - Obviously some elements of reality have to be sacrificed in order to make a game about the military not mind-numbingly boring. Which specific realistic or historically accurate elements have you avoided turning into gameplay elements in order to make this a “game” and not a World War 2 training simulator?
JJ - As we like to say in the office, this game is not about how many rivets a Panzer IV or Sherman has. We’re historical in nature, or “Authentic” but not “realistic”. We love WWII as a background because it’s so easy for people to identify with, and understand. People inherently know that a Tiger tank is pretty bad ass, and a group of riflemen don’t really stand any kind of chance against one unless they have an anti-tank section backing them up. This is true in the game. Do we model the details right down to whether or not the slope on the front of the Sherman is 100% accurate, or whether or not a Sherman can actually do damage to a tiger tank, No. We’re balancing the game out to be FUN first, authentic second; realism doesn’t really come into play. Example, Battlefield 1942 is authentic but definitely not realistic but it sure is a fun game. People want something authentic that they can understand, but we don’t believe they are after complete and total realism. A group of riflemen not being able to take out a tank, in our minds is more a case of general understanding of units (authentic), but whether or not a bazooka round could ever take out a tiger tank is “realistic” and we’re not going to put that above FUN or balance. (It will or will not based on Fun and balance.)
RN - Bonus question, and without resorting to Google or other search engines, can you tell me the Origin of the Word “Jeep”?
JJ - Well, now you just got my curiosity going. I’ve just checked one site that says it could stand for slurring the word GP together, but that was from one site, and without a lot of reference I’m going to have to say “No”.
Thanks JJ! One day we’ll get some answers out of you about the single player!