Mark Rubin spoke with the Official PlayStation Magazine where he talked about Call of Duty: Ghosts. Rubin said that the next-gen consoles are giving them the tech they need to add some really cool features, however they can’t change too much about Call of Duty.

“Part of that is going to be a ‘wait and see’ obviously, I think. To be honest the first launch of next gen titles is sort of like that awkward first date you know it’s sort of not really sure where it is going to go. So you know, as a company in general, we don’t want to jump onto the tech bandwagon too early. We’re a little bit more conservative with that kind of thing. There is some cool new tech, but some of it we can’t talk about because we are not talking multiplayer yet”.

Rubin also said that some of the ideas and features they are working on won’t be able to part of Ghosts.

Rubin admits, “some of it we are looking at and might include in this version of the game, we may hold off on it until it has matured more for future titles”. Of the series in general he also added “I don’t think we have been hindered by tech”.

Mark Rubin compared Call of Duty to a sport, saying that you can’t change the rules of sport or the entire game will change. That’s the same for Call of Duty. You can’t change the basic feel of Call of Duty.

“You can’t change the rules too much, you have to sort of live within the boundaries that you created for yourself,” he explains. “Other games can do that. They can do and go try out other new features and that’s totally cool because as a gamer I like to play a lot of games. So I’ll go out and play that open-ended open-world type game and I love it.” For COD, in the time being, Rubin says, “I think we sort of stay with what we have perfected – that sort of cinematic immersive experience. We are going to stick with that.”

SOURCE: PlayStation Magazine

  • Fozzie Bear

    Love it or hate it I think he’s right.

    • Alex | FamousIsLIVE

      Of course he is. People just think this means that Ghosts will be exactly like MW3, which isn’t what he’s saying. He’s saying they will keep adding great new features like they have, but they aren’t going to change the game to a battlefield type shooter.

  • Teh-OuZei

    atleast DICE has some balls to make risks

    • DanDustEmOff

      What risks have Dice taken lately?

    • Henry Gibbons

      At least CoD isn’t boring.

    • Scotty Le

      I know that U.S Marines right now only have the AH-1Z Cobra/Viper as their main Attack Helicopter, but why would it be so hard just to change it to U.S Army where they got the AH-64D Apache Longbow? The Excuses for reusing Models.

    • Keshav Bhat

      DICE has some balls, then the game fails.

  • TheD3thDealer

    So they are basically confirming that MP is going to be the same as all the other CoDs, just with a lean function, character customization, and some dynamic maps… hmmm, not what I was hoping for.

    • Siftblade of Rivia

      What exactly were you hoping for. What new features? COD is a genre of shooter. It’s an arcade shooter. It has quick scoping, drop shotting, fast paced action, and everything. Battlefield is another genre. It’s realistic. Sniping in battlefield needs you to calculate gravity and bullet time. What do you want? No lag? Well sorry, but every online game has lag. COD has lag, Minecraft has lag, Battlefield has lag, Halo has lag. Everything has lag. They obviously can’t change much within the game, because if someone says “Hey, you hear about the new COD” You think about fast paced gameplay, quick scoping, etc.” In fact, many people will hate it if Treyarch said “Hey guys, so BO3 will be in the year 4023, there will be hoverboards, jetpacks, and alien guns.” That’s more halo-ish. They’d also hate it if quick scoping and stuff were takin out. Hell, people sent Vondehaar death threats for making the DSr shoot .2 seconds slower. COD is COD, it’s never going to change. It will have improvements and additions, but the core gameplay will always remain.

      • Fozzie Bear

        Well said, anti hero.

        • Siftblade of Rivia

          Thank you, muppet.

          • Fozzie Bear

            Wakka Wakkaaa

      • iWoundPwn

        Not bashing on you or anything but Battlefield is not realistic nothing is realistic about it maybe some of the destruction but Battlefield is an arcade shooter, Arma is realistic.

        • PuddingAuxRais1ns

          BF is more psuedo-realistic. ARMA makes BF look like an arcade shooter.

        • zachammo

          you just said nothing is realistic then u said arma is dafuq????

        • Siftblade of Rivia

          COD makes Battlefield look realistic. Arma makes Battlefield look arcade. In the end, it’s just a game. It could never be too close to real life or else it would be extremely boring. Imagine laying down in the woods for days, peeing yourself and everything. Then, you snipe one guy, and try to get out without being noticed. That’s how real snipers work. IMO, Battlefield is realistic enough.

  • Sohail

    So bf4 fanboys on a cod site wtf


      i think there pissed off that the new bf4 mp video on ultra settings looks dull

      • Antal120

        it’s a pre-alpha version. Don’t you know what it means?

        • PHAT PETE

          talking about the video that went live today

          • kirby_

            I’m not a BF player, but I’m going to be completely honest and fair and say that the game in that clip doesn’t look anywhere complete.

          • Alex | FamousIsLIVE

            Don’t say that around any BF fans. You aren’t allowed to have an opinion around them.

          • Antal120

            This video from Pixel Enemy isn’t a good example and in relation with these textures, take a look to the fourth paragraph if you need an evidence, you will find the answer there.

    • Antal120

      I like both games so what’s your problem?

  • Baldmanz_RAGE

    Unfortunately nothing is going to change at a core level until one of the companies for activision decides to create a new engine. I’m not a Battlefield fanboy but one thing they have going for them is they evolved their engine over the last couple of games and I can’t wait for B4(which I never thought I would say). Personally BO2 has probably ruined me for IW COD’s. The skill gap has been wided by 3arch and IW. IW creates games for noobs who are not very good and like the easiness of the gameplay. People who hate on BO2 are people that are not good at it and thats all. Stop all the crap about “it takes too many bullets to kill someone” or “the lag is bullshit”. Let me tell you lag has been in every COD since COD4. Ghost is going to be a joke but I hope I’m wrong.

    • Roxas3510

      I’m good at BO2 but I don’t like it. I don’t know about too many bullets to kill, but the lag compensation in that game sucks. The spawns are also unorganized, just like in MW3. Not as bad, but not all that good. All I want from IW and Treyarch is a CoD game that plays the same iconic way it always has, but with organized spawns, fine tuned lag compensation, and spot on hit detection.

      I know a lot of people hate MW2, and I’m probably going to get a lot of negative replies for it, but from a technical standpoint, MW2 was the best. Lag compensation was great in that game. I didn’t even know what that was at the time because I never noticed any problems mainly caused by lag. Hit detection was also great. As soon as I my gun fires I’m getting hitmarks. I can’t tell you how many times I shoot right at people on BO2 and my shots don’t register until about the 3rd shot, which by then I get quick scoped.

  • PuddingAuxRais1ns

    Hopefully they bring back what was good from the past CoD’s(pick 10, high ttk, MW2/BO1 style maps, scorestreaks, etc) and keep stuff out that was bad(deathstreaks, unbalanced weapons, hunter killer, etc).

    • Camo

      pick 10, you got to be joking me.. a normal cod player cant even create their own classic classes anymore because they dont have enough points, pick 12 please

      • James K

        What do mean?

        Primary+ attachment=2
        Secondary+ attachment =2
        Two tactical= 2
        One Lethal= 1
        Three perks = 3

        For a traditional class, the price is a grand total of of ten points.

      • Ren

        I don’t feel like I beleive you played past CoDs…

  • Abhishek Jain

    get ready for shittest cod ever

    • Keshav Bhat

      Can I ask: how do you know it’s going to suck when you don’t even know the features of MP?

      • Abhishek Jain

        does it matter if the info is released on features or not..see the graphics it looks so flat…and Fish AI really? who are they trying to fool


    I love the way everyone is judging the mp with hardly any info on it.

  • bob

    for the people that are bitching about call of duty being the same thing over and over again, take a look at counter strike. they havent change almost nothing but no one complains about it because that is its style. same like cod. it has its own style. battlefield has its own style. every game has its own style.

  • Thoughtful Discourse

    For all the people that complain that COD is the same game every year I’d like to see what they suggest for changes that still keeps the core gameplay intact. COD is about fast paced gun on gun gameplay. When I want destructible environments I play BF3. If I want futuristic weapons I’d play halo. If I want 3rd person combat I’d play GOW multiplayer.

    The only problem is see is the jump between MW3 and BO2 is so huge in BO2 favor I have no idea what IW is going to do with ghosts. Something as small as removing the pick 10 system means it would be already worse than BO2 in my opinion.

    • xx420xx

      >worse than bo2
      good luck fkin doin that lmao

    • Elektrobanq

      How about more gun customization options, such as multiple barrel and stock options? How about different gametypes that slow down gameplay and focus more on teamwork? How about creating some larger maps that give us relief from in-your-face combat that takes place every second of the game? How about doing away with highly overpowered LMG’s and shotguns completely and focusing on guns that actually require a significant amount of skill to use? How about using a different style of graphics that gives players the impression that they are not simply playing an expansion pack of a previous COD (Infinity Ward games, in my opinion, definitely need to explore this option).

      All of those suggestions above are compatible with the core gameplay that COD is known for. (My suggestions that would slow down the gameplay would still allow for other maps and gametypes that allow for a fast pace and constant action.) Also, why not have one COD game, just ONE, that completely went outside of the COD norm? Really, what does COD have to lose? They would only gain the respect of the gaming community who have been waiting for some innovation and give diehard COD fans something new to try and hopefully eventually love.

      • Thoughtful Discourse

        Well if you would allow me I’d like to respond to your comment. The suggestions that you talked about, what you were basically describing was battlefield. “different game types that slow down gameplay and focus on teamwork” That is actually a description of battlefield multiplayer. I never play battlefield by myself, its the game I play with my friends were we can get into a squad and work together as a team. When I play COD even with friends, I know going in I’m just going to get kills and have fun.

        Personally I don’t think COD is short on gun customization but I personally don’t want options for the sake of being options. If they introduced different barrels or stocks they need to serve a purpose beyond ascetics. Also saying certain guns are OP is a highly subjective topic. Personally I don’t think LMG’s are OP due to the slow ADS time and most of the shotguns are widely inconsistent and often underused in my opinion. Personally I’d like to see better shotguns in the next game or return them to secondary weapons. I think your comment about the visuals is accurate and IW can defiantly expand their color palate to make a better visual game.

        At the end of the day though COD since COD4 has been about fast paced gun on gun gameplay. You can expand somewhat on that core but if you go too far then you lose touch with the foundation of your game. Speaking to your point about going outside the norm COD is a brand, we buy it knowing the brand and expecting iteration but not something new. If I bought ghosts and it was a large map, slow paced, teamwork based game, I’m returning it because I just got battlefield with a COD name on the box. What I believe you are describing is if the NBA decided that they are going to move to trampoline floors, or if the NFL decided to remove tackling completely from the game. Now all you’ve done is hurt your core product b/c while some people might enjoy those changes the majority of people are coming to that brand b/c they know what to expect as it has been largely the same overtime. Iteration is fine but once you change the core gameplay then its not COD anymore.

        • Elektrobanq

          I understand your point about adding features that would essentially turn COD into BF4 or another FPS. And I think it is a good point. But adding slower gametypes that require more teamwork while keeping core gametypes like TDM, S&D, CTF, Demo, etc. That way you will please both those who wish to stick to traditional COD as well as those who want to try something different. Incorporating both would not be analogous to adding trampolines.

          In regard to gun customization, I agree with you that different parts ought to affect the functionality of the gun rather than just being cosmetic. I suppose COD would become too much like BF or Ghost Recon if all these options were added, but I think that it would add to the longevity of the game. Just imagine taking 5 or more prestiges to unlock everything for one gun, as well as all of the different possible gun configurations. Plus Infinity Ward or Treyarch could put their own spin on these additional gun options in order to separate themselves from other FPSs.

          Now that we have been discussing these issues, I think that visual overhaul is the thing most needed for new CODs. I applaud Treyarch for giving a unique look to BO1 and BO2, but IW is terrible on that front. If I’m going to get a new COD game, I want to have a new experience, and visuals is probably the most important element in the novelty of an experience. You don’t even need to make things ultra realistic for it to work.

    • PuddingAuxRais1ns

      I agree. I have a feeling that Ghosts is simply going to be a next-gen MW3. Treyarch does alot to bring some new things to CoD. For example, i never looked at BO2 as a carbon copy of BO1 for obvious reasons. Look at BO1 and BO2 and tell me if there the same game. MW3 was mostly a carbon copy of MW2 with a handful of new ideas with poor execution. Remove strike packages and pointstreaks and you essentially have MW2 with new guns, worse maps, and slightly improved graphics. If IW removes or doesn’t improve upon what Treyarch did with BO2 that made it great than Ghosts is going down shit lake without a paddle.

      • Jarhead

        If only the original IW did not left, MW3 would be completely different.

  • coolwhhhip

    Lmao that people are still struggling with this… Cod is a certain type of game, it will stay that certain type of game and a new version will come out every year with some updated features. Very similar to madden. That’s what I want as a fan. I can flip over to Battlefield when I want a different experience, but if cod were to change out of their basic framework they would lose me and a bunch more. Cheers to the devs for sticking to the formula. Now get lost, miserable pricks. 🙂

    • DanDustEmOff

      Totally agree servers would be nice tho.

  • lMattW

    Battlefield limits frame rates on current gen consoles which means they are in essence delivering two different versions of the game, one for PC and next gen consoles, and one for current gen consoles.

    Call of Duty on the other hand has set themselves to deliver 60fps on current gen consoles which means they can’t add a bunch of new stuff to the current gen version of the game, and if they added it only to PC and next gen games there would be some serious backlash. By delivering a higher quality experience on current gen consoles they’ve limited what they can do on a cross-generation release.

  • Cesar

    I love the talk about new engines = new game STFU XD

  • Cesar

    Frostbite is not a new fucking engine… Devs call their engines new once they have made a significant amount of upgrades…. Frostbite 3 is just what Frostbite 1 shouldve been the destruction in BF games is extremely underwhelming. Anyone played Red Faction 2 on PS2…. Frostbite is nowhere near on that level. Destruction on the older BFs is a sick joke linear as fuck.

    • Frosbite 3 can let play 64 man 32 vs 32

      • DanDustEmOff

        That is more to do with the servers than the game engine.

    • DanDustEmOff

      Also Frostbite 1 is just an upgraded version of Refractor engine.

    • PuddingAuxRais1ns

      What does this have to do with the article? Atleast frostbite is more functional than the IW engine. I hate it when my ROF on my weapons is tied to my frame rate and how the heads of other players are ahead of their actual bodys. From my experience, Frostbite never had those dumbass issues associated with that ridiculously outdated engine that CoD unfortunately uses. Hopefully the issues that i mentioned and plenty more will be fixed when Ghosts comes out.

      • Alejandro Sepúlveda

        I play BF3 on PS3 and is VERY buggy… and the textures a very poor.

        whenever i see a gameplay of CoD mw3, or Bo2 i can immeadiately tell you which gun it is, mostly because IW/3arch cares about the bond that you might create with a weapon.

        When i play BF3 it is difficult to tell the difference with so many guns and so many different ustmization options. which looks REALLY similar.

        • PuddingAuxRais1ns

          CoD was always better than BF3 on 360/PS3 mainly due to frame rate. Next gen is going to change that. The last two paragraphs in your comment made no sense. Both BF3 and CoD have distinguishable weapon models and both games always recycle the same reload animations on most guns.

  • asdf


  • Kurama The Nine-Tailed Fox

    Can’t wait for BO3. Bet Treyarch is already working on it,

  • Nick Ricciardi

    very true

  • Jerry D’Erasmo

    I don’t want them to change. I want them to correct the wrongs of previous games, don’t make the same mistakes every year and listen to the people who buy the game…

    • Siftblade of Rivia

      That’s the only thing they should do. Fix things, add things and improve things. BO2: Patch glitches, check. Removed last stand, check. New maps, check. New guns, check. Better create-a-class system, check. Better score streaks system, check. Fixed, added, and improved. That’s all we should expect from Ghosts, and that’s all I want.

  • Osc

    I play battlefield, it gets boring after a phew hours, but I can play cod all night, its just a game, that is fun, I’m not saying battlefield, medal of honor, halo, etc.. are not fun, but there’s something about COD, that I love, Idk what, but I think they can change it a tiny bit, but I don’t want them to change the hole genre of COD. Its like a band, you don’t want a death metal band going from Death metal to, rap and dub-step, thats like with COD, if they go from COD to I dunno, slow pasted games, and MASSIVE maps, it would just lose the fans of COD. hope this makes people just understand a bit more

  • Bigi345

    I like COD over BF because it’s Fast Paced action. That’s exactly the core of COD i’m glad they didn’t change it

  • Roxas3510

    I don’t want them to change anything, I just want them to fix stuff. The spawn system has been getting worse every year, they definitely need to fix that. Lag compensation, hit detection, etc. All these things Infinity Ward had perfect with CoD4 and MW2. Those were my two most favorite Call of Duty games ever. Then MW3 came and everything just fell apart. I’m sure it’s mostly because of the high number of employees that left the company, so I’m not going to give them too much crap, but it’s been a while since that happened and they should be getting back on their feet sooner than later. I’m hoping this CoD will be a good one, but I’m not going to get my hopes up. Did that with MW3 and BO2 and was disappointed. Not TOO much with BO2, but MW3 was an utter disaster IMO.

    This is all my opinion by the way, you may feel differently about the topic, no need to start arguments.

    • BobtheCactus

      Alright, everyone seems to think the spawn system is bad. I think that the real issue is that the maps are getting more cramped game after game. This keeps game play speed high, but gets tricky with the spawns. It is fairly easy now to have a player watching every spawn point, even accidentally. So its a choice between spawning someone by one enemy, or three.

      • Roxas3510

        Yeah the maps have to do with it as well. The thing is, on maps like Turbine, I still find myself spawning near enemies or 2-3 enemies spawning on our side of the map while the rest of the team spawns on the other side, causing confusion. The flow of the maps are all screwed up because of not only the map size but the way the spawns work.

        • Keshav Bhat

          Spawn system is a very tricky thing to perfect completely. Yeah it was bad in MW3. It was awful in BO2, but they’ve improved it a lot recently and it’s getting better.

          • Roxas3510

            Hopefully it’s good in Ghosts. I thought it was fine in BO1 and the CoDs before. Bad spawns are one of the more frustrating things for me in BO2. I’m not expecting them to perfect it, but if it works well, I’ll be happy.

    • Jarhead

      It’s not the spawn, it’s the map itself. The map is getting smaller and smaller because people keep on complaining about the size of the map. The spawn system is going haywire during the game because people are everywhere.

      • Roxas3510

        The smaller maps make matters worse but the spawns really are messed up. A map like turbine which is much bigger than the other maps still has spawn problems. You’re right though, even if the spawn system was flawless, the small maps would still ruin the flow of the match. I wonder if Ghosts will continue this small map pattern; I’d assume they will.

  • CrazyBullet

    I would be happy if they made a COD with the guns from MW2 along with fan-favorites from other games. Fan-favorite maps with the interactive enviroment IW is talking about, and features like the new mantle and lean, & BO2/ Ghosts graphics. They should keep BO2 pick 10 except higher the num to 13.

  • Blaine

    So basically there are some awesome things they COULD do with next-gen tech, but aren’t going to do so because:

    1. They want to be lazy and do the minimum for each game, as long as they max out console tech by their 3rd COD game of X1/PS4.


    2. They already have the features ready to go but are withholding them from us so that they can tack them onto their next game and make it look like they “worked hard” to “improve” the game while they don’t really have to do anything at all.

    And IW is so out of touch with the community it’s not even funny. Treyarch isnt my favorite dev in the world but I at least admit they took some risk with BO2 and made the biggest changes to COD since COD4. Saying that making big changes to COD would drive away their fanbase proves just how out of touch they are, because if they had any idea what gamers say and think about COD (and it’s not exactly difficult to find out what the common opinion of COD is) they would realize that they are losing fans because of THEIR REFUSAL TO MAKE CHANGES.

    I understand DICE took barely any risk with BF4 and I’m not happy with them either. But I respect any developer that is willing to adventure into new territory. I am so tired of how stagnant and “safe” developers are being these days.

    • Renozoki

      Or, maybe since they are doing Ghosts for both current and next gen systems since you know, CoD is a huge fucking game with shit tons of fans, they can’t implement tech that would make one version of the game completely outdated? And please tell me, why should CoD be the one taking risks? Do you realize that they are actually selling more and more every year or do you still think they are losing fans because of the vocal internet minority bitching about the games? CoD has struck fucking gold with their formula, they could skip marketing all together and sell more copies of the game then just about every other game on the market and you’re saying they should completely change up that formula? Changes in the time period, refinements to the gameplay, and new features are exactly what they should, and are doing. But no, they should totally shake up CoD at its core and stop making billions of dollars as well as lose a huge percentage of their fans right?

    • kirby_

      Treyarch didn’t take that much of a risk. All they did was change around the CaC system. The worst thing with that change was the initial feeling of it being complicated, which in the end it turned out to be really simple. There was no real risk.

      IW’s potential high risk comes from the fact that with all of this now up-to-date technology, they can do so much more to the series but would rather it come gradually instead of throwing it all at us and potentially changing the series away from what makes it Call of Duty.

      And in the future, they will slowly work this new technology into the series while keeping CoD what it always has been.

      I don’t know why you people always feel the need to bash the developers. So they’ve made some mistakes in the past and the games they make are no longer revolutionary. What’s the problem? As long as their fans are having constant fun with their games, that is all that should matter.

      There’s no point in calling them lazy or whatever else unless it’s actually deserving. For example, Treyarch made the decision to have host all of the dedicated servers on BO1 for PC. TERRIBLE fucking decision, literally one of the worst things they could have done. Guess what, though? That’s in the past and I understand they made a mistake and I don’t hate on them for it.

      I’m not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp for a lot of people.

  • iWoundPwn

    People are judging this game, before they haven’t seen any actual gameplay of Multiplayer or any real singleplayer gameplay. They know they’re still going to buy it, and love it. I myself hated on black ops 2 but I still got it and I still love it besides the netcode it’s a great game, and ghosts will be too! Always preferred Infinity Ward over Treyarch seems to make there games too kiddy.

  • Condemnthq

    Everyone’s going to have their opinions about call of duty, and how the company expands and improves the franchise. I have been playing since 2007 and I have seen nothing but improvements. The main problem is there not focused on the community. Community is call of duty, I believe that when they come out with something new their thinking for the community and not asking them. They have to reach out to individual players (by random selection) and ask them on how they think they can improve the game. By holding a invite only press conference, directed to famous call of duty players.. They get nowhere. The players will agree with them for benefits. If IW can make the leap between MW3 to know and release a fantastic game.. I support them 100%

  • Condemnthq

    If activision created a forum, where millions of players could just jot down their ideas and activision actually read them and took them into account, I believe we would see a greaty improved call of duty each year.

  • MeisseN

    Look at picture.. wait it’s not Ghosts it’s HOSTS….. Damn still no dedi servers?!!?

    Just kidding. Relax people. 114 comments, what are these all about!