We spoke with industry veteran Robert Bowling about Infinity Ward, Call of Duty and No Russian.
Robert Bowling joined Infinity Ward in 2006 as community manager and later became creative strategist for Call of Duty. For six years he was the public face of the studio, through Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3. We asked him about the move away from World War II, «No Russian» and what he learned along the way.
How did you end up with Infinity Ward in the first place?
I was in the US Army Infantry and had unexpectedly separated early in my military career, so I went back to what I did before the Army, which was running a punk record label. At the time, we had launched a music magazine called Substream Music Press with a fellow local record label owner. It was going well, but I was spending all day modding Half-Life and playing video games.
At the time some friends I met through modding had just made the first Call of Duty. We got to talking and they suggested I come do what I do with them, but the problem was I didn’t know what I did. I was a hobbyist, just modding for fun. So I flew out to Infinity Ward, which set up shop in Encino, California, and met literally the entire team. At the time there were only about 30 guys, up from the original 23 or so that founded the studio. I think I was the 31st or 32nd team member.
I spent a lot of time sitting with each person to really determine where I fit in on this team, and we decided to figure it out as we went. Luckily I could get my bearings with the DLC for Call of Duty 2 and be on the ground floor for what would become Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.
You joined in 2006, right before CoD4 completely reinvented the series by leaving World War II behind. How big a gamble did that feel like at the time, and were you nervous about how players would react?
I was all in on going Modern Warfare and felt like this was a chance to expand beyond the historical shooter label that we were known for. It was a chance to tell original stories, with an original enemy, and really get bombastic with the action.
When you’re telling historical stories about real wars, real battles, that impacted real families still living today, then you have a responsibility to honor that service and that sacrifice that can somehow compete with the «fun» of video games. I loved honoring those stories, but this was a chance to tell something original that could be as intense and grand as we wanted. Like fighting through the White House and US Capitol and surprising twist endings in the single player campaign.
Looking back, what do you think it was about CoD4’s multiplayer, the XP, unlocks and killstreaks, that made it so influential? Did the team have any sense at the time of how much it would shape the whole genre?
I think the secret sauce was introducing RPG elements deeply into the systems of a military shooter. We kept the core of what makes PvP shooters compelling, but interwoven in that fabric were deep stat systems influenced by Perks. This really let people tailor a playstyle that led to some emergent meta gameplay that really formed a community.
At the time, we also leaned in heavy on non-competitive play (despite it leading to the eventual creation of CoD esports). We weren’t focused heavily on balance, and instead really embraced the fun. We’d often say, if everything’s unbalanced, then nothing is. It was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek expression, but in a lot of ways we really celebrated things that would make us laugh when playing.
I developed a personal gauge during the development of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to determine if what I’m working on will resonate with players, and it’s super simple: if I work on a game all day, from 10am to 10pm, and then go home and take the dev kit with me, just so I can play it for fun more at home, then I know it’s something great.
That was me, every night when developing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I’d work on it all day with the team, and then I’d go home and play all night. Constantly pushing for iterations, tweaks, and polish wherever I could. It was a lifestyle and I just accepted that if I like it this much, then others will gravitate towards it as well.
MW2 was enormous, but also controversial, «No Russian» in particular. As the person facing the press and the community on it, how did you handle that?
I believe games can be anything. They can be art, they can be mindless entertainment, they can be thought-provoking, they can be emotional, they can be serious, or they can be silly. You do a disservice to gamers if you limit what a game is capable of invoking. For me No Russian was an opportunity to push those boundaries and give players a look at heavy situations while also giving them autonomy to decide how to handle a situation. The best thing about that mission is you don’t need to shoot any non-combatants.
So when I was promoting the game, I flew all around the world. I would be traveling for over a month straight, one day in Australia, then fly to Hong Kong, then to Paris, then to the Netherlands. Each time, sitting down with local press and media and playing through this mission. I was fascinated by how each region would play No Russian. I wouldn’t tell them what to do, I would just hand them the controller and observe.
Americans always shoot first. They don’t even need to be told. Australians would wait until they were told to shoot, and Europeans would hold off until they felt like they had to shoot. It was interesting to see, if you put a weapon in the player’s hand and tell them to do something awful, how many will do it.
Afterwards, they’d all have a lot of complicated feelings about what they just experienced, and then I would tell them, «You didn’t have to shoot.» You could have shot over their heads, you could have ignored the warning. You could skip that mission entirely (in the final game) and it would have no impact on your progression. Once they realized they had a choice, and they chose to follow orders despite not wanting to, it created a new perspective on the level which was a lot more introspective than it was controversial. I loved that moment and I think it teaches a lot of lessons we could all use today.
Is there a moment or decision from the CoD4 or MW2 development and launch period that you’re especially proud of, or that you’d do differently now?
I was all about the community. To me, players belong in the development process. Before my time at Infinity Ward, there was a lot of silo game development, meaning that teams would go away, secretly develop a video game in the confines of their studio and then drop a reveal on people with absolutely no knowledge of what it is, why things exist the way they do, or give the player any chance to see, play, or provide feedback.
My proudest accomplishment when developing Call of Duty was turning that on its head, opening up our studio to fans of all walks of life. Influencers didn’t exist back then, but there were online communities and forums. I’d bring in people from all around the world to play our game during development, sitting with them for hours watching them play and listening to their feedback. This really allowed me to ground the development team’s priorities and focus on what players were actually caring about and leaning in on.
To me, Call of Duty was the people’s game, far more than it was our game. I’m very proud of embracing transparency and accessibility to your fans.
Between CoD4 and MW2 there was World at War (2008), which went back to WWII and was made by Treyarch rather than Infinity Ward. From where you sat, why do you think the Modern Warfare games landed with players in a way some of the other entries didn’t? Was there something specific about the modern setting, the tone, or the IW approach?
As I touched on earlier, I believe being able to take the story outside the confines of real world conflicts really allowed people to escape into the game more than real-world events. World War II is an interesting subject because the good and bad guys are clearly defined, but that’s also the downfall. There is less room for exploration of character development and surprises. We all know how WWII ended, how it began, and every detail of every battle.
We were able to tackle themes and subjects in Modern Warfare that were more relevant to what was happening in our world at the time, and also lean more into the bombastic fun of action games without the baggage of historical accuracy.
With hindsight, what did the Modern Warfare years teach you about the relationship between developers, publishers and players, lessons you carried into what you did afterwards?
It validated that you should only make games that you would play yourself. Make games for you, and like-minded people will show up. Never trust a publisher with your money, they’ll steal it as soon as the number gets big enough to be worth the risk of stealing. And build a filter for player feedback.
Players know exactly what they want but lack the vocabulary to explain it. So listen to what every player says, and put it through the filter of «who are they, what type of experience do they prefer, and what is the core emotion they’re trying to express».
For example, an esports player always wants the game more competitive, but the casual player wants it less competitive. Both are your players, which one do you listen to? The designer without a filter will always be trying to please both equally, but that’s impossible. You have to have your own distinct personality and filter for the experience you’re trying to make. So listen, honor the emotion of their request, but don’t let them be prescriptive on the solution. That’s your job as the designer.
Finally: when people look back on CoD4 and MW2 in twenty years, what do you hope they remember them for?
I hope all they think about is their best friend at the time, the buddy who was always down to play one more round, even though both of you were tired. The friends who would make up custom game rules like «knives only» or «infection» and would play for hours. It’s all about the moments you had with friends while playing it, not the games themselves.
Thanks to Robert Bowling for taking the time to answer our questions.
While Spillhistorie.no is a Norwegian website, we have a number of interviews and other features in English. Please check them out!