Developer: The Call Of Duty Engine is a "Porsche"

[Jegsimmons]

Regarding your last statement, that was the entire point. It's a BETA running on 6 week code that was used prior. Let me repeat that again, it's a BETA, NOT a demo, a BETA that was running on 6 week old code. I think I might have just gotten through...

No, it was a demo seeing how the game came out in less than a month. The game was on a pressed disk before the Beta came out.

You don't take a six week old build of a game that you've pretty much already fixed and call it a "Beta". That defeats the purpose of what a beta is. That was a demo, no matter what they wanted you to believe

no it was called A BETA, therefore ITS A BETA!!!! coder and programmers only need a month to tweak games before release.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Eh, I can't help but be incredibly critical of this game, not because I hate it, I mean, I prefer battlefield, but I do like CoD.

This game is supposed to be the best of the best, It's supposed to slay giants on release day to compete with some of the biggest selling games of the year. It's supposed to be design perfection, and professionally polished to the highest of the industry standard.

Using an old engine isn't the sort of polish that the series needs, it needs to be seriously invested into becoming the fastest selling game ever. It needs to supersede in every area, and I'm sure that the game won't do that actually, and on top of the old engine, it definitely won't do that.

Sorry CoD, but bad move. Nothing less than greatness will be expected, and you probably won't get that.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Regarding your last statement, that was the entire point. It's a BETA running on 6 week code that was used prior. Let me repeat that again, it's a BETA, NOT a demo, a BETA that was running on 6 week old code. I think I might have just gotten through...

No, it was a demo seeing how the game came out in less than a month. The game was on a pressed disk before the Beta came out.

You don't take a six week old build of a game that you've pretty much already fixed and call it a "Beta". That defeats the purpose of what a beta is. That was a demo, no matter what they wanted you to believe

no it was called A BETA, therefore ITS A BETA!!!! coder and programmers only need a month to tweak games before release.

Ohhh, I see. Because the company that wants me to buy their game tells me something, it has to be true. Gotcha.

Taking your backwards logic on it, sure they need a month to tweak the game. Then why did the release the beta on the 29th and the game is available on the 25th of October?

Doesn't sound like a month to me.

Look up what the point of a Beta is an tell me the logic of releasing a buggy 6 week old build of it.

 

[Buizel91]

Time for a bunch of morons to come on and hate CoD because it's CoD.

Let me fix that for you.

Time for a bunch of reasonable people to come on and hate CoD because it's bland, boring, un-innovative, contains unlikeable characters, has terrible AI by today's standards, looks the same as all the previous games, and is ran by the only game developers more evil than EA who actually TRY to make a good game with exception to sports titles.

There you go. All better.

Stop bashing the people who like the game, just because you hate it, does not mean that everyone else has to hate it as well.

 

[Lawlhat]

While there are problems running with old technology, the man does have a point. I have NEVER had trouble with any Call of Duty games as far as the engine is concerned. That and it always runs smooth as butter on my PC.

That said, it wouldn't hurt to bring a new engine in at some point, now would it? I guess that would set back their yearly release cycle, though.

Though hey, as far as all the hate goes, I take my stance from Dirty Harry. "Opinions are like assholes; everbody has one."

 

[Buizel91]

While there are problems running with old technology, the man does have a point. I have NEVER had trouble with any Call of Duty games as far as the engine is concerned. That and it always runs smooth as butter on my PC.

Agreed, it's mainly the dicks that play it that i am fed up with. And the stupidly overpowered weapons/equipments/perks that completely brake the games multiplayer.

Other than them, the games are top notch.

 

[Dango]

Like most of the people commenting here I have little to no knowledge of the COD engine and what's been put into it, so all I've got to say is he did a good job standing up for what he's worked on.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Regarding your last statement, that was the entire point. It's a BETA running on 6 week code that was used prior. Let me repeat that again, it's a BETA, NOT a demo, a BETA that was running on 6 week old code. I think I might have just gotten through...

No, it was a demo seeing how the game came out in less than a month. The game was on a pressed disk before the Beta came out.

You don't take a six week old build of a game that you've pretty much already fixed and call it a "Beta". That defeats the purpose of what a beta is. That was a demo, no matter what they wanted you to believe

no it was called A BETA, therefore ITS A BETA!!!! coder and programmers only need a month to tweak games before release.

Sorry bro the BF3 beta was fugly and choppy as hell. I was all pumped up to try it, too - imagine my surprise when, after all that hype about the new Frostbite engine, aside from a few neat shadow and lighting effects it looked absolutely no better than Blops.

Was fun, though. Might pick it up when it comes down in price, if people are still playing it.

 

[The Wooster]

See, the problem is, you can claim that your new game is so different from your old one. But if everyone else has "no idea" and can't see anything but minor changes, that means you probably didn't.

The old engine is not the problem. The Source engine came out in 2006, I think. But Valve and the other developers who've bought it have made a ton of different games from it, from FPS's to dungeon crawler MMO's.

2004 as I recall. With Vampire: Bloodlines being the first official source engine release.

 

[Ashsaver]

To me,I think Call of Duty is more like a Toyota pickup truck,you can add a bunch of addons on it,sure it looks a bit better and you can do more with it,but it's still the same Toyota.

BTW,I love Toyota =3

 

[stefman]

Now I'm not going to claim to be an expert in the field of graphics design and I try to be as unbiased as possible but even if they are using a retooled engine it still has a fair amount of graphical similarities to the previous games in the series and (in my opinion) in today's gaming market when you have engines like Cry Engine 3 and Frostbite 2, and what they can do with those engines it maybe time to start thinking about replacing that engine with something new. I can see how people who work at these companies might be a little upset that people are claiming its the same as before but unfortunately that is the way it is, with graphic engines being changed and updated so fast if its behind...its behind. This engine I think is starting to show its age a little and maybe needs to have a nice "retirement" hell I don't think it will hurt for money or anything (yes that was lame, trying to lighten the mood)

exactly. case and point is rainbow six vegas 2. game looks like crap but it's a ton of fun to play.

Didn't think the graphics were THAT bad on Vegas 2, not perfect but not crap

ok, ok i played it up a little bit i suppose, but the game is definitely average at best in the graphics department, yet it's still great. My personal opinion on the subject is even if a game looks the same as the previous in the series, as long as the gameplay is fun and i still enjoy it, I don't really care.

 

[Slayer_2]

Funny, I hate Porche cars, and I'm not a huge fan of MW anymore, either. Almost every other Euro car is great, in my opinion, but he picks the one I dislike most.

 

[DarkRyter]

I actually gotta give them this one.

The fact that I got MW1 to look as good as it did on my ancient behemoth of a rig is just fuckin nuts.

 

[Fai57]

See, the problem is, you can claim that your new game is so different from your old one. But if everyone else has "no idea" and can't see anything but minor changes, that means you probably didn't.

The old engine is not the problem. The Source engine came out in 2006, I think. But Valve and the other developers who've bought it have made a ton of different games from it, from FPS's to dungeon crawler MMO's.

2004 as I recall. With Vampire: Bloodlines being the first official source engine release.

Ahh, thank you.

 

[SpAc3man]

Having played through all the PC COD games I have to say that despite the engine being well used it has been very well optimised and improved on in a short space of time. There is quite a difference between COD2 and MW2. Seeing as it is the same engine its always going to look very similar and feel similar but it has been developed very well. Play the 3 IW games that use it back to back and you can tell the difference. Ignore whatever it is Treyarch have done. The BlOps engine was a big buggy, poorly optimised, step backwards.

 

[Treblaine]

Hey, I don't care how much you changed under the hood, whether it is or is not a copy/paste job... the point is is DOES LOOK LIKE a copy/paste job.

Show us how it is different, and I don't mean textures, I mean self evident with comparisons that speak for themselves.

If you want to see the differences then play the game when it comes out and you will find them.

I'm sorry, but when did you have to BUY AND PLAY A GAME, before you can tell of you should BUY AND PLAY THE GAME!

Enough with such horse-before-cart nonsense. Let me tell you something that should be obvious to you and especially to developers:

You have to INDICATE a reason to buy something before i have a REASON to buy it:

(1) Show why game should be bought
(2) buy game
(3) profit

Look he has FAILED IN HIS JOB!

His job was to make the game look good and NEW then he has failed to do that, shouting at his potential customers and telling them flat out that they are just wrong is no way to act in this business. This is a VISUAL medium, SHOW, don't tell. Activison has done a very poor job of visually distinguishing Modern Warfare 3 from MW2, and it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that.

It's frankly churlish to just say:

"play the game when it comes out and you will find them"

What if I don't want to play the game because it looks just like an expansion pack for Modern Warfare 2? I'm not paying $60 for an expansion pack! Especially when they have not DEMONSTRATED how it is visually distinct, it just feels like mostly a remix of existing used assets and stuff that was dropped from Modern-Warfare-2 (we know that large parts of MW2 were dropped for time constraints).

 

[SpAc3man]

Regarding your last statement, that was the entire point. It's a BETA running on 6 week code that was used prior. Let me repeat that again, it's a BETA, NOT a demo, a BETA that was running on 6 week old code. I think I might have just gotten through...

No, it was a demo seeing how the game came out in less than a month. The game was on a pressed disk before the Beta came out.

You don't take a six week old build of a game that you've pretty much already fixed and call it a "Beta". That defeats the purpose of what a beta is. That was a demo, no matter what they wanted you to believe

When the Beta was released to the public it was already 6 weeks old. Why not release a current up-to-date build? Because they already had the beta set up and ready to deploy. They had been using it for press demonstrations and testing with professional testers and would have been well aware of all the major engine bugs. The public beta was released for two main reasons: To test the back-end on their side of the system. They hadn't had a chance to test the network with millions of people playing at the same time and that needed to be done, any small engine bugs they hadn't noticed over the 6 weeks would have been found and will be fixed asap, possibly on a day 1 patch. The back-end fixes will be applied before the release as they won't be very big and don't require any change to the game code. The second reason is to build more hype.

TLR:
It would be a waste of their time to reassemble a second beta just for the public beta release when engine bugs aren't what they are looking for. They could be busy with the final product and back-end fixes.