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

[NickCaligo42]

Ummm...

See, I think the art director from ye olde Infinity Ward would take issue with that. I've seen a talk from the guy, and his description makes it out to be more like a formula car. It's very bare-bones, developed for a single game and a single purpose with abso-friggin'-lutely no bells, whistles, or luxuries attached to it, but damn does it ever work fast.

 

[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.

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.

betas are all ways buggy, especially if the servers are over clocked and people are not running them on good enough PCs.

 

[Jegsimmons]

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.

thats a shit ton of ninjas in there!

 

[Tommeh Brownleh]

Okay, so the analogy falls flat. We understand that, but why the hate? The reason CoD doesn't change much is because, and allow me to use caps for emphasis here: THE FORMULA GOD DAMN WORKS! No matter what you say, there is always going to be a few people who want a simple, easy to pick up military shooter. The same could be said for Battlefield! I see no innovations there? Would I still play the game if I liked the Battlefield series at all? Yes! Do you know why? Because I like me a good round of Team Deathmatch once in a while! If I think the additions and subtractions made to MW3 are worth a new game (hint: I do) then I will buy it! Simple as that!

 

[kouriichi]

Its more about the game then the engine. You could give E.T. The Extra Terrestrial the CryEngine 3, and it would still be the worst thing in the history of gaming.

Im not buying CoD. Im not buying BF3. Honestly, im not buying any multiplayer games for a while. Theres no innovations to be had.

 

[The Critic]

It's great that an engine has had such a long and impressive lifespan. Indeed, MW3 looks quite pretty; but I must ask, aside from texture graphics, have any other parts of the game engine been tweaked? I know that he mentioned some changes to the audio, which is good, but what about other areas? Physics, for example; has that been changed? What about the animations? Any other changes?

I can understand the benefits of working with an already-established engine, you already know the boundaries that you're working in, you have few bugs that haven't already been patched up, it's more cost effective, etc. But, out of curiosity, when does an engine become too old to work with? I'm just asking this out of genuine curiosity, not out of any sort of criticism, but I do want to know; What's the lifespan of a game engine? (I understand that this question is probably difficult to give a definitive answer on, but I still would like to know.)

 

[Treblaine]

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!

Way to go and change the subject. Ya the game looks similar to MW2 but thats because it uses the same engine. What he is saying is that you cant judge the game by its looks alone. It is the other things that they have been spending their time changing. The graphics on the game are just fine so if they waste time and money on them it means they have to spend less time and money on things that actually matter.

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.

Well its only perfectly reasonable to conclude that if you havnt paid attention at anything at all that they have said about the game.

What they said? A torrent of excuses and dismissive accusations aren't going to change how incredibly similar MW3 looks to Modern Warfare 2.

I am not blind, I am not short sighted, and most certainly I am not looking at this game with rose tinted glasses.

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).

I said that because if the vast amount of changes they have already talked about are not enough then the only thing left is to play the game when it comes out.

The subject very much IS graphics.

Activision is charging £40 ($60) on PC, THAT is a large amount of money for a PC game, and what am I getting for it? Something really special? Really?

TODAY Graphics ARE the issue, because MONEY is the issue. You can't say this is just about the art, or just about the gameplay, not when that amount of money is being charged with no possibility of a resale to recoup some of the costs. If Activision aren't going to put the effort in creating new art assets and REALLY making the game LOOK like an improvement... then why should I fork over the big wodge of cash that they want. And they can't pull the wool over my eyes a third time, all the DLC for Black Ops amounted to $60 and I know they will pull the same shit again here, so that's $60 plus much more to get the "full" experience.

The rule of thumbs is "Graphics = money"

Cheap indie games have low fidelity graphics or are really visually similar/derivative. Expansion packs are cheap or free, because they reuse the same assets.

COD2->COD4 was a huge difference in look, feel and graphical fidelity to spite being the same engine and same console
COD4->MW2 again, a significant difference, every single gun was re-made, everything looked different

Your "it's the same engine" argument is utter nonsense. The problem is they are using the same ASSETS! The same sets of tools and props from Modern Warfare 2... or at least they have made them so similar that it seems they might as well have.

I'll probably get MW3 when it is on sale. The gameplay DOES get me interested, it looks like MW2 but actually balanced.

But it is unacceptable to charge so much for a game with such lazy and derivative graphics.

Bottom line:
-nice gameplay improvements
-Charging too much for a glorified expansion pack.

 

[42]

why change something thats not broken? why does everyone want innovation?
what is with people always wanting more out of things that don't have a problem? everyone is obsessed with graphics and engines. thats all i ever see gamers complain about. can't we all just sit down and just enjoy the game for what it is? a GAME? ok graphics are important yeah, but it isn't the sole purpose to play games.

 

[Bravo 21]

what he is saying seems to make sense, but if the MW3 a porshce, what is BF3? a tank? a future space plane? and what does that make PC/Xbox/PS3? highways?

 

[Particulate]

Porsche? More like Wartburg 353...

*golf clap* Well played, sir, well played

 

[Waaghpowa]

....I wont even bother, but I will quote this guy.

Well, Porsche are fairly well known for making cars that look identical to the ones that came before it, so it's a pretty fair comparison I think.

Because it's SOOO true.

 

[Treblaine]

What they said? A torrent of excuses and dismissive accusations aren't going to change how incredibly similar MW3 looks to Modern Warfare 2.

I am not blind, I am not short sighted, and most certainly I am not looking at this game with rose tinted glasses.

Nobody is making any excuses here. The guy was saying dont judge a book by its cover.

The subject very much IS graphics.

Activision is charging £40 ($60) on PC, THAT is a large amount of money for a PC game, and what am I getting for it? Something really special? Really?

TODAY Graphics ARE the issue, because MONEY is the issue. You can't say this is just about the art, or just about the gameplay, not when that amount of money is being charged with no possibility of a resale to recoup some of the costs. If Activision aren't going to put the effort in creating new art assets and REALLY making the game LOOK like an improvement... then why should I fork over the big wodge of cash that they want. And they can't pull the wool over my eyes a third time, all the DLC for Black Ops amounted to $60 and I know they will pull the same shit again here, so that's $60 plus much more to get the "full" experience.

The rule of thumbs is "Graphics = money"

If you want graphics then CoD is not aimed at you. It is all about the gameplay not flashy graphics. Sure the game doesnt look like an improvement if you only stare at graphics instead of you know looking at all the changes they have made. I for one would rather they update actual gameplay then graphics and I am betting the majority of the fans of the games feel the same way.

Cheap indie games have low fidelity graphics or are really visually similar/derivative. Expansion packs are cheap or free, because they reuse the same assets.

COD2->COD4 was a huge difference in look, feel and graphical fidelity to spite being the same engine and same console
COD4->MW2 again, a significant difference, every single gun was re-made, everything looked different

Your "it's the same engine" argument is utter nonsense. The problem is they are using the same ASSETS! The same sets of tools and props from Modern Warfare 2... or at least they have made them so similar that it seems they might as well have.

I'll probably get MW3 when it is on sale. The gameplay DOES get me interested, it looks like MW2 but actually balanced.

But it is unacceptable to charge so much for a game with such lazy and derivative graphics.

Bottom line:
-nice gameplay improvements
-Charging too much for a glorified expansion pack.

I think your idea of what an expansion pack is is rather delusional. You also seem to be forgetting that expansion packs most often used to cost the exact same amount as the game.

I think your resort to insults rather than reasoned logic makes your posts worthless.

What are you trying to prove? A circle of self-confirming irrelevances like "don't judge a book by its cover".

Apparently the developers don't want us to judge the game AT ALL! They assert that plain s day obvious comparisons are simply wrong under the pedantically spurious logic that "huff, underneath we sure did stuff" and expect us to cast aside all our own personal judgement and analysis to their insultingly simple argument of: "it is IS better, now BUY IT!"

We ALL bloody well know the circumstances around this game, how Activision utterly gutted Infinity Ward and hung them out to dry, a cruel and greedy move that cost a lot of TIME and did they extend the release a all to make up for lost time and readjustment of the new team working on fired men's code? And now, lo and behold, the game looks like a rushed cut-n-paste job.

It does NOT look like they spent 2 years making a new game with the same engine.

It DOES look like they spent 1 year (from time lost in the Purge of IW) simply remixing and making improvements and extensions on MW2. And I'm not just talking graphical fidelity.

That's what MW3 is like, a glorified "episode expansion" of MW2, with a few new weapons, re-labels, new fonts and HUD screens... these are all VERY pedestrian improvements. On sites like ModDB single people do such things in their spare time for free.

Expansion packs most often DID NOT cost as much as the original game. Certainly TODAY with the standard set with episodic content like HL2 episodes, stand-alone expansions are cheaper. Certainly for what Activsion is offering they can't charge 33% MORE than a standard new release for what is definitely LESS than a standard new release. DXHR and RAGE are both £29.99, Witcher 2 is £25.99, so what the hell does Activision think they have??!?

 

[cainx10a]

Not sure what are some people issues with MW3 graphics. They look great, what else do you want? ARMA 3 level of graphics so that just a few people can run the game, and the rest has to deal with an ugly mess on the lower settings, a mess both in look and performance I should add.

They could at least change the HUD for fuck's sake, if you showed someone who's never seen Modern Warfare before footage from both MW2 and MW3 I bet they'd never see the difference.

Why change something that works beautifully? The hud shows all the info you need, and it doesn't get in the way of game-play like Deus Ex: Invisible War's hud to Deus Ex: Goty.

 

[Vigormortis]

Originally a heavily modified Quake III engine (yes, that's the correct number of Is there)

That's a fail in both Roman Numerals (3 being the highest number composed entirely of Is) and ID Tech engine knowledge! (Quake IIII IV used the same engine as DooM III)

(It's not particularly impressive either - Source is written on top of the Quake I engine ^_^ )

But...he's right. The current COD engine is built upon the Quake 3 engine. So, him saying Quake III is correct.

Also, Source is a proprietary engine. (mostly) Effectively built from the ground up by Valve over the course of about four years. I believe you're thinking of Source: Gold. The engine Half-Life 1 used. And, that engine was a heavily modified version of the Quake II engine.

OT: This whole affair is just getting sad. EA's advertising has be atrocious so far for Battlefield 3. That 99 problems ad anyone? And, don't even get me started on the whole attack campaign against COD and the smear campaign against Valve and Steam.

However, just as pathetic is Activisions own attack campaign against EA/DICE. Every time DICE shows off something rather impressive about Battlefield 3, Activision immediately comes out with some "expert" who starts talking in a "laid back" and often offended-like tone about how "refined" and "perfected" Call of Duty has become. It reeks of desperation and clearly shows Activision literally has no valid points with which to defend the game. Consider their, "After five games and over half a decade we've FINALLY got the engine to run at around 60 frames per second on the 360! Yet Frostbyte 2 only reaches 30!" (hyperbole, but valid none-the-less)

Frankly? I just want Activision and EA to shut the hell up. They're only making fools of themselves at this point as well as only adding fuel to the vitriolic fire currently burning between the COD fans and the BF fans. Just look at some of the responses in this thread. Especially among those preemptively coming in to "defend" COD from the "haters".

 

[Treblaine]

why change something thats not broken? why does everyone want innovation?
what is with people always wanting more out of things that don't have a problem? everyone is obsessed with graphics and engines. thats all i ever see gamers complain about. can't we all just sit down and just enjoy the game for what it is? a GAME? ok graphics are important yeah, but it isn't the sole purpose to play games.

Why not change what is good? Then WHY make a sequel?!?

Why innovation? Because they want more of our money!

This meagre improvement should be a $40-50 game and DEFINITELY should include all maps with that price, not another 4 map-packs at $15 a piece.

COD(insert number between 4 and 27) should not mean just another opportunity to give Bobby Kotick $60 + $15 + $15 + $15.

Graphics aren't the sole purpose... but derivative graphics and models DO knock about $10-15 off the value of the game.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Really?

So I guess the rest of us are just crazy when we see in the videos the exact same fucking game that you've been releasing year after year? Good god the game's graphics actually look worse than MW2's - that most be some sort of nega-achievement.

Face it; you've been basically releasing a $60 mod every year for the same game Activision/IW/TA. A mod which incidentally still tends to be a fair bit worse than the game you're modding (COD4). Everything about your game is inferior; graphics, sound, campaign, gameplay, multiplayer - it has been since the first Bad Company.

But don't worry; you'll still make money hand over fist. Because at the end of the day your game is more hyped and easy to play so you don't have to worry about the big boys coming to steal your pie.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Originally a heavily modified Quake III engine (yes, that's the correct number of Is there)

That's a fail in both Roman Numerals (3 being the highest number composed entirely of Is) and ID Tech engine knowledge! (Quake IIII IV used the same engine as DooM III)

(It's not particularly impressive either - Source is written on top of the Quake I engine ^_^ )

However, just as pathetic is Activisions own attack campaign against EA/DICE. Every time DICE shows off something rather impressive about Battlefield 3, Activision immediately comes out with some "expert" who starts talking in a "laid back" and often offended-like tone about how "refined" and "perfected" Call of Duty has become. It reeks of desperation and clearly shows Activision literally has no valid points with which to defend the game. Consider their, "After five games and over half a decade we've FINALLY got the engine to run at around 60 frames per second on the 360! Yet Frostbyte 2 only reaches 30!" (hyperbole, but valid none-the-less)

Thats 60FPS....with no vehicles, destructible cover, physics of any kind small maps and only 18 players. BF3 gets 32 players, vehicles, destructible cover, huge-ass maps and a ton of other things. He also forgets to mention many PC's will still play the game at 60FPS anyway.

So yeah...you run at 60FPS. But what have you accomplished with that 60FPS?

 

[Funkysandwich]

I've never really had an issue with CoD's graphics. I think CoD4 still looks great on the PC.

CoD just isn't interesting or fun to play any more.