Treyarch defends Black Ops 2 ageing graphics: "What's wrong with our engine?" - Polidicks

[URL]http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/10/10/treyarch-defends-black-ops-ageing-engine[/URL] [URL]http://www.vg247.com/2012/10/10/treyarch-defends-call-of-duty-black-ops-2-engine/comment-page-1/[/URL] [URL]http://gamingbolt.com/treyarch-theres-nothing-wrong-with-using-the-same-engine-for-black-ops-2[/URL] [IMG]http://arolemodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/call-of-duty-black-ops-2.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Treyarch has defended using the seven-year-old IW engine to power Call of Duty: Black Ops II.In an interview with OXM, game design director David Vondehaar explained that modifications had been made to ensure the game ran robustly, and admitted he was baffled that anyone would criticise the title's technical performance. [B]“To me, it's like I never really understood. It runs at 60 and it's gorgeous. What exactly is there to be upset about with the engine?"[/B] Anybody who comes at the engine needs to remember it's the 60 frames they love in the first place," he asserted. "And we can make it beautiful - that's through years and years of working with the engine, improving upon it and improving the pipeline and improving our approach, our lighting rendering. "People like to talk about the engine, but the truth of the matter is that this isn't like something that was invented six years ago. At this point that engine doesn't resemble anything like any engine - we've ripped out the UI system, the rendering and the lighting are all new, the core gameplay systems are all new. "To me, it's like I never really understood," Vondehaar concluded. "It runs at 60 and it's gorgeous. What exactly is there to be upset about with the engine?" The IW Engine has been used by both Infinity Ward and Treyarch for the companies' work on the Call of Duty games. It was first used for Call of Duty 2 back in 2005, and the exact engine being used for Black Ops II is a modified version of the IW 3.0 engine that was used for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, as well as the original Black Ops. The PC version of the game is also confirmed to take advantage of DirectX 11 video cards.[/QUOTE]

gorgeous? XD

Can't really blame them considering the hardware it's meant to run on. It's impressive enough they actually bother to make visual improvements even though they're slight, while maintaining 60fps.

I just find the general physics of this game to be terrible. It looks too generic, maybe they should try to make it look a little better, then they might not get bashed around a lot with the whole "It's exactly the same as the last CoD".

That is not gorgeous, this guy is blind as shit.

[QUOTE=RainbowPillows;37983760]That is not gorgeous, this guy is blind as shit.[/QUOTE] Played it at Eurogamer a couple of weeks ago. It does look really nice for an xbox 360 game.

It's not gorgeous, but still using the engine is not a bad thing. Source is showing its age but it is still used.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;37983802]It's not gorgeous, but still using the engine is not a bad thing. Source is showing its age but it is still used.[/QUOTE] at least source has physics. I'd prefer GEM over IW engine because it at least TRIES to do destruction/physics despite being overall shitty and unoptimized as fuck. (It even has more terrain deformation than BF3 lol)

It looks okay, it isn't bad for a engine that old. People are just bitching because of the name, look at the source engine. Everyone loves it and look how fucking old it is. Put in mind it got a few overhauls, but still. If it works why fix it?

The whole point is that BLOPS2 is [B]not[/B] raising the bar [B]at all[/B] in the graphics department. Compare BLOPS2 to CryEngine 3 or UE4. For example, here's a short list of things BLOPS does not have: -DoF with Bokeh -Object motion blur -Tessellation -Parallax/POM/displacement mapping -Subsurface scattering -Global illumination, realtime reflections, etc -Deferred rendering -Particle motion blur -Image lighting Also that fucking fireball explosion particle effect that is like 4 years old!

[QUOTE=MR-X;37983816]It looks okay, it isn't bad for a engine that old. People are just bitching because of the name, look at the source engine. Everyone loves it and look how fucking old it is. Put in mind it got a few overhauls, but still. If it works why fix it?[/QUOTE] Difference being that Source has had many updates and improvements, and Valve knows it's old and is building a new engine for the next Half Life game. While Activision continues to use the same game engine, unmodified from 5 years ago.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37983838]Difference being that Source has had many updates and improvements, and Valve knows it's old and is building a new engine for the next Half Life game. While Activision continues to use the same game engine, unmodified from 5 years ago.[/QUOTE] DOTA2 actually uses a deferred rending system that's a massive improvement over previous versions.

[QUOTE=Foda;37983824]The whole point is that BLOPS2 is [B]not[/B] raising the bar [B]at all[/B] in the graphics department. Compare BLOPS2 to CryEngine 3 or UE4. For example, here's a short list of things BLOPS does not have: -DoF with Bokeh -Object motion blur -Tessellation -Parallax/POM/displacement mapping -Subsurface scattering -Global illumination, realtime reflections, etc -Deferred rendering -Particle motion blur -Image lighting Also that fucking fireball explosion particle effect that is like 4 years old![/QUOTE] All of those things are nice, but are they really needed in a game thats mostly played online, and fast paced action too. The game looks fine when your playing and you really wouldnt care for most of those since you would never really notice them. DoF and motion blur would probably be the only thing that would be really noticed and people would probably just bitch about it. I mean if im playing I am not gonna notice tessellated objects. Now in singleplayer sure those would be great, since you can stop to enjoy the prettiness, but in multiplayer your too occupied in playing to really notice those features. Plus most people would probably have half that shit turned off since they would increase GPU and CPU usage and then your lagging, which no one wants when playing multiplayer.

[QUOTE=Foda;37983824]The whole point is that BLOPS2 is [B]not[/B] raising the bar [B]at all[/B] in the graphics department. Compare BLOPS2 to CryEngine 3 or UE4. For example, here's a short list of things BLOPS does not have: -DoF with Bokeh -Object motion blur -Tessellation -Parallax/POM/displacement mapping -Subsurface scattering -Global illumination, realtime reflections, etc -Deferred rendering -Particle motion blur -Image lighting Also that fucking fireball explosion particle effect that is like 4 years old![/QUOTE] That's a really weird argument, I agree that they're not raising the bar at all, but since when did they promise those things? Subsurface scattering on the PS3/Xbox 360? Nearly impossible. This stuff is only going to be available on next-gen consoles, it's the same thing that happened when we switched from our PS2's to the current-gen, I mean, UE3 came out with them, it's the exact same thing. If your post was meant to be sarcastic, sorry. Also, Fortnite is going to be the first game using UE4, besides that, there is currently two demos showing it, the samaritan and the elemental demo, and that's it. We're all gonna have to wait for it, and no fucking way Treyarch would be delivering this kind of advance.

The real answer is that Activision doesn't give them enough time to create a game from scratch.

Story > graphics. Oh wait, Call of Duty? shit, nevermind.

Meh, I think it looks pretty decent...

People just blame the engine because they like to think they know what they're talking about. It's really the limited console hardware, two year development cycle, and unchangeable visual style that add up to the very underwhelming and outdated looking final product.

Can't really blame them, they're console orientated and so there's not much really to do. What they should do is reuse less assets, maybe change the art style a tad? I'm kinda sick of the engine now.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37983838]Difference being that Source has had many updates and improvements, and Valve knows it's old and is building a new engine for the next Half Life game. While Activision continues to use the same game engine, unmodified from 5 years ago.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say it's wholly unmodified; the visual leap between MW1 and MW2 was pretty dramatic. As for BO2, it looks like they've improved the map lighting by a considerable amount. [img]http://fronttowardsgamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/blops2.jpeg[/img] I agree that they could stand to update the engine more than they have, but imo it looks good enough to not worry about it.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37983926]I wouldn't say it's wholly unmodified; the visual leap between MW1 and MW2 was pretty dramatic. As for BO2, it looks like they've improved the map lighting by a considerable amount. [img]http://fronttowardsgamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/blops2.jpeg[/img] I agree that they could stand to update the engine more than they have, but imo it looks good enough to not worry about it.[/QUOTE] Looks really quite good, imo.

Small wonder it isn't moving if the show is being run by people like Vondehaar - who is clearly out of touch with reality. Or if Vondehaar is not in control and is just working with what he is given then he could at least be honest about it. What bugs me more than CoD's unchanging gameplay is the reuse of the same old, and frankly, fuck ugly, game engine. If they brought it up to today's standards I would actually consider giving them my money.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37983926]I wouldn't say it's wholly unmodified; the visual leap between MW1 and MW2 was pretty dramatic. As for BO2, it looks like they've improved the map lighting by a considerable amount. [img]http://fronttowardsgamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/blops2.jpeg[/img] I agree that they could stand to update the engine more than they have, but imo it looks good enough to not worry about it.[/QUOTE] for graphics like that to run at 60fps is quite a feat. I don't get the rage. oh wait its cod it must be shit

Might be because I have a crap computer but MW2 runs at a solid 60 FPS and looks[B] much[/B] prettier than any other game that runs at a solid 30-60 FPS on my computer. I don't really care about many of those things like new AA tech, Bokeh (I personally cannot stand DoF in any game, ever) and shit. Dynamic lights would be nice, but I think the main problem with the Call of Duty graphics is the reusing of small textures and low-polygon props. Surely they can change those without doing major modifications to the engine. I don't know. It looks nice in my opinion, and most of the complaints against it seem much more on the technical side rather than the consumer's point of view.

Even though cod has a singleplayer campaign I think that for multiplayer games performance is the most important thing. And I don't know about Black Ops 2 but Black Ops 1 ran horribly on my PC even though I could play MW1 and 2 which use the same engine fluently.

[QUOTE=Fingers!!!;37983861]That's a really weird argument, I agree that they're not raising the bar at all, but since when did they promise those things? Subsurface scattering on the PS3/Xbox 360? Nearly impossible. This stuff is only going to be available on next-gen consoles, it's the same thing that happened when we switched from our PS2's to the current-gen, I mean, UE3 came out with them, it's the exact same thing. If your post was meant to be sarcastic, sorry. Also, Fortnite is going to be the first game using UE4, besides that, there is currently two demos showing it, the samaritan and the elemental demo, and that's it. We're all gonna have to wait for it, and no fucking way Treyarch would be delivering this kind of advance.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they did promise any of those things, but it's silly to limit the graphical capabilities of your game because the PS3/360 can't do it. They're already using Dx10/11 so it wouldn't be that difficult to get that stuff implemented.

I don't see a problem with it. Sure it's not groundbreaking or anything. It's just decent.

Their engine could probably look good if they used it correctly, but it appears that their view of beauty is slapping shaders on low-res textures.

[QUOTE=Gimme20dollaz;37984014]I axtually like Treyarch's COD games, since they put more effort into their games' story beyond the generic "kill bad guy s" shtick that IW does. Look at Black Ops, for example. They used stuff like brainwashing, unreliable narrator, etc.[/QUOTE] I agree. I really enjoyed the first Black Ops' story, was intriguing as fuck to me. Was a very good chance to the Call of Duty games.

I really liked how everything just looked smooth in MW2.