Infinity Ward admits that CoD: Ghosts isn't on a new engine
140 replies, posted
[B]Skip to 4:47[/B]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciRQ0XsPoQs&feature=youtu.be&t=4m47s[/media]
So nothing has changed? No surprise there.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/59UVHoW.png[/img]
Here's the (almost) complete family tree of the Quake Engine. Misses a few title such as Prey.
This game is still based on the fucking Quake 3 Engine.
SO the xbox one's new NEXT GEN OMG GRAFICS game runs on a modified version of the id tech 3 engine. Wich was release in 2005.
Jesus christ the train wreck just doesnt stop.
I understand that getting new engine will cost money and IW needs to learn working with it, which will cost some time.
But seriously..
they're still using 14 years old id tech 3.
[QUOTE=Rockeiro123;40754102]SO the xbox one's new NEXT GEN OMG GRAFICS game runs on a modified version of the id tech 3 engine. Wich was release in 2005.
Jesus christ the train wreck just doesnt stop.[/QUOTE]
Actually it's based off the Quake 3 engine which is from 1999.
Like I said prior, it's still a brush based engine. All they did was update their models and use more meshes than brushes.
They could easily afford to build a new engine, but it's not likely with Activision's strategy of releasing a new CoD every year. They wouldn't have enough time.
Call of Duty has always been behind the graphical curve, this is nothing new.
What's wrong with being based on Id Tech? Tons of engines are based on something older. Source has the same roots, Unreal Engine dates back to 1998, CryEngine was demoed back in 2001, etc.
[QUOTE=Silikone;40754223]What's wrong with being based on Id Tech? Tons of engines are based on something older. Source has the same roots, Unreal Engine dates back to 1998, CryEngine was demoed back in 2001, etc.[/QUOTE]
All of the games you've mentioned actually evolved engine-wise. GoldSRC got a superbuffed version that was Source, which itself got upgraded very often, Unreal Engine went from a rather basic engine to the most used engine in the video game industry right now (with 3 huge and different builds and a fourth one on the way), and CryEngine also got pretty buffed.
The current version of the call of duty engine is pretty much a slightly upgraded IDTech 3, modified to have basic effects such as bloom, and with mesh based models instead of brushes.
It's still a really old and obsolete engine with windowdressing pretty models slapped onto it.
[QUOTE=Silikone;40754223]What's wrong with being based on Id Tech? Tons of engines are based on something older. Source has the same roots, Unreal Engine dates back to 1998, CryEngine was demoed back in 2001, etc.[/QUOTE]
There's something wrong when you advertise a game for being the new hot shit in grafics when its just based out of some old engine that's almost old enough to drive.
It's Call of Duty. Why is it that the minority of gamers realize that CoD is recycled beyond Modern Warfare?
[QUOTE=Jarate Lover;40754323]It's Call of Duty. Why is it that the minority of gamers realize that CoD is recycled beyond Modern Warfare?[/QUOTE]
The part of gamers that actually care pretty much all know, but the game is widely advertised to ignorants who pretty much only play call of duty, and who will buy anything related to the franchise.
Because let's face it, it's really obvious call of duty is now massively targeted to a young audience that doesn't actually buy its games. Their parents do. Hence why the games are always released yearly towards Christmas. I know that a few years back when I didn't even have a personal bank account yet for three years straight ours parents bought my brother and I a call of duty and assassin's creed game.
This is the one and only reason call of duty is making so much money and hasn't sinked yet. They found that one easy spot to exploit and they are going to exploit it up the butt until the targeted demographic is old enough to realize they are being punctured so much money every year for an expansion pack. Not to mention the DLCs.
Why would they make a new engine if they keep making the same game every year??
So they blatantly lied in the conference, why am I not surprised.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;40754383]The part of gamers that actually care pretty much all know, but the game is widely advertised to ignorants who pretty much only play call of duty, and who will buy anything related to the franchise.
Because let's face it, it's really obvious call of duty is now massively targeted to a young audience that doesn't actually buy its games. Their parents do. Hence why the games are always released yearly towards Christmas. I know that a few years back when I didn't even have a personal bank account yet for three years straight ours parents bought my brother and I a call of duty and assassin's creed game.
This is the one and only reason call of duty is making so much money and hasn't sinked yet. They found that one easy spot to exploit and they are going to exploit it up the butt until the targeted demographic is old enough to realize they are being punctured so much money every year for an expansion pack. Not to mention the DLCs.[/QUOTE]
People buy CoD because it's a fun game.
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Novangel;40754438]So they blatantly lied in the conference, why am I not surprised.[/QUOTE]
I don't even know why they bothered. The people who play CoD don't give a shit what engine the game uses.
[QUOTE=Novangel;40754438]So they blatantly lied in the conference, why am I not surprised.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's because saying "New Engine!" sounds cooler than "Improved Engine!".
[QUOTE=SouthParkMGT;40754118]I understand that getting new engine will cost money and IW needs to learn working with it, which will cost some time.
But seriously..
they're still using 14 years old id tech 3.[/QUOTE]
Something tells me money really isn't IW's concern.
[QUOTE=booster;40754957]Something tells me money really isn't IW's concern.[/QUOTE]
Nor is pushing the graphical envelope. Their priorities are high FPS and responsive controls.
Does the engine even take advantage of 64 bit systems?
What does it matter anyway, even if it was on a brand new engine it would be a really shitty game.
who cares about the engine, valve has continuously updated source from 2004 to 2013 and nobody complained
maybe instead game devs should focus on gameplay and narrative, nothing's changed for the past decade and all those consoles with the same controllers look awfully unpromising, can't wait to mash more A's and B's to trigger more things
I don't see the big deal. The engine's "just" there to make sure the computer knows what calculations to make, it won't automatically shower your game in HD graphics just because you update it.
Besides, there's a lot more to consider aboutthe quality of an engine than just rock texture sizes. There's a reason why UE3 mods are so popular but CryEngine never quite took off like the devs wanted it to.
The Thief reboot team ran into some major troubles when they found out UE3.x couldn't handle their NPCs in large quantities because of the advanced AI, but if you're doing just another shooter and put a canine companion on top, you probably won't need a brand-new engine.
[b]tl;dr[/b] engine's not holding back CoD, so if they're not gonna do anything with a new engine, there's no need to change it
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40755028]Nor is pushing the graphical envelope. Their priorities are high FPS and responsive controls.[/QUOTE]
Too bad CoD is made with consoles in mind so high FPS and responsive controls are impossible on those anemic boxes.
[QUOTE=Aiksey;40755113]who cares about the engine, valve has continuously updated source from 2004 to 2013 and nobody complained
maybe instead game devs should focus on gameplay and narrative, nothing's changed for the past decade and all those consoles with the same controllers look awfully unpromising, can't wait to mash more A's and B's to trigger more things[/QUOTE]
well i would agree with you but they said they had a new engine at the conference, and it turned out they were lying
[QUOTE=Aiksey;40755113]who cares about the engine, valve has continuously updated source from 2004 to 2013 and nobody complained
maybe instead game devs should focus on gameplay and narrative, nothing's changed for the past decade and all those consoles with the same controllers look awfully unpromising, can't wait to mash more A's and B's to trigger more things[/QUOTE]
If Valve released HL3 on their crusty old DX9 engine you'd bet people would complain. The next generation hasn't came yet so most people don't expect Source 2 yet.
[QUOTE=Xion21;40755227]Too bad CoD is made with consoles in mind so high FPS and responsive controls are impossible on those anemic boxes.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure the CoD games are 60 FPS on consoles and that's the entire reason they use relatively dated technology. I can't tell by just looking at it but it's always been a target of theirs and simply playing CoD then Battlefield on the same machine makes CoD feel incredibly smooth in comparison.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;40754101][img]http://i.imgur.com/59UVHoW.png[/img]
Here's the (almost) complete family tree of the Quake Engine. Misses a few title such as Prey.
This game is still based on the fucking Quake 3 Engine.[/QUOTE]
So Valve games are still based on the Quake World engine :downs:
[QUOTE=The Vman;40754001][B]Skip to 4:47[/B]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciRQ0XsPoQs&feature=youtu.be&t=4m47s[/media][/QUOTE]
[quote]It's impossible to make a develop a new engine from the ground up in a two year cycle.[/quote]
Yeah well that is why you dont fucking make a new COD every year.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.