Infinity Ward admits that CoD: Ghosts isn't on a new engine
140 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Dantai;40755657]So Valve games are still based on the Quake World engine :downs:[/QUOTE]
according to what a lot of those people are saying
then yes
[I]how dare they[/I]
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;40755279]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]
black ops 2 and up uses dx11
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;40754286]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]
i think you may need to get your eyes checked because they rewrote the entire rendering part of the engine to support dx11 and added a bunch of rendering features that puts it way up and over source and and up into pretty much every other modern rendering engine
So how do they do this whole thing? Infinity Ward add stuff, hand the engine to Treyarch, they add stuff, then hand it back and do that in a cycle?
[QUOTE=TheHydra;40755258]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]
No more or less than DICE "lied" when they called the Battlefield 3 edition of Frostbite a new engine when in reality it was Frostbite with some new features, and again when they did it with Battlefield 4. The Infinity Ward dude in OPs video makes a good point about how hard it is to create a new game engine when the one you have already works well for the type of gameplay you are going for. Why do they call engines new when they are just subtle revisions and updates of existing ones? I can't say. Maybe it has to do with the fact that a games engine has become a marketing buzzword with people who really do not know how game development works or why better graphics don't necessarily make the better game.
[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]
All COD games have been optimised so they run at a solid 60 fps, do your history and revision before slamming the series for the stereotype. From a technical standpoint, they've done a fucking good job on the game engine but its no different to Source in its update scheme and development, people just slam it because [I]lOL CalL Of DUtY moUntAIn dEW dOrITos!!![/I] etc
I don't understand the COD hate lately. The only thing wrong with COD is the 60$ pricetag, it's an amazing game otherwise.
COD is exactly what it's supposed to be, and exactly what the fans want it to be
[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 this new COD engine has changes that are significantly visible such as HL2 to Left 4 Dead's engine then I'd be ok with the devs calling it a new engine.
[QUOTE=EDDY TT;40756419]All COD games have been optimised so they run at a solid 60 fps, do your history and revision before slamming the series for the stereotype. From a technical standpoint, they've done a fucking good job on the game engine but its no different to Source in its update scheme and development, people just slam it because [I]lOL CalL Of DUtY moUntAIn dEW dOrITos!!![/I] etc[/QUOTE]
Turns out they are indeed fairly well optimised, this I knew, but I figured the consoles could still not handle it above 30 fps. I was indeed very wrong. That being said, the FOV is still like a pathetic 65 and playing an FPS with a controller is shit.
Ugh, I don't quite get the obsession with game engines. It's what you do with it that counts. The foundations set to render polygons a few decades ago still stand now. You can't just build a completely new engine with a different paradigm in mind and expect your developers, that build up years of expertise in the older ways, to be just as productive with it.
Modern software development is about iteration. Reinventing the wheel doesn't get anyone anywhere.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40755319]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]
I have to give it to the CoD developers that they're one of the few who still puts having a high, responsive framerate above all else when it comes to games. 60 fps makes a [I]huge[/I] difference. Definitely why people prefer to play it on console than say, the console version of BF3 or Crysis 3 which usually run at 15-25 fps.
I don't care much for the engine, really, since it's mainly the art assets that would be the 'similar-looking/lazy/rehashed' stuff - not the engine itself. Now, I don't care much for Ghosts because it just looks like an alt-verse Modern Warfare with mass destruction, but I won't give it hell for anything early other than the really strange priorities of their Xbox One conference that everyone's repeated like a parrot a thousand times over already.
[QUOTE=Xion21;40756610]Turns out they are indeed fairly well optimised, this I knew, but I figured the consoles could still not handle it above 30 fps. I was indeed very wrong. That being said, the FOV is still like a pathetic 65 and playing an FPS with a controller is shit.[/QUOTE]
FOV can be much lower when you're sitting further away from the screen and while I agree that Shooters and controllers don't mesh at all doesn't mean some games are better than others on the input lag. Call of Duty on console (haven't played it) is supposed to have pretty low input lag. It's like the difference between playing with Vsync on versus off on a computer, night and day.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;40756592]I don't understand the COD hate lately. The only thing wrong with COD is the 60$ pricetag, it's an amazing game otherwise.
COD is exactly what it's supposed to be, and exactly what the fans want it to be[/QUOTE]
because it's ~cool~ to hate COD
[QUOTE=Lalelalala;40756754]FOV can be much lower when you're sitting further away from the screen and while I agree that Shooters and controllers don't mesh at all doesn't mean some games are better than others on the input lag. Call of Duty on console (haven't played it) is supposed to have pretty low input lag. It's like the difference between playing with Vsync on versus off on a computer, night and day.[/QUOTE]
You are right, FOV should be lower on a console because you tend to be farther away, too large an FOV and details would be too small to see comfortably from that distance, see Dead Rising 1 on a non HD TV. However 60-65 is still pathetically low and is used to save on processing power. The input lag thing is also true though, in my short span of playing CoD WaW, 4, and Blops on a console, they do have nice response time, I will give them that.
As a PC Gamer, I will ALWAYS sacrifice graphical quality for a minimum 50-60 FPS if I need to, so it's nice to hear that some console games still run at an acceptable framerate. One thing that has always annoyed me about CoD personally, is the hitscan laser nature of every weapon. Controllers don't do recoil, so no weapons have ANY, and bullet spread is non existant. Hell, I could snipe across even the largest maps with an M60 in CoD 4.
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=0FucksGiven;40756819]because it's ~cool~ to hate COD[/QUOTE]
It's also because, as odd as it may sound, some people can actually think for themselves so people have legit reasons not to like it and aren't just trying to be edgy but fanboys will always say "it's ~cool~ is the only reason to hate it you haters."
[QUOTE=Dantai;40755657]So Valve games are still based on the Quake World engine :downs:[/QUOTE]
Atleast Valve is pushing out engine updates every now and then.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;40756592]I don't understand the COD hate lately. The only thing wrong with COD is the 60$ pricetag, it's an amazing game otherwise.
COD is exactly what it's supposed to be, and exactly what the fans want it to be[/QUOTE]
It's a solid game, but it's always the same thing over and over again.
I played COD4 for a while and enjoyed it but I wouldn't pay 100$ (game + maps) every year to play the same game.
[QUOTE=Knoxed;40756888]Atleast Valve is pushing out engine updates every now and then.[/QUOTE]
not as often as infinity ward lmao
Well I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I don't know about the newer games but COD4 on my old mid-end PC from 2008 ran on max at a constant 120 fps. I can't imagine how fast it would run on my behemoth PC now.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;40754124]Actually it's based off the Quake 3 engine which is from 1999.[/QUOTE]
I don't know for sure, but I've heard that the engine's actually gone through so many modifications that pretty much the only Quake 3 part is the netcode.
[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]
Source has actually been updated, IW hasn't updated shit.
And it's not like CoD has a good narrative or interesting gameplay.
Was obvious when I saw screenshots of the 'high detailed model of the dog', when the bushes next to it looked like 2D friggin' sprites.
The engine never bothered me.
Heh, any CoD related thread is fantastic.
people spewing out "IT"S NOT FUN GUYS STOP HAVING FUN WITH IT" "ITS BAD YOU CANT ENJOY THIS THING THAT I DONT LIKE STOP THAT" Hate everyone that doesn't play obscure indie games, that'll show them! :v: People act like CoD fans are indoctrinated or something and don't seem to realize the people just like a different kind of game than them, and for some reason they just can't accept it. I'm not a big fan of CoD but why does it matter to me at all if the vast majority of gamers enjoy it?
That's fantastic.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;40757692]Heh, any CoD related thread is fantastic.
people spewing out "IT"S NOT FUN GUYS STOP HAVING FUN WITH IT" "ITS BAD YOU CANT ENJOY THIS THING THAT I DONT LIKE STOP THAT" Hate everyone that doesn't play obscure indie games, that'll show them! :v: People act like CoD fans are indoctrinated or something and don't seem to realize the people just like a different kind of game than them, and for some reason they just can't accept it. I'm not a big fan of CoD but why does it matter to me at all if the vast majority of gamers enjoy it?[/QUOTE]
And the unyielding Call of Duty Defense Force rolls out to save the day!
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;40757866]And the unyielding Call of Duty Defense Force rolls out to save the day![/QUOTE]
If there is one problem with Facepunch, it is that too many people here defend Call of Duty :v:
[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]
A lot of these are like saying that that drawing is based of the paper that I manufactured but they're that heavily modified they barely resemble the thing they initially were made from.
Or what exactly the guy in the video said, I don't see why everyone just picks on Call of Duty because they don't pursue technical fidelity - that's [I]not[/I] what they do.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40758462]If there is one problem with Facepunch, it is that too many people here defend Call of Duty :v:[/QUOTE]
hehehe u hate it cuz its popular >:)
You'd have to be retarded to think that they wouldn't use an updated IW engine. Why would they make an entirely new engine and port all of their assets to it?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40758462]If there is one problem with Facepunch, it is that too many people here defend Call of Duty :v:[/QUOTE]
Not really, too many people are vocally hating the game rather than just disliking the game. I mean, if you don't like it, all the props to you, say you don't like it and why - but a lot of people seem to hate it as if it were the abonimation of gaming history ever just because it's popular and maybe not the deepest game ever.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;40758577]hehehe u hate it cuz its popular >:)[/QUOTE]
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.