Infinity Ward admits that CoD: Ghosts isn't on a new engine
140 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lalelalala;40765185]So you're saying because of that the engine is bad.. or something? That's some superb logic right there.
And with Counter-Strike there's longer between them but even less changed than between Call of Duty games.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about anyone else but I've always felt that the Source engine was outdated. And I wouldn't really call any of Valve's games up to par with current-gen games graphically speaking (even portal 2)
However, CoD is a huge AAA blockbuster title, and this is their first big reveal for the new generation, and it hardly looks better than Crysis 1, a game that came out 6 years ago. And when you've got games like Crysis 3, Killzone: Shadow Fall, and Battlefield all starting to look like proper next-gen games, it's funny seeing CoD floundering about trying to tout how impressive their new engine is.
Would it not be more logical to blame other companies for being uncreative and just trying to get easy money riding on the coat tails of a popular franchise, rather than said popular franchise?
I never really liked the idea of blaming one companies success for all the bad games other companies make.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40766258]Would it not be more logical to blame other companies for being uncreative and just trying to get easy money riding on the coat tails of a popular franchise, rather than said popular franchise?
I never really liked the idea of blaming one companies success for all the bad games other companies make.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's like blaming Valve for that Chinese TF2 knockoff.
[img_thumb]http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/430/final-combat-team-fortress-2-chinese-rip-off-troy-horton-evilcontrollers1.jpg[/img_thumb]
"god damn it valve why did you have to make tf2 so popular? 0/10 gaming is ruined forever"
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
yet people seriously attack CoD with this, like it's supposed to be held responsible for the entire industry
[QUOTE=The Vman;40766240]I don't know about anyone else but I've always felt that the Source engine was outdated. And I wouldn't really call any of Valve's games up to par with current-gen games graphically speaking (even portal 2)
However, CoD is a huge AAA blockbuster title, and this is their first big reveal for the new generation, and it hardly looks better than Crysis 1, a game that came out 6 years ago. And when you've got games like Crysis 3, Killzone: Shadow Fall, and Battlefield all starting to look like proper next-gen games, it's funny seeing CoD floundering about trying to tout how impressive their new engine is.[/QUOTE]
Call of Duty 4 looked less impressive than Killzone 2. Modern Warfare 2 looked less impressive than Bad Company 2. Modern Warfare 3 looked less impressive than Battlefield 3.
The CoD series has never been about pushing graphics to 11, it's been about using existing tech to make a fast-paced arcade shooter that feels distinctly more responsive than almost any other FPS on the console market. I don't know what people were expecting when iteration over innovation has been the Infinity Ward motto since the very first game. Let Battlefield, Crysis, and Killzone have their beautiful lighting and wonderfully high resolution textures. Nothing wrong with it, and I can certainly acknowledge that games like Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3 look far more impressive than any CoD title released or shown so far. It's just not something that has ever been a priority for CoD.
As for why they are talking their engine up and saying ridiculous things like how Modern Warfare 3's graphics were "cutting edge", that's marketing. They were at an event on stage talking about their game. Should they have said "Yeah MW3 looked pretty bad but I guess Ghosts looks okay"?
[QUOTE=breakyourfac;40765358]You know how much r&d would go into games if they tried to invent a new engine EVERY release? Not to mention the bugs that will come with releasing on a new engine.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention it's not how software development works. The whole concept of an ~engine~ is fucking dumb and I wish people would stop using it.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40766420]
As for why they are talking their engine up and saying ridiculous things like how Modern Warfare 3's graphics were "cutting edge", that's marketing. They were at an event on stage talking about their game. Should they have said "Yeah MW3 looked pretty bad but I guess Ghosts looks okay"?[/QUOTE]
This is the best point.
People are calling IW a bunch of idiots for saying their game looks "amazing" or "state of the art." What do you expect them to say? "It fucking sucks, our game looks awful," "we put no effort into graphics," "pc gamers and their fancy graphics are so much better than us oh boy i wish they'd like us?"
[QUOTE=cccritical;40766400]Yeah, it's like blaming Valve for that Chinese TF2 knockoff.
[img_thumb]http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/430/final-combat-team-fortress-2-chinese-rip-off-troy-horton-evilcontrollers1.jpg[/img_thumb]
"god damn it valve why did you have to make tf2 so popular? 0/10 gaming is ruined forever"
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
yet people seriously attack CoD with this, like it's supposed to be held responsible for the entire industry[/QUOTE]
one studio in China copied Valve
all of the AAA studios copied COD
multiple game series changed their established formula in order to compete
I get what you're saying, the people at Activision didn't hold a gun to anyone's head, but they did monetize the ever living fuck out of their games. Unfortunately, this is an industry, and when the shareholders see this stuff going on, it doesn't matter what the devs want.
This is why Star Wars Battlefront 3 was canceled. This is why Sleeping Dogs almost didn't get released. This is why Banjo three, Timesplitters 4, and basically every dead series everyone cries about these days is gone. If it's not brown with killstreaks, no publisher will fund it.
Activision created this market disruption. It's not the mere popularity that caused this, it's the exploitation and commercialization that came afterwards.
Don't forget it's 60fps on consoles.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;40767609]
This is why Star Wars Battlefront 3 was canceled. This is why Sleeping Dogs almost didn't get released. This is why Banjo three, Timesplitters 4, and basically every dead series everyone cries about these days is gone. If it's not brown with killstreaks, no publisher will fund it.[/QUOTE]
This is absurdly false though. The vast majority of games aren't brown killstreak-laden modern military shooters. To imply that every series ever canceled rests squarely on Activisions shoulders is insanity.
As for your specific examples, you appear to be rather misinformed.
Battlefront 3 was canceled because LucasArts didn't want to spend more money marketing a game that was already behind schedule and over budget.
Sleeping Dogs was canceled for a similar reason; behind schedule, over budget, and Activision felt like it wouldn't compete in specifically (quoting them on this)[B] the open world market[/B], not the general FPS market.
Banjo 3 suffered in development hell and became Nuts and Bolts, which actually released.
Timesplitters 4 wasn't going to be developed purely because it was mostly a dead franchise and only old school fans would have really bought it. Luckily the fans stood up and got over 100,000 signatures for a petition so now we are getting a Crytek-backedfanmade game.
None of the examples you listed are even remotely the fault of CoD.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;40767609] Activision created this market disruption. It's not the mere popularity that caused this, it's the exploitation and commercialization that came afterwards.[/QUOTE]
You're still basically saying the same thing, that all these terrible things in the game industry wouldn't have happened if Activision hadn't had the gall to publish one series that people really like. Stop blaming the success of one company for the failures of several others.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40768334]
Battlefront 3 was canceled because LucasArts didn't want to spend more money marketing a game that was already behind schedule and over budget.
[/quote]
That's LucasArt's position, but Free Radical's position is pretty different.
[url]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-04-free-radical-vs-the-monsters[/url]
[quote]Sleeping Dogs was canceled for a similar reason; behind schedule, over budget, and Activision felt like it wouldn't compete in specifically (quoting them on this)[B] the open world market[/B], not the general FPS market.[/quote]
so behind schedule that it was "virtually complete" when Activision cancelled it. By the way, they also cancelled it because they wanted to focus on online games with a higher profit margin. I have no idea what franchise they own that could possibly be.
[quote] Banjo 3 suffered in development hell and became Nuts and Bolts, which actually released. [/quote]
it became Nuts and Bolts because they thought a platformer wouldn't sell. I wonder why they might think that?
[quote]Timesplitters 4 wasn't going to be developed purely because it was mostly a dead franchise and only old school fans would have really bought it. Luckily the fans stood up and got over 100,000 signatures for a petition so now we are getting a Crytek-backedfanmade game. [/quote]
Free Radical shopped it around, no publishers wanted it. Forget franchise appeal for a minute here, what reasons would modern gamers (who love shooters) not want to buy a new timesplitters? I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the trends it wouldn't be cashing in on.
[quote]Stop blaming the success of one company for the failures of several others.[/QUOTE]
no
never
Blame Activision then not Call of Duty.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;40768845]Blame Activision then not Call of Duty.[/QUOTE]
I do, but COD still embodies everything I hate about the industry; it's pretty hard to talk about one without talking about the other.
If it needs clarification, I don't hold some elitist grudge against COD fans. Even if I feel a lot of the game design choices are contradictory, I see what about it people like. It would be totally hypocritical for me to argue that games like COD shouldn't be made or something stupid like that.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;40768768]That's LucasArt's position, but Free Radical's position is pretty different.
[URL]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-04-free-radical-vs-the-monsters[/URL]
so behind schedule that it was "virtually complete" when Activision cancelled it. By the way, they also cancelled it because they wanted to focus on online games with a higher profit margin. I have no idea what franchise they own that could possibly be. [/QUOTE]
So on both counts the publishers are either lying or have ulterior motives. I don't even know why I bother. Call of Duty didn't sink those games, poor resource management did. At the very least don't blame an entirely unrelated series for their downfall. Even if you side with the developers against the publishers, it's pretty clearly both games suffered from internal turmoil and were well into the development stages before being canned. Blame the publishing execs, not the entirely unrelated game that happens to be doing well right now.
[QUOTE] it became Nuts and Bolts because they thought a platformer wouldn't sell. I wonder why they might think that?[/QUOTE]
Because platformers don't sell? What has that got anything to do with CoD?
[QUOTE]
Free Radical shopped it around, no publishers wanted it. Forget franchise appeal for a minute here, what reasons would modern gamers (who love shooters) not want to buy a new timesplitters? I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the trends it wouldn't be cashing in on.[/QUOTE]
Even if you narrow it down to the FPS genre, plenty of none modern military shooters release and do really well. Bioshock Infinite and Borderlands 2 are completely different games from Call of Duty but sold insanely well. Nobody thought a Timesplitters game would sell well competing against Halo, Bioshock, Borderlands, Battlefield, and yes Call of Duty but that doesn't make it CoD's fault, again, it's the market.
[QUOTE]no
never[/QUOTE]
Well I guess you can continue being bitter and attacking successful companies to have the gall to be successful.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;40768845]Blame Activision then not Call of Duty.[/QUOTE]
How about you don't blame either and blame the executives who make the decisions, the management who can't meet deadlines, or the game-playing public who just don't want a certain game.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;40768952]I do, but COD still embodies everything I hate about the industry; it's pretty hard to talk about one without talking about the other.
If it needs clarification, I don't hold some elitist grudge against COD fans. Even if I feel a lot of the game design choices are contradictory, I see what about it people like. It would be totally hypocritical for me to argue that games like COD shouldn't be made or something stupid like that.[/QUOTE]
You don't think they shouldn't be made, but they embody everything you hate about the industry. Seems pretty contradictory.
Don't have any issue with a game dev using the same engine, but it's like they're running an old car without keeping it maintained and getting rid of the rust on the body. A new engine would be nice, at least refreshing to a game that uses the same old stale engine over and over.
Valve did it right by tweaking and adding more to the engine each game, CoD hardly does that at all. Minor changes are made, but it still plays, feels, and looks the same as the other games.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40769287]So on both counts the publishers are either lying or have ulterior motives. I don't even know why I bother. Call of Duty didn't sink those games, poor resource management did. At the very least don't blame an entirely unrelated series for their downfall. Even if you side with the developers against the publishers, it's pretty clearly both games suffered from internal turmoil and were well into the development stages before being canned. [/QUOTE]
You're not thinking about it in the context of my argument. What reason would publishers have to lie about that sort of thing? What reason would they have to take games that are on their way to completion and then start hassling the devs by moving goalposts around?
They have financial motivation to cut off non-trendy games.
[quote]Because platformers don't sell? What has that got anything to do with CoD? [/quote]
Oh, they think platformers don't sell because platformers don't sell. Simple as that. End of story. Every company that ever made a platformer bankrupted.
Context.
[quote]Even if you narrow it down to the FPS genre, plenty of none modern military shooters release and do really well. Bioshock Infinite and Borderlands 2 are completely different games from Call of Duty but sold insanely well. Nobody thought a Timesplitters game would sell well competing against Halo, Bioshock, Borderlands, Battlefield, and yes Call of Duty but that doesn't make it CoD's fault, again, it's the market. [/quote]
Battlefield isn't a military shooter? Halo may not be, but with Reach and 4 they've started copying from COD. Now it's 2 non-trendy shooters against 3, and even those are sequels, one of which had funding problems. Even then, that's just in the context of shooters. We've got multiple industry people asking why games are increasingly reliant on violence to drive narratives; are they incapable of remembering the times when 3D platformers were THE genre, or is there something else going on here?
[quote]Well I guess you can continue being bitter and attacking successful companies to have the gall to be successful. [/quote]
I don't hate success, I hate commercialization. I realize that gaming is an inherently commercial medium, but it's clearly gotten out of hand.
[quote]How about you don't blame either and blame the executives who make the decisions, the management who can't meet deadlines, or the game-playing public who just don't want a certain game. [/quote]
You heard it here first everyone, the gaming public doesn't want Banjo 3, Battlefront 3, or sleeping dogs. The problem is an industry filled to the brim with incompetent devs who can't meet the goals I just changed. Oops, looks like I'll get to take the safe route after all.
[quote]You don't think they shouldn't be made, but they embody everything you hate about the industry. Seems pretty contradictory.[/quote]
First of all, this sentence is confusing. Secondly, context! I don't hate that COD exists, I hate all the commercialization and the disruption that came in it's wake. There's nothing contradictory about that.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;40769342]Minor changes are made, but it still plays, feels, and looks the same as the other games.[/QUOTE]
out of context you might as well be talking about valve
the only 'major' updates to the Source engine I can think of are (poorly done) real-time shadows and possibly back-face culling, yet they've released eleven games in nine years all on the same engine
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;40769695]
I don't hate success, I hate commercialization. I realize that gaming is an inherently commercial medium, but it's clearly gotten out of hand.[/QUOTE]
What does out of hand commercialization for an entertainment industry even [I]mean[/I]?
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;40769695]You heard it here first everyone, the gaming public doesn't want Banjo 3, Battlefront 3, or sleeping dogs. The problem is an industry filled to the brim with incompetent devs who can't meet the goals I just changed. Oops, looks like I'll get to take the safe route after all.[/QUOTE]
You misread what I typed. Read it again and try another reply. I never said the gaming public doesn't want those specific games, nor did I imply the industry is filled with incompetent developers.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;40769695]First of all, this sentence is confusing. Secondly, context! I don't hate that COD exists, I hate all the commercialization and the disruption that came in it's wake. There's nothing contradictory about that.[/QUOTE]
Games were commercialized on a grand scale before the first Call of Duty game was even conceptualized.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40769787]What does out of hand commercialization for an entertainment industry even [I]mean[/I]? [/QUOTE]
It means art is no longer a consideration. It means quality is trumped by perceived profitability. It means, to quote Bobby Kotick, taking the fun out of developing games.
[quote]You misread what I typed. Read it again and try another reply. I never said the gaming public doesn't want those specific games, nor did I imply the industry is filled with incompetent developers.[/quote]
Yes you did! Yes you did. You said platformers don't sell. You said they weren't going to make Timesplitters because no one wanted it. You said Battlefront 3 and sleeping dogs were both behind schedule and over budget aka the devs were incompetent. Even if you want to argue semantics, I merely applied the argument you're making here to earlier examples.
On top of all that, you missed the point entirely. Maybe you should reread my reply and try again?
[quote] Games were commercialized on a grand scale before the first Call of Duty game was even conceptualized.[/quote]
I've already said I understand gaming is an inherently commercial medium. They cost a ton of money to produce, so it makes sense that profitability should be a consideration.
It just shouldn't be the only consideration.
looks like a lot of people don't understand what you can actually do by upgrading an already existing engine.
the only reason they'd have to completely change of engine would be if there was a major new way of developing 3d stuff, but polygon based engines are still very much viable and the only difference is that the hardware evolves therefore they can throw more complex operations and shaders in along with more detailed models.
[QUOTE=Anthracite;40770590]looks like a lot of people don't understand what you can actually do by upgrading an already existing engine.[/QUOTE]
isn't that what they're doing?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.