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

I don't understand it either. I think it's a nice looking engine. It's better than Source, at least.

the shader and postprocessing fx blows but they make great use of modelling and textures to coverup shitty underlying graphics

[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] I think all people are really asking for is an overhaul. Slight, barely noticeable tweaks don't class as overhauls.

[QUOTE=madnath619;37984244]I think all people are really asking for is an overhaul. Slight, barely noticeable tweaks don't class as overhauls.[/QUOTE] idk if you compare mw2 to this there's a noticeable increase in quality perhaps not significant enough but there are improvements

Games nowadays don't need to have the highest graphics to be fun. That's what's so bad about games that get sequels every year, as soon as a certain feature isn't improved upon, people flip. I've never played any CoD game for more than 5 minutes, but I've seen that they run wonderfully on all systems. The point is, they don't [i]need[/i] to improve the graphics. It's not what makes the game fun or popular.

[QUOTE=cs_bunny;37984259]Games nowadays don't need to have the highest graphics to be fun. That's what's so bad about games that get sequels every year, as soon as a certain feature isn't improved upon, people flip. I've never played any CoD game for more than 5 minutes, but I've seen that they run wonderfully on all systems. The point is, they don't [i]need[/i] to improve the graphics. It's not what makes the game fun or popular.[/QUOTE] Exactly. The crux of every Call of Duty since the first Modern Warfare has been its obscenely smooth and tight gameplay. Having good (if not the most technically advanced) visuals is just a bonus.

Didn't Treyarch promise PC players DX11 features?

The textures and such aren't all that bad; I think it's the actual technical aspects of the engine that is mediocre. Then again though, they are trying to cater to PC gamers AND console gamers. Which is a shame because the console gaming market has stagnated the advance of modern graphics because most developers are trying to cover all aspects of the market rather than just PC Gamers strictly. It's as if the advancement of computer graphics and game engine technology has to wait for consoles to catch up; but by that point PC hardware has already improved once again.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;37984298]The textures and such aren't all that bad; I think it's the actual technical aspects of the engine that is mediocre. Then again though, they are trying to cater to PC gamers AND console gamers. Which is a shame because the console gaming market has stagnated the advance of modern graphics because most developers are trying to cover all aspects of the market rather than just PC Gamers strictly.[B][U] It's as if the advancement of computer graphics and game engine technology has to wait for consoles to catch up; but by that point PC hardware has already improved once again.[/U][/B][/QUOTE] That's how EVERY console generation is, and it's simply the result of the console hardware being static while the PC hardware gets an update literally every few months. That said, it's remarkable what some developers can pull off with this generation's consoles (Naughty Dog, Insomniac Games, and Quantic Dream being some of the most dramatic examples).

In my opinion, Call of Duty 2's graphics and framerate were revolutionary for being on a console. But they are still using the same aging engine they were using in 2005. Although you can point to the source engine, Valve was been upgrading everything for years now. While the Call of Duty engine has looked the same since the 360 was first launched.

It looks great to me. The screenshot up there doesn't do it justice; it was clearly scaled down without any filtering. The engine is beyond fine. The aesthetic is generic, but the engine is still capable of visuals that are both pleasing to the eye and rendered quickly. [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] Yeah, let's do those things on a 360 and keep the solid 60 framerate that the series is known for. Good idea.

[QUOTE=Speedhax;37984354]In my opinion, Call of Duty 2's graphics and framerate were revolutionary for being on a console. But they are still using the same aging engine they were using in 2005. Although you can point to the source engine, Valve was been upgrading everything for years now. While the Call of Duty engine has looked the same since the 360 was first launched.[/QUOTE] Valve is on PC, though.

[QUOTE=Downsider;37984376] Yeah, let's do those things on a 360 and keep the solid 60 framerate that the series is known for. Good idea.[/QUOTE] It may not work on a 360, but that's no reason to cut it out entirely.

It does look good, given the hardware it runs on, getting a constant 60 FPS out of it, and it looking decent is good enough for most players and me.

[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] Source engine is also primary made for PC so it has better hardware at its disposal. BOP'S Engine does not have that luxury, it is stuck with older outdated hardware.

Graphics don't matter at all. [QUOTE=RainbowPillows;37983760]That is not gorgeous, this guy is blind as shit.[/QUOTE] Hello privileged gamer.

I don't mind how the graphics look, it's the physics and ragdolls that need improving

[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] borderlands 2 is that u?

The gaming community and it's generally ignorance towards programming and technology has always astounded me. Sure you can list off the hardware specs and throw around some buzzword terminology, but do you understand how it works?

[QUOTE=KlaseR;37984430]I don't mind how the graphics look, it's the physics and ragdolls that need improving[/QUOTE] I don't think the current generation of consoles can cope with upgraded physics.

[QUOTE=newbs;37984460]The gaming community and it's generally ignorance towards programming and technology has always astounded me. Sure you can list off the hardware specs and throw around some buzzword terminology, but do you understand how it works?[/QUOTE] you don't have to understand how cars work to drive one you don't have to understand how a coffeemaker works to operate one it's advantageous to have education in these subjects but never a requisite

I think people take issue with the engine not because it looks bad, but because it looks and feels so much like the first Modern Warfare which was 4 CoD games ago.

[QUOTE=MR-X;37984409]Source engine is also primary made for PC so it has better hardware at its disposal. BOP'S Engine does not have that luxury, it is stuck with older outdated hardware.[/QUOTE] To be honest, valve generally targets older hardware as the baseline as well.

theres a lot thats bad about CoD, but i wouldt say the engine is one of them.

[QUOTE=Wiggles;37983890]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.[/QUOTE] The fact that they've even kept in the same crappy death animations since CoD4 and terrible looking explosions shows that there's some laziness on the developer's part as well. Hardware limitations and the time frame is no excuse for stuff like that.

[QUOTE=KlaseR;37984430]I don't mind how the graphics look, it's the physics and ragdolls that need improving[/QUOTE] It's sort of a "problem" in every game, ragdolls flail their arms ridiculously. MGS4 sort of did this correctly, it only went into ragdoll mode whenever you got shot in the head, but I liked SoF2's animations better. Despite it being CoD with a gore gimmick, it was fun to toy around with. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ7GIIWP-jE[/media]

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37984477]you don't have to understand how cars work to drive one you don't have to understand how a coffeemaker works to operate one it's advantageous to have education in these subjects but never a requisite[/QUOTE] My point is: If you don't understand what you're talking about, shut your yapper.

If things looked less brown, I think it'd look fairly acceptable. They're certainly not groundbreaking in terms of their tech, but the CoD games always do well on facial and character modelling, IMO.

[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: -[B]DoF with Bokeh[/B] -[B]Object motion blur[/B] -Tessellation -[B]Parallax/POM/displacement mapping[/B] -Subsurface scattering -Global illumination, realtime reflections, etc -Deferred rendering -[B]Particle motion blur[/B] -Image lighting Also that fucking fireball explosion particle effect that is like 4 years old![/QUOTE] Here is a list of graphical features I turn off in my games. Why would you want motion blur and depth of field, in every game ive ever played with those features it looks unnatural and ugly as sin, the DoF never looks right because I can usually see farther than the 'blur wall' allows me too, and the motion blur almost always looks way too overdone and instead of looking realistic (being practically unnoticeable) it looks like something moving at 20 mph is blurring along at 80 mph. Parallax also never really manages to look good either because again, devs decide to really show it off and end up making it look ridiculous. The other bits are just lighting enhancements, which in all honesty I don't really turn off because it doesn't bother me, but that doesn't mean I go looking at buckets in the sunlight and drooling in awe how they scattered the light just right or something. Graphics aren't all about how many shaders you can dump onto something, its also about your models, your texture quality, and your art style.

[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]This is a "fake" good look. It's achieved by bloom and warm colors(brown, orange). Take that away and everything else looks rather bad.