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

[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] here's a short list of your features that will significantly increase Black Ops 2's appeal:

[QUOTE=Memobot;37985492]Apart from the jagged edges, ugly textures and the fact the work experience boy changed the password to the colour palette before he left leaving only murky brown, black and grey, it is beautiful. I don't make a big thing of bashing CoD games. They're popular but not for me so I ignore it. But they sure do like opening themselves to criticism don't they?[/QUOTE] They say relatively benign things that get torn apart because the CoD hating bandwagon is constantly starved for material. When a developer says more people should play the multiplayer, obviously the focus of the game, people take it as a personal insult on their playstyles in totally unrelated games. When they say their engine works people say it doesn't because that ragdolls arm at the corner of a picture isn't in the right position. If someone from valve said something as simple as "our engine works" most people would agree because it's true.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;37985577]They say relatively benign things that get torn apart because the CoD hating bandwagon is constantly starved for material. When a developer says more people should play the multiplayer, obviously the focus of the game, people take it as a personal insult on their playstyles in totally unrelated games. When they say their engine works people say it doesn't because that ragdolls arm at the corner of a picture isn't in the right position. If someone from valve said something as simple as "our engine works" most people would agree because it's true.[/QUOTE] and the game gets even more publicity.

[QUOTE=jaykray;37985448][img]http://media.t3.com/img/resized/ca/xl_CallOfDuty_BlackOps2_11_624.jpg[/img] like if you think it's gorgeous[/QUOTE] This game looks like a jumbled up mess.

[QUOTE=Strider*;37985790]This game looks like a jumbled up mess.[/QUOTE] I'd get your eyesight checked because it's pretty clear what is going on here.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;37985814]I'd get your eyesight checked because it's pretty clear what is going on here.[/QUOTE] Nah, they shoved as much as they could into the screenshot on purpose.

The graphic is so 2007. Hell even CS:GO did a better job at making the Source engine graphic looks up to date. But graphic isn't the only thing. The game physics is still lacking behind. I mean have you seen Black Ops multiplayer model glitching out after the player character dies?

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37985936]Nah, they shoved as much as they could into the screenshot on purpose.[/QUOTE] Uh yeah it's a promotional screenshot lol?

You know it may not be super awesome or shit but I always thought that Call of Duty looked good, even since the first game.

[QUOTE=BCell;37985938]The graphic is so 2007. Hell even CS:GO did a better job at making the Source engine graphic looks up to date. But graphic isn't the only thing. The game physics is still lacking behind. I mean have you seen Black Ops multiplayer model glitching out after the player character dies?[/QUOTE] CS GO has none of the graphical features that you criticized Black Ops about and one of its main graphical updates ( real time shadowing ) has been in in the IW engine since 2007 (gosh keep up with the times valve!) its ragdolls are pretty wacky but not too much of a concern because they end up using death animations most of the time anyways

the only thing good about the cod engine from a GAMEPLAY perspective is the netcode (which isn't so hard to make since almost all bullet weapons are hitscan) apart from that I see nothing special about the cod engine's gameplay. that's a major beef I have with the series.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;37986105]Uh yeah it's a promotional screenshot lol?[/QUOTE] I wonder how someone can laugh in an asking tone.

[QUOTE=jaykray;37985448][img]http://media.t3.com/img/resized/ca/xl_CallOfDuty_BlackOps2_11_624.jpg[/img] like if you think it's gorgeous[/QUOTE] Gorgeous? No. Effective and 'good enough'? Definitely. And that's definitely not the best visuals that the series has pumped out thus far. MW1 and MW2 had their share of jawdropping moments.

[QUOTE=proch;37986616]I wonder how someone can laugh in an asking tone.[/QUOTE] A great deal of effort.

[QUOTE=TheKritter71;37985001]Despite the high realistic graphics, the engine needs to go[/QUOTE] These types of comments really make me cringe. It's like people think game engines are this single entity that is made and to add anything else it needs to be thrown out and remade. That's not how software development works, game engines are constantly being worked on and iterated. I don't know or care if that's the case here but your comment is still dumb.

but if its not source or frostbite its bad!!!

I don't see anything wrong with it. The MW and BO games have all had pretty good graphics, the engine they run on is pretty damn versatile. The only problem I've had with them is the dynamic shadows are really ugly. If they update that, it's all good as far as I'm concerned. I'm just glad they aren't taking a big ol' shit on Cold War history again and instead deciding to place it in the future.

I find it funny how people ignorant of how game engines work act like making a new engine will suddenly make it look 500% nicer. The appearance of a game ultimately comes down to the quality of the art style, and the quality of the models and textures. Shader effects won't make something ugly look beautiful. They will, rather, emphasize and add life to the model in question. A more realistic demand would be a call for using higher texture resolutions. A good deal of the textures they use are below average resolution, and the scaling of those low res textures to larger objects is what causes the ugly, blurry appearance of some objects. It's not needed for all things, just the more noticeable things.

Thing is, even when these guy say dumb things, do you think it was really their choice in the matter? For all we know they might be fired on the spot by Kotick if they admit to something being wrong.

[QUOTE=certified;37987378]Thing is, even when these guy say dumb things, do you think it was really their choice in the matter? For all we know they might be fired on the spot by Kotick if they admit to something being wrong.[/QUOTE] I don't think they said dumb things at all though. The engine works, and while it's definitely arguable that the game looks gorgeous, what is the guy who made the game supposed to say? "Yeah it looks okay I guess".

[QUOTE=FullStreak12;37986869]but if its not source or frostbite its bad!!![/QUOTE] unreal engine is k

[QUOTE=dass;37985354]Oh, I'm sorry, I thought games were intended to be fun instead of BREAKING THE LIMITS WITH SUPER REALISTIC GRAPHICS. The graphics of BO2 are actually really nice. The only people who complain about them are the usual CoD haters or people who need HUGE FUCKING REALISTIC GRAPHICS for...nothing.[/QUOTE] The word you're looking for is 'immersion'. I'm not going to pay $60+ for a game that looks worse that Crysis 1 and that hasn't changed their single player formula at all....

Keep in mind, both IW and treyach try to upgrade the engine as much as possible without breaking their 60fps rule Treyach have started to try not to carry the xboxs needs onto the PC by improving the graphics for us, dx11 is one of those things they're adding which is something that's great. But honestly it gets the job done

When people usually complain about graphics or gamplay, they're mostly talking about the lack of immersion behind those factors. Why is that hard to interpret?

[QUOTE=Foda;37987568]The word you're looking for is 'immersion'. I'm not going to pay $60+ for a game that looks worse that Crysis 1 and that hasn't changed their single player formula at all....[/QUOTE] I was really immersed in Black Mesa Source and it honestly doesn't look that different from Black Ops 2.

I wouldnt care if they just changed that horrible explosion effect.

[QUOTE=jaykray;37985448][img]http://media.t3.com/img/resized/ca/xl_CallOfDuty_BlackOps2_11_624.jpg[/img] like if you think it's gorgeous[/QUOTE] 10 likes = 1 prayer

As much as I hate the engine CoD is on, I don't blame them. Don't fix something that ain't broke. Sure it needs tweaks at times, but it's not broken till it stops working right.

[QUOTE=Foda;37987568]The word you're looking for is 'immersion'. I'm not going to pay $60+ for a game that looks worse that Crysis 1 and that hasn't changed their single player formula at all....[/QUOTE] Most games released today still look worse than crysis...

Quick and fast working engine that works off the tired-and-true Quake 3 build (since the first game liberally used the same engine, and then they just refined it and made it their own from there), graphics that give you what you need to discern the details the developers think is necessary, and good enough within the restrictions of the console limitations. I mean, sure, graphics porn like Crysis is cool and all, but one of the big factors of the Call of Duty series is that it tries appealing to the giant mass market, whether you like it or not; why limit people severely with some giant mega-engine fanciness instead of having something that runs reliably smooth? And this is coming from a guy who's hated Modern Warfare 2 & 3 and thought Black Ops was mediocre.