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

[QUOTE=itisjuly;37984612]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.[/QUOTE] this is an incorrect statement [QUOTE=itisjuly;37984643]The point is, even a game from 90s with bloom and soft sunset lighting will look good. I want to see a good looking shot that is not in this lighting.[/QUOTE] [t]http://www.madabouthats.org/images/cgshader-2.jpg[/t] yep i can't even tell the difference

the first black ops looked pretty good for 2010 on the PC side of things. especially the single player / coop.

[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] Just like I'm not gonna kill 600€ for an iPhone just because it does a handful of things more than a lower budget phone, but I digress. If you're buying CoD games for their singleplayer, then you should really just keep the money and spend it somewhere else. It's a known fact that CoD is more of a multiplayer experience than anything else, and graphics don't always make immersion. It depends on the kind of game. Crysis, being a game that was basically showing off its guns, centers itself on giving extremely good graphism to make up for a better, different experience. CoD was never about graphism to create immersion.

Of course you're gonna get 60 FPS when you're using low poly count models and pasty textures; even the Xbox 360 has enough horsepower for that. But I'm ok because I prefer older graphics. Photorealistic graphics just strain my eyes.

The engine worked well for the first Black Ops because it fit in with the whole gritty, dirty theme. For a clean cut and futuristic world, it doesn't work.

[QUOTE=zeromancer;37983757]I just find the general physics of this game to be terrible. It looks too generic, maybe they should try to make it look a little better, then they might not get bashed around a lot with the whole "It's exactly the same as the last CoD".[/QUOTE] Surely 'generic' physics is the ideal kind of physics to have in a pseudo-realistic shooter? I mean you wouldn't want some sort of wacky artistic ~original~ interpretation of physics where grenades did backflips and dead bodies gravitated to each other by their heads

I like how no matter what they do to the engine, all I see is Call of Duty 2 with more automatic weapons and gameplay gimmicks.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;37990613]Forget about reusing the engine, how about some new death animations please[/QUOTE] I don't think enough people notice the death animations to warrant them being remade. That's a really small part of the overall presentation.

Why do people give a fuck about the graphics? I thought a video [i]game[/i] was for [i]gameplay[/i]. Not everything has to be a groundbreaking advancement.

[QUOTE=dass;37988679] If you're buying CoD games for their singleplayer, then you should really just keep the money and spend it somewhere else. It's a known fact that CoD is more of a multiplayer experience than anything else, and graphics don't always make immersion. It depends on the kind of game. Crysis, being a game that was basically showing off its guns, centers itself on giving extremely good graphism to make up for a better, different experience. CoD was never about graphism to create immersion.[/QUOTE] The problem is that COD doesn't have much to do inmersion. If the story is going to be generic, at least put some effort on make it prettier. I agree on the multiplayer though. And I won't lie, I used to enjoy it myself. At least I'm glad we don't have the usual playerbase here in my country. In any case, this works great for me, as I don't really have too much money on my pocket to upgrade my rig anyway.

[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] neither is source but people still openly have a wank about how great and "modder friendly" (lmfao) it is. i think the engine itself is aight especially considering it's one of those commodity engines that is supposed to run well on a range of hardware, not push any bars. i blame poor art direction and misuse of the engine. if a competent team went in there, there's plenty of tech to make a good looking game, they just use that tech to make a really bland, desaturated bloomy shooter.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;37990621]I don't think enough people notice the death animations to warrant them being remade. That's a really small part of the overall presentation.[/QUOTE] It's more and more noticeable after seeing the same terrible animation for years. The rest of the visuals don't look that bad which is why it sticks out so much. [editline]11th October 2012[/editline] Apparently people here don't realize a game can have technically dated visuals and still look good. Just like one can have advanced visuals and look bad.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;37990613]Forget about reusing the engine, how about some new death animations please[/QUOTE] This, they look really wacky I'd prefer it if the physics engine just took care of it all

[QUOTE=Cureless;37991076]Why do people give a fuck about the graphics? I thought a video [i]game[/i] was for [i]gameplay[/i]. Not everything has to be a groundbreaking advancement.[/QUOTE] Well considering the gameplay hasn't changed much for what? Nine games? I can understand some people's frustrations. Even still, the engine has held up pretty well. Just goes to show John Carmack is fucking great at designing engines.

Black Ops 2 might be the first CoD game I'll buy since WaW. I like the setting too much to not give it a chance.

Considering that it runs at 60 FPS on the Xbox 360, I think it's one of the most optimized engines out there.

Its modified quake 3 engine. The performance is due to its simplicity. Graphics-wise CoD games are as basic as it gets.

I think my problem with Call of duty is that the graphic style doesn't seem to have any real art-style to it, a lot of the textures are really hard on the eyes, also the lighting is fucking dreadful, you can't push 8 year old hardware to realism, there's a point that you should stop and try to add some sort of art-style to your game to hide the ageing process

While a lot of the stuff under the hood may be horrendous (oh dear god coding for alteriwnet was a nightmare), there's no denying it is a great engine performance-wise. Plus I absolutely loathe CoD games, and I still think they look gorgeous in every way but textures.

when valve uses ancient engine: so resourceful and skillful when someone else does it: wtf u faggots make me a new engine u lazy cunts

[QUOTE=Eonart;37993525] You rich asshats shouldn't spoil yourselves by buying a new graphics card everytime one comes out. That's stupidly unnecessary when your game still runs just fine. [/QUOTE]If everyone worked by Treyarch logic we'd never need new hardware as all games would look crap and run at 60 fps. Good or bad? Not for me to tell.

my computer really good so i don't have to turn down my settings like u noobs LOL i tink the graphics can be better so i can see them better xD

[QUOTE=mrmamu;37993575]when valve uses ancient engine: so resourceful and skillful when someone else does it: wtf u faggots make me a new engine u lazy cunts[/QUOTE] Source engine does look a lot better. CSGO looks very nice compared to COD we've seen so far. Though I still hope Valve does a new engine or MAJOR upgrade to get on with the times.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;37993708]Source engine does look a lot better. CSGO looks very nice compared to COD we've seen so far. Though I still hope Valve does a new engine or MAJOR upgrade to get on with the times.[/QUOTE] CS:GO is so shit wtf. I got the beta hoping that valve would of actually made a good game for once. But inevitably it was rubbish. Bravo GabeN

[QUOTE=Eonart;37993781]You completely missed the fact that I don't care if my games look like crap. I'm just saying that it's not really necessary to conform to super dynamic light turbo AA in a graphics card when nothing actually makes use of it yet.[/QUOTE] No one's asking anyone to conform to that, though it would be a nice thing if more developers did.

[QUOTE=A big fat ass;37984202]I don't understand it either. I think it's a nice looking engine. It's better than Source, at least.[/QUOTE] Hahhahhah, [I]nope[/I]! The InfinityWard engine is a wonderfully simple engine and that's about it. It's smooth because it's basically the Quake3 engine with some slapped on shaders and a some simple physics. Thus I never though much of it after seeing videos of customized builds of the Q1 & Q2 engine, with dynamic lightning and such. Whereas the source has more features. Like physics where objects don't have the gravitational properties of cardboard and ragdolls that twitch, spasm and stretch.

[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;37995380]Hahhahhah, [I]nope[/I]! The InfinityWard engine is a wonderfully simple engine and that's about it. It's smooth because it's basically the Quake3 engine with some slapped on shaders and a some simple physics. Thus I never though much of it after seeing videos of customized builds of the Q1 & Q2 engine, with dynamic lightning and such. Whereas the source has more features. Like physics where objects don't have the gravitational properties of cardboard and ragdolls that twitch, spasm and stretch.[/QUOTE] A lot of people here keep harping on CoD's lack of a decent physics engine, but I have to ask this: How would CoD's style of gameplay benefit in ANY way from a modern physics engine? Redoing the engine just to get some pretty ragdolls is probably seen as unnecessary effort.

[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;37995380]Hahhahhah, [I]nope[/I]! The InfinityWard engine is a wonderfully simple engine and that's about it. It's smooth because it's basically the Quake3 engine with some slapped on shaders and a some simple physics. Thus I never though much of it after seeing videos of customized builds of the Q1 & Q2 engine, with dynamic lightning and such. Whereas the source has more features. Like physics where objects don't have the gravitational properties of cardboard and ragdolls that twitch, spasm and stretch.[/QUOTE] Keeping things simple is not necessarily bad, and frankly, I have seen more physics in Modern Warfare 2 than in CS:GO. I personally find the former a better looking game. Source has cubic levels, a lack of good bumpmaps with specular reflections, and has less dynamic lighting.

[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;37995380]Hahhahhah, [I]nope[/I]! The InfinityWard engine is a wonderfully simple engine and that's about it. It's smooth because it's basically the Quake3 engine with some slapped on shaders and a some simple physics. Thus I never though much of it after seeing videos of customized builds of the Q1 & Q2 engine, with dynamic lightning and such. Whereas the source has more features. Like physics where objects don't have the gravitational properties of cardboard and ragdolls that twitch, spasm and stretch.[/QUOTE] Id Tech 3 is to IWengine what GoldSrc is to Source - it's so different from what was that it's not really worth mentioning what it used to be

Don't know how anyone complain when the majority of us are Valve fans. Valve makes about the same changes to the Source engine as Treyarch probably has with CoD's engine, Valve also likes to re-use its assets for different games. Though I'm probably just reiterating something that was already brought up. :v: