Treyarch defends Call of Duty game engine

I have a very capable PC--GTX 580SLI. I have that config because I appreciate high end graphics. I have played B3, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, and other such titles. Yet, my fav online game is still CoD4, and I find the graphics to be pretty decent. I actually like the gun models in that game better than those seen in many of the newer game engines, and the maps are very good too There is too much emphasis on graphics over the last few years to the exclusion of decent game play, and story telling. That said, the CoD franchise has been equally guilty of offering up lackluster short single  player campaigns as of late as well. 

Given the choice, I would rather have a great game (long single player campaign with good story and character development, and good online play with dedicated servers) with the present CoD engine, than a mediocre game with stellar graphics. Both at once would be the ideal, but given a good game to begin with, I do not find the current CoD engine to be a problem. I would much rather play Hl2 for a second time with it's 2005 graphics than MoH 2010 with the Frostbite engine for a second time because MoH was so short it felt like a rip off. The multi player was not very good either, whereas HL2 online was awesome.

I just bought CoDMW3 on disc--(for $20.--that's why I wait. I actually played the Beta for MW3 when it came out over a year ago). I got MW3 mainly for the single player, as online has no dedicated servers--so I will  just stay with CoD4 for multi player. Hopefully the story for MW3 is  better than CoDMW2 which was a let down.

Saying graphics is better than gameplay is like saying that a painting is more fun and worth your money than a board game. Entertaining gameplay > Flashy graphics. You probably wouldn't understand this since most of you seem to have been born after the year 2000. You're all also technically saying, "This game is brim-filled with content and there's lots to do offline and on! BUT DE GRAFIKS AER CRAPY 0/10 DIS GAEM SUKS."

Really ... i mean what it is called Call of copy and paste engine any game developer especially a designer director who say our games run at 60 FPs what it is the deal about it and not looking at your final product i will personally kick him out the company  there no chance in hell they engine can match frost bite 2, cryengine 3 , hell even unity can do much better stuff than they engine an outdated modded UDK 2 engine   remember GAME QUALITY > FRAMES PERSECOND

I bet Frostbite 2 and CryEngine 3 are laughing at Activision right now.

Frostbite 2 says HA!!!!!

With this engine being around for many years now, I have to wonder that it is because the hardware is tapped out. It cannot display much better visuals without hindering the frames per second. We just have to wait and see what IW or Treyarch come up with next generation. I love 60fps gameplay. I'd prefer that then slightly better visuals.

i still think COD is the best 1st person shooter out there as far and game play and over all entertainment. but the graphics are definitely starting to lack and until they stop making a BILLION dollars per iteration of the game, they probably arent going to change anything drastically.

 "It runs at 60 fps". They've been playing this song for too long. The games still looks like ass. Hit detection sucks too.

Just because COD is running on an outdated graphics engine doesn't mean it's not fun to play. It caters to a wide spectrum of gaming platforms, including the Wii and low-end PCs. If you want a game with a better single-player mode geared towards high-end PCs, then play Crysis 2.

this just shows that they know that their game looks like crap but since they make so much moeny off of 13 year old kids they dont need to make it better. COD is a game that Id maybe plop a dollar or two in a machine and play not plop $120 (+$60 a year for XBL) just to get camped in and play the same thing every year.  

Its the same game every year.......... that's the problem.  I bet pong runs at even higher fps, but how big is the fan base for PONG?  Innovation makes companies have COMPETITION, COMPETITION creates better games. Its like Madden. They have no competition in the NFL, NHL type games, so they release the same crap year after year after year.  COD is the same way

The engine can be ratchet as hell. What impressed me since CoD 4 are the animations. Many studios still don't get them to be as fluid and believable as with this engine. I'm looking at you, 343 Industries.

"At this point that engine doesn't resemble anything like any engine..."

Wasn't the same thing said about MW3? And look how that ended up being...

No one is complaining about the engine itself....  We are simply ready for at least a decent update to it.  There is no problem with it, but seeing the same animations and using controls with the same "feel" does get a little old after a while-seriously.

People are complaining about the CoD engine? That's news to me. Well, Mr. Vonderhaar, you have my assurance that it's perfectly fine as it is. If only we could sprint longer than 7 seconds, though...

You'll see how quick they are praising a new engine when the PS4 and Xbox 720 comes out. What they mean to say is it runs and looks great on current consoles so there is no need to upgrade it so PC users alone could have even better graphics.

It's unfair to compare Call of Duty to FIFA. All First-Person Shooter games re-use a lot of things it's true, but it's to keep old fans happy while providing the optimal gaming experience for all players. They do innovate when it comes to the important things.

Compare the different Counter Strike versions for example, they all play the same but vary in graphical style.

Well I see both viewpoints, the Devs and fans of COD want the game to run at 60FPS for the fast fluid feel that COD is known for. But to get this 60FPS lock they need to keep the graphics and physics at a level below most shooters like (Halo, Killzone, BF3) since those all run at a 30FPS goal.

 I don't think you could have really seen a COD with graphics or even physics much better than it has tbh, the consoles arent up to it.  Next gen you'll see a significant leap.

IMO the engine is fine visually, but visually what gets me most is this game plays way to fast, like it's on turbo speed mode or something

if anything needs working on its the AI, I don't mind aggressive smart AI, but COD AI feels cheap and seems to have an awareness of you and only you, if I'm behind cover every bad guy is shooting at me and me only while teammates will be out in the open and none of the enemy AI is trying to hurt them, that gets kind of annoying

Treyarch and Infinity Ward: Faithful believers of the phrase: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

And why it ain't broke? Because people still buy it.

So its pretty much the same engine but tweaked ,still the same engine lol.

The fact that it runs at 60 FPS on consoles means it's outdated. Simple as that. 

A lot of words to say were to lazy and we don't want to spend the money to make a new engine.

I'd say it's a valid point, at least as far as multi-platform console games go.  I have yet to see one that looks significantly better than CoD4.  Better, yes, but not so much so that it's worth a framerate drop in a multiplayer FPS.

no it's the same engine since world at war and i can see it