http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciRQ0XsPoQs&feature=youtu.be&t=4m47s
This topic is locked from further discussion.
LoL..that guy used a lot of words to basically say that the developers have no ambition to put truly cutting edge features into their game that would make the experience amazing instead of just a pure rehash.
schu
Yup, it's probably good enough for the casuals though.
So since they complain about not having enough time to develop a new engine, why not give the franchise a 1-2 year break?
Cant let their addicts go through withdrawal man !So since they complain about not having enough time to develop a new engine, why not give the franchise a 1-2 year break?
PhazonBlazer
Best selling game on all platforms except Wii. So WRONG!!!!Nobody cares about COD except for lems but they are extinct.
NathanDrakeSwag
Why would they do that?So since they complain about not having enough time to develop a new engine, why not give the franchise a 1-2 year break?
PhazonBlazer
Look who posted the video on youtube. Looks like you care for it also.Nobody cares about COD except for lems but they are extinct.
NathanDrakeSwag
lmao, you mean to tell me that whole time they were bragging over largely the same engine? it has dogs now tho so it's all good guys.
Because that reveal means everything in system wars. I think most of them are waiting until e3 to see for sure what the xbox one will be like (aka the 8 new ips and 15 exclusives)Nobody cares about COD except for lems but they are extinct.
NathanDrakeSwag
[QUOTE="PhazonBlazer"]Greed, simple as that.So since they complain about not having enough time to develop a new engine, why not give the franchise a 1-2 year break?
emgesp
It's not greed, it's a smart business model.
Giving the franchise a few years break would risk damaging a highly successful source of revenue for Activision. Why would they want that?
CoD is a very popular franchise and won't die anytime soon, it's been proven time and again most people don't have a problem with annual releases, so in the end, what we're seeing is only a basic example of supply and demand...
Activision will keep banking CoD money until the series becomes completely dry and runs into the ground. If you find that strongly disagreeable, simply don't buy CoD games. That's what I do, they have nothing to offer me anymore, so I stay away and enjoy many other great games on the market.
You do realize MOST current game engines are derivative of Unreal and Quake. Also, all the BASICS of graphics still havent changed. All these new 'graphics engines' Frostbite, Cryengine, Idtech, Source etc are just the previous engine but with extra features, or if it is different, it is just the same concepts reorganized different with added features.
The difference is the engines you a quoting wernt made in 1995 they were made within the last 5 years.You do realize MOST current game engines are derivative of Unreal and Quake. Also, all the BASICS of graphics still havent changed. All these new 'graphics engines' Frostbite, Cryengine, Idtech, Source etc are just the previous engine but with extra features, or if it is different, it is just the same concepts reorganized different with added features.
way2funny
[QUOTE="way2funny"]The difference is the engines you a quoting wernt made in 1995 they were made within the last 5 years.You do realize MOST current game engines are derivative of Unreal and Quake. Also, all the BASICS of graphics still havent changed. All these new 'graphics engines' Frostbite, Cryengine, Idtech, Source etc are just the previous engine but with extra features, or if it is different, it is just the same concepts reorganized different with added features.
hofuldig
Yeah, and you think the basics of what they do are drastically different? All 3d engines still use the basics of what john carmack did in the 90s. The continuous features and additions is what set them apart. How many good ways do you think there are to draw polygons and textures on the screen?
That's like a drug dealer taking a break when his/her best customers are exclusively buying from him/her.So since they complain about not having enough time to develop a new engine, why not give the franchise a 1-2 year break?
PhazonBlazer
The difference is the engines you a quoting wernt made in 1995 they were made within the last 5 years.[QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="way2funny"]
You do realize MOST current game engines are derivative of Unreal and Quake. Also, all the BASICS of graphics still havent changed. All these new 'graphics engines' Frostbite, Cryengine, Idtech, Source etc are just the previous engine but with extra features, or if it is different, it is just the same concepts reorganized different with added features.
way2funny
Yeah, and you think the basics of what they do are drastically different? All 3d engines still use the basics of what john carmack did in the 90s. The continuous features and additions is what set them apart. How many good ways do you think there are to draw polygons and textures on the screen?
That may be true, but you can tell its clearly an older engine compared to the new ones. if you look at call of duty 2, it launched on the Xbox, then compare it to MW3. Yes, the textures are better, and the framerate is better, but if you look you will notice each game to be very similar. and thats because the tech really hasn't changed. now go look at Battlefield bad company (the first one) on xbox 360, then look at BF3. Its clearly a massive upgrade. Having your own engine that you build from the ground up instead of modifying a 10 year old engine clearly has benefits.They're still using fake sunshafts (which point in the wrong direction lmao) like back in 2004 haha.
[QUOTE="way2funny"][QUOTE="hofuldig"] The difference is the engines you a quoting wernt made in 1995 they were made within the last 5 years.hofuldig
Yeah, and you think the basics of what they do are drastically different? All 3d engines still use the basics of what john carmack did in the 90s. The continuous features and additions is what set them apart. How many good ways do you think there are to draw polygons and textures on the screen?
That may be true, but you can tell its clearly an older engine compared to the new ones. if you look at call of duty 2, it launched on the Xbox, then compare it to MW3. Yes, the textures are better, and the framerate is better, but if you look you will notice each game to be very similar. and thats because the tech really hasn't changed. now go look at Battlefield bad company (the first one) on xbox 360, then look at BF3. Its clearly a massive upgrade. Having your own engine that you build from the ground up instead of modifying a 10 year old engine clearly has benefits.You dont understand how engines work. There are BASICS that every game engine does. It doesnt change from one engine to the next. Most graphical increases are just ADDITIONS to the engine, not REDOING the engine
That may be true, but you can tell its clearly an older engine compared to the new ones. if you look at call of duty 2, it launched on the Xbox, then compare it to MW3. Yes, the textures are better, and the framerate is better, but if you look you will notice each game to be very similar. and thats because the tech really hasn't changed. now go look at Battlefield bad company (the first one) on xbox 360, then look at BF3. Its clearly a massive upgrade. Having your own engine that you build from the ground up instead of modifying a 10 year old engine clearly has benefits.[QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="way2funny"]
Yeah, and you think the basics of what they do are drastically different? All 3d engines still use the basics of what john carmack did in the 90s. The continuous features and additions is what set them apart. How many good ways do you think there are to draw polygons and textures on the screen?
way2funny
You dont understand how engines work. There are BASICS that every game engine does. It doesnt change from one engine to the next. Most graphical increases are just ADDITIONS to the engine, not REDOING the engine
Well i tell you what you arnt making a very strong case here. Perhaps if you actually knew what you were talking about and explained it in a way that i could understand i might see your side. but thus far you are grasping at straws.The issue I have with this game's visuals is how brown and bloomy it is.
Otherwise, it's quite impressive how much they managed to upgrade the good old id Tech 3. (part of which's code is also used in id Tech 4 and 5, aka the engines that power Doom 3 and Rage)
[QUOTE="way2funny"][QUOTE="hofuldig"] That may be true, but you can tell its clearly an older engine compared to the new ones. if you look at call of duty 2, it launched on the Xbox, then compare it to MW3. Yes, the textures are better, and the framerate is better, but if you look you will notice each game to be very similar. and thats because the tech really hasn't changed. now go look at Battlefield bad company (the first one) on xbox 360, then look at BF3. Its clearly a massive upgrade. Having your own engine that you build from the ground up instead of modifying a 10 year old engine clearly has benefits.hofuldig
You dont understand how engines work. There are BASICS that every game engine does. It doesnt change from one engine to the next. Most graphical increases are just ADDITIONS to the engine, not REDOING the engine
Well i tell you what you arnt making a very strong case here. Perhaps if you actually knew what you were talking about and explained it in a way that i could understand i might see your side. but thus far you are grasping at straws. Developers don't throw out all the code each time they make a new iteration of a game engine, they are going to reuse a massive amount of stuff because there is simply no reason to waste perfectly good code. Cryengine 3 has a lot of code from Cryengine 2, which in turn has a lot of code from Cryengine 1. Same thing with every other major engine franchise. Creating a "new" engine version is largely just an arbitrary decision by the developers when they think they have added or changed enough stuff to reasonably call it a new engine.
COD's engine gets complained about a lot because they mostly just make smaller iterations over time (and because hating on Cod is popular) instead of releasing a big new version every 4 years with fancy new tricks, but it would hardly be fair to call it id tech 3. Compare Quake 3 to COD Ghosts, and you can not legitimately say they are the same engine just because there is some code left over from the original base.
So because of Blizzard Activision two year cycle COD gets gimped even when a new generation starts. It must suck to work at IW or Treyarch. You basically work in a COD factory haha. I can't blame them for this. They have jobs to do. When your boss gives you unrealistic goals you cut corners at your job also to make the deadline haha. This is all Blizzard Activision's fault. COD is just a cash cow to them that they will milk till it can't be milked no more. Hopefully that time comes soon.
They're still using fake sunshafts (which point in the wrong direction lmao) like back in 2004 haha.
SchnabbleTab
:lol:
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment