Developer: The Call Of Duty Engine is a "Porsche"

[42]

why change something thats not broken? why does everyone want innovation?
what is with people always wanting more out of things that don't have a problem? everyone is obsessed with graphics and engines. thats all i ever see gamers complain about. can't we all just sit down and just enjoy the game for what it is? a GAME? ok graphics are important yeah, but it isn't the sole purpose to play games.

 

[Bravo 21]

what he is saying seems to make sense, but if the MW3 a porshce, what is BF3? a tank? a future space plane? and what does that make PC/Xbox/PS3? highways?

 

[Particulate]

Porsche? More like Wartburg 353...

*golf clap* Well played, sir, well played

 

[Waaghpowa]

....I wont even bother, but I will quote this guy.

Well, Porsche are fairly well known for making cars that look identical to the ones that came before it, so it's a pretty fair comparison I think.

Because it's SOOO true.

 

[Treblaine]

What they said? A torrent of excuses and dismissive accusations aren't going to change how incredibly similar MW3 looks to Modern Warfare 2.

I am not blind, I am not short sighted, and most certainly I am not looking at this game with rose tinted glasses.

Nobody is making any excuses here. The guy was saying dont judge a book by its cover.

The subject very much IS graphics.

Activision is charging £40 ($60) on PC, THAT is a large amount of money for a PC game, and what am I getting for it? Something really special? Really?

TODAY Graphics ARE the issue, because MONEY is the issue. You can't say this is just about the art, or just about the gameplay, not when that amount of money is being charged with no possibility of a resale to recoup some of the costs. If Activision aren't going to put the effort in creating new art assets and REALLY making the game LOOK like an improvement... then why should I fork over the big wodge of cash that they want. And they can't pull the wool over my eyes a third time, all the DLC for Black Ops amounted to $60 and I know they will pull the same shit again here, so that's $60 plus much more to get the "full" experience.

The rule of thumbs is "Graphics = money"

If you want graphics then CoD is not aimed at you. It is all about the gameplay not flashy graphics. Sure the game doesnt look like an improvement if you only stare at graphics instead of you know looking at all the changes they have made. I for one would rather they update actual gameplay then graphics and I am betting the majority of the fans of the games feel the same way.

Cheap indie games have low fidelity graphics or are really visually similar/derivative. Expansion packs are cheap or free, because they reuse the same assets.

COD2->COD4 was a huge difference in look, feel and graphical fidelity to spite being the same engine and same console
COD4->MW2 again, a significant difference, every single gun was re-made, everything looked different

Your "it's the same engine" argument is utter nonsense. The problem is they are using the same ASSETS! The same sets of tools and props from Modern Warfare 2... or at least they have made them so similar that it seems they might as well have.

I'll probably get MW3 when it is on sale. The gameplay DOES get me interested, it looks like MW2 but actually balanced.

But it is unacceptable to charge so much for a game with such lazy and derivative graphics.

Bottom line:
-nice gameplay improvements
-Charging too much for a glorified expansion pack.

I think your idea of what an expansion pack is is rather delusional. You also seem to be forgetting that expansion packs most often used to cost the exact same amount as the game.

I think your resort to insults rather than reasoned logic makes your posts worthless.

What are you trying to prove? A circle of self-confirming irrelevances like "don't judge a book by its cover".

Apparently the developers don't want us to judge the game AT ALL! They assert that plain s day obvious comparisons are simply wrong under the pedantically spurious logic that "huff, underneath we sure did stuff" and expect us to cast aside all our own personal judgement and analysis to their insultingly simple argument of: "it is IS better, now BUY IT!"

We ALL bloody well know the circumstances around this game, how Activision utterly gutted Infinity Ward and hung them out to dry, a cruel and greedy move that cost a lot of TIME and did they extend the release a all to make up for lost time and readjustment of the new team working on fired men's code? And now, lo and behold, the game looks like a rushed cut-n-paste job.

It does NOT look like they spent 2 years making a new game with the same engine.

It DOES look like they spent 1 year (from time lost in the Purge of IW) simply remixing and making improvements and extensions on MW2. And I'm not just talking graphical fidelity.

That's what MW3 is like, a glorified "episode expansion" of MW2, with a few new weapons, re-labels, new fonts and HUD screens... these are all VERY pedestrian improvements. On sites like ModDB single people do such things in their spare time for free.

Expansion packs most often DID NOT cost as much as the original game. Certainly TODAY with the standard set with episodic content like HL2 episodes, stand-alone expansions are cheaper. Certainly for what Activsion is offering they can't charge 33% MORE than a standard new release for what is definitely LESS than a standard new release. DXHR and RAGE are both £29.99, Witcher 2 is £25.99, so what the hell does Activision think they have??!?

 

[cainx10a]

Not sure what are some people issues with MW3 graphics. They look great, what else do you want? ARMA 3 level of graphics so that just a few people can run the game, and the rest has to deal with an ugly mess on the lower settings, a mess both in look and performance I should add.

They could at least change the HUD for fuck's sake, if you showed someone who's never seen Modern Warfare before footage from both MW2 and MW3 I bet they'd never see the difference.

Why change something that works beautifully? The hud shows all the info you need, and it doesn't get in the way of game-play like Deus Ex: Invisible War's hud to Deus Ex: Goty.

 

[Vigormortis]

Originally a heavily modified Quake III engine (yes, that's the correct number of Is there)

That's a fail in both Roman Numerals (3 being the highest number composed entirely of Is) and ID Tech engine knowledge! (Quake IIII IV used the same engine as DooM III)

(It's not particularly impressive either - Source is written on top of the Quake I engine ^_^ )

But...he's right. The current COD engine is built upon the Quake 3 engine. So, him saying Quake III is correct.

Also, Source is a proprietary engine. (mostly) Effectively built from the ground up by Valve over the course of about four years. I believe you're thinking of Source: Gold. The engine Half-Life 1 used. And, that engine was a heavily modified version of the Quake II engine.

OT: This whole affair is just getting sad. EA's advertising has be atrocious so far for Battlefield 3. That 99 problems ad anyone? And, don't even get me started on the whole attack campaign against COD and the smear campaign against Valve and Steam.

However, just as pathetic is Activisions own attack campaign against EA/DICE. Every time DICE shows off something rather impressive about Battlefield 3, Activision immediately comes out with some "expert" who starts talking in a "laid back" and often offended-like tone about how "refined" and "perfected" Call of Duty has become. It reeks of desperation and clearly shows Activision literally has no valid points with which to defend the game. Consider their, "After five games and over half a decade we've FINALLY got the engine to run at around 60 frames per second on the 360! Yet Frostbyte 2 only reaches 30!" (hyperbole, but valid none-the-less)

Frankly? I just want Activision and EA to shut the hell up. They're only making fools of themselves at this point as well as only adding fuel to the vitriolic fire currently burning between the COD fans and the BF fans. Just look at some of the responses in this thread. Especially among those preemptively coming in to "defend" COD from the "haters".

 

[Treblaine]

why change something thats not broken? why does everyone want innovation?
what is with people always wanting more out of things that don't have a problem? everyone is obsessed with graphics and engines. thats all i ever see gamers complain about. can't we all just sit down and just enjoy the game for what it is? a GAME? ok graphics are important yeah, but it isn't the sole purpose to play games.

Why not change what is good? Then WHY make a sequel?!?

Why innovation? Because they want more of our money!

This meagre improvement should be a $40-50 game and DEFINITELY should include all maps with that price, not another 4 map-packs at $15 a piece.

COD(insert number between 4 and 27) should not mean just another opportunity to give Bobby Kotick $60 + $15 + $15 + $15.

Graphics aren't the sole purpose... but derivative graphics and models DO knock about $10-15 off the value of the game.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Really?

So I guess the rest of us are just crazy when we see in the videos the exact same fucking game that you've been releasing year after year? Good god the game's graphics actually look worse than MW2's - that most be some sort of nega-achievement.

Face it; you've been basically releasing a $60 mod every year for the same game Activision/IW/TA. A mod which incidentally still tends to be a fair bit worse than the game you're modding (COD4). Everything about your game is inferior; graphics, sound, campaign, gameplay, multiplayer - it has been since the first Bad Company.

But don't worry; you'll still make money hand over fist. Because at the end of the day your game is more hyped and easy to play so you don't have to worry about the big boys coming to steal your pie.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Originally a heavily modified Quake III engine (yes, that's the correct number of Is there)

That's a fail in both Roman Numerals (3 being the highest number composed entirely of Is) and ID Tech engine knowledge! (Quake IIII IV used the same engine as DooM III)

(It's not particularly impressive either - Source is written on top of the Quake I engine ^_^ )

However, just as pathetic is Activisions own attack campaign against EA/DICE. Every time DICE shows off something rather impressive about Battlefield 3, Activision immediately comes out with some "expert" who starts talking in a "laid back" and often offended-like tone about how "refined" and "perfected" Call of Duty has become. It reeks of desperation and clearly shows Activision literally has no valid points with which to defend the game. Consider their, "After five games and over half a decade we've FINALLY got the engine to run at around 60 frames per second on the 360! Yet Frostbyte 2 only reaches 30!" (hyperbole, but valid none-the-less)

Thats 60FPS....with no vehicles, destructible cover, physics of any kind small maps and only 18 players. BF3 gets 32 players, vehicles, destructible cover, huge-ass maps and a ton of other things. He also forgets to mention many PC's will still play the game at 60FPS anyway.

So yeah...you run at 60FPS. But what have you accomplished with that 60FPS?

 

[Funkysandwich]

I've never really had an issue with CoD's graphics. I think CoD4 still looks great on the PC.

CoD just isn't interesting or fun to play any more.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Nintendo Wii, anyone? The best HD you can get is 480p, and that's if you have the special cable. Despite that, it still has some incredibly good-looking games. That most people who care about Call of Duty will slag without having played given the first opportunity as 'baby games with baby graphics for babies.' Yeah, like your regenerating health obsession is any better.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

why change something thats not broken? why does everyone want innovation?
what is with people always wanting more out of things that don't have a problem? everyone is obsessed with graphics and engines. thats all i ever see gamers complain about. can't we all just sit down and just enjoy the game for what it is? a GAME? ok graphics are important yeah, but it isn't the sole purpose to play games.

You, sir, hit the nail on the head, but you're using the argument to defend the side it's attacking.

I will admit to liking several things that don't change a lot from game to game: Mario, for instance. Thing is, Nintendo released Mario's games further apart, and they don't do DLC, online passes, or anything else that would keep them from being niche. But hey, they still make money, and the gameplay is fun if not varied. And it doesn't imitate anything except its own past successes.

Now, with Call of Duty, on the other hand, the obsession is with graphics over gameplay. Every post I've seen about it is about its graphics, its map packs, and the fact that it'll be a $100 (I live in Australia; markups are on everything here, and it is actually $100 on Steam) multiplayer pass for Modern Warfare 1.2, and since all your friends are moving on, you'd better do it too, bucko! It also apes Halo with its regenerating health, something that worked in the context of science fiction, but not for a 'realistic' game, puts in 20 guns that all do exactly the same thing, says 'good enough' and throws it out.

I liked Modern Warfare 1, which is the only Call of Duty I've played, but neither Modern Warfare after that interested me at all.

And the thing about Battlefield is that it's trying to be 'Call of Duty, except not published by Bobby Kotick'. That means that in betraying its original fans to try and get some Call of Duty fans instead, who will ignore Battlefield in favour of Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 3 will be the better-selling of the two biggest gray, 'realistic' shooters of 2011.

[/thesis]

 

[42]

why change something thats not broken? why does everyone want innovation?
what is with people always wanting more out of things that don't have a problem? everyone is obsessed with graphics and engines. thats all i ever see gamers complain about. can't we all just sit down and just enjoy the game for what it is? a GAME? ok graphics are important yeah, but it isn't the sole purpose to play games.

Why not change what is good? Then WHY make a sequel?!?

Why innovation? Because they want more of our money!

This meagre improvement should be a $40-50 game and DEFINITELY should include all maps with that price, not another 4 map-packs at $15 a piece.

COD(insert number between 4 and 27) should not mean just another opportunity to give Bobby Kotick $60 + $15 + $15 + $15.

Graphics aren't the sole purpose... but derivative graphics and models DO knock about $10-15 off the value of the game.

what I'm saying is that not everything has to be updated to look prettier. I'm not complaining about the companies advertising about their innovations, I'm going off against the gamers who constantly obsess over how good a game looks. ok CoD has a few areas it could improve on, but this might sound strange but i'm actually one of those rare creatures that buy it for it's single player campaigns. :O i know. anyway you don't know true expense until you've lived in australia.

why change something thats not broken? why does everyone want innovation?
what is with people always wanting more out of things that don't have a problem? everyone is obsessed with graphics and engines. thats all i ever see gamers complain about. can't we all just sit down and just enjoy the game for what it is? a GAME? ok graphics are important yeah, but it isn't the sole purpose to play games.

You, sir, hit the nail on the head, but you're using the argument to defend the side it's attacking.

I will admit to liking several things that don't change a lot from game to game: Mario, for instance. Thing is, Nintendo released Mario's games further apart, and they don't do DLC, online passes, or anything else that would keep them from being niche. But hey, they still make money, and the gameplay is fun if not varied. And it doesn't imitate anything except its own past successes.

Now, with Call of Duty, on the other hand, the obsession is with graphics over gameplay. Every post I've seen about it is about its graphics, its map packs, and the fact that it'll be a $100 (I live in Australia; markups are on everything here, and it is actually $100 on Steam) multiplayer pass for Modern Warfare 1.2, and since all your friends are moving on, you'd better do it too, bucko! It also apes Halo with its regenerating health, something that worked in the context of science fiction, but not for a 'realistic' game, puts in 20 guns that all do exactly the same thing, says 'good enough' and throws it out.

I liked Modern Warfare 1, which is the only Call of Duty I've played, but neither Modern Warfare after that interested me at all.

And the thing about Battlefield is that it's trying to be 'Call of Duty, except not published by Bobby Kotick'. That means that in betraying its original fans to try and get some Call of Duty fans instead, who will ignore Battlefield in favour of Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 3 will be the better-selling of the two biggest gray, 'realistic' shooters of 2011.

[/thesis]

you're right about that. and i am right with you there man, the price markups from american prices suck. Australian game prices are too high.

 

[samsonguy920]

So what you guys are basically saying, is you are both too lazy to create a new engine from scratch, and too cheap to license one of the new engines out there. And you have to use buzzwords to justify your argument.

Yep, we've been down this avenue enough times. Lemme know how that whole inadequacy anxiety is working out for you.

 

[MajorDolphin]

Does anyone expect a co-developer to say "engine is a Pinto"?

 

[Mr. Omega]

I don't mind the CoD series. They're a solid series of fun, fast-paced, frantic shooters. They're fun to play, easy to get into, and such.

What I mind are the business practices associated with CoD. And while the claims are exaggerated, and practically none of them are exclusive to CoD, CoD has a very very large chunk of them conveniently wrapped up in one package.

As for the engine matter, the whole focus on how things don't look different enough is slightly justified, but the guy is saying "don't judge us by our graphics", and I can respect that. I'm not one to condemn a game based on graphics (I own a Wii, after all...), but today's gaming community seems to think slightly subpar graphics is enough to condemn a game and that slightly shinier graphics is enough to praise something as super-special-awesome.

That being said, the game better PLAY damn well. And Black Ops had a LOT of issues. And even if we are just going by MW2 standards, there weren't as many issues, but some were bigger. So sure, I won't ***** about the graphic looking the same. I WILL complain if the grenade launcher didn't get a serious nerf between MW2 and MW3.

Ironically, and I KNOW this is going to get me flamed, I actually think Battlefield 3 is a bigger embodiment of things that are wrong with the industry today. Not as a big as one as Homefront (you'd have to be TRYING if you want to be as much as a symbol of what is wrong with gaming to as Homefront), but I do think that BF3 is a bigger sign of the problems than MW3.

 

[Korten12]

Originally a heavily modified Quake III engine (yes, that's the correct number of Is there)

That's a fail in both Roman Numerals (3 being the highest number composed entirely of Is) and ID Tech engine knowledge! (Quake IIII IV used the same engine as DooM III)

(It's not particularly impressive either - Source is written on top of the Quake I engine ^_^ )

However, just as pathetic is Activisions own attack campaign against EA/DICE. Every time DICE shows off something rather impressive about Battlefield 3, Activision immediately comes out with some "expert" who starts talking in a "laid back" and often offended-like tone about how "refined" and "perfected" Call of Duty has become. It reeks of desperation and clearly shows Activision literally has no valid points with which to defend the game. Consider their, "After five games and over half a decade we've FINALLY got the engine to run at around 60 frames per second on the 360! Yet Frostbyte 2 only reaches 30!" (hyperbole, but valid none-the-less)

Thats 60FPS....with no vehicles, destructible cover, physics of any kind small maps and only 18 players. BF3 gets 32 players, vehicles, destructible cover, huge-ass maps and a ton of other things. He also forgets to mention many PC's will still play the game at 60FPS anyway.

So yeah...you run at 60FPS. But what have you accomplished with that 60FPS?

A smoother console version? Yeah sure, the pc version runs at 60 FPS, but CoD sells more on consoles which is what really matters. 60 fps does feel soooooo much better to play compared to 30 fps.

It is also quite noticable, and makes the game feel more fun to play when I don't have to worry about the frame-rate dropping.

 

[Daverson]

Originally a heavily modified Quake III engine (yes, that's the correct number of Is there)

That's a fail in both Roman Numerals (3 being the highest number composed entirely of Is) and ID Tech engine knowledge! (Quake IIII IV used the same engine as DooM III)

(It's not particularly impressive either - Source is written on top of the Quake I engine ^_^ )

But...he's right. The current COD engine is built upon the Quake 3 engine. So, him saying Quake III is correct.

Also, Source is a proprietary engine. (mostly) Effectively built from the ground up by Valve over the course of about four years. I believe you're thinking of Source: Gold. The engine Half-Life 1 used. And, that engine was a heavily modified version of the Quake II engine.

I didn't say it wasn't built on the Quake III engine, just that saying "that's the right number of Is" in the sense that it's an old engine is a tad nonsensical. (Unless he was implying we might think they'd built it on top of the QII engine?! D= )

(Source was built directly on top of GoldSRC, that's why it so easy for Valve to port the original HL to the source engine ^_^ , I guess it does seem a bit pedantic, since you could say QIII is built on top of QII, which is in turn built on top of QI, but id did the work there, so I wouldn't =p )

 

[Bvenged]

Cut & paste. There I said it; problem?

I played CoD 2 the other night. Wasteland (from MW2) is actually a CoD 2 map in the trenches of france. Other than textures, it's identical. Also; when you melee in CoD 2 you strike with th ebutt of the gun, yet it's exactly the same sound effect as CoD 8. That's why I am so inclined to say Cut & paste. Deal with it.

You can add as much as you want to CoD, Devs - but there are still massive segments of the game cut & paste from prequels each time for the past 2-6 games. It's disgusting because you haven't really made a new game for years, now.

I'm off to pay budget price for Anniversary, it adds about the same amount of content to it's prequels as CoD has, but at budget price; and at least the multiplayer is constantly being refined. Not just left to rot.