Treyarch: Black Ops II Doesn't Need a New Engine

[porpoise hork]

If you stop and think about it, why should they use a new engine. It's not like they are coding for newer hardware than the 360 and ps3, but hey if they want their games to look like ass then that is their prerogative. They just reuse the same material again and again, coffee stains and all while adding some particle effects and some new map skins. When they are at the deadline they slap a CoD title on it and make millions.



On a separate note his mention that Valve is still releasing games on the source engine while this is true, the games Valve puts out look infinitely better than anything TreyArch has ever shit out.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

If the engine still has most of the original parts, then yes, it's still more or less the same car.

If I change my hard drive, memory, case and clean the fans, it's still the same PC.

I said every piece. What you described is not every piece.

 

[SpAc3man]

I would like to point out that the engine that was used for Call of Duty 1 was also built on the same iD Tech 3 (Quake 3) engine base as all iterations of the IW Engine used since CoD2. In other words the same engine has been used for ALL CoD iterations since 2003 except for CoD3. IW have already shown they are capable of huge improvement of the tech they have (as shown from Cod1 to CoD2) but they and the other CoD developers refuse to put in the effort for a game that will be limited by the outdated console hardware that everything is barely running on these days.

 

[Frotality]

does that remodeling analogy count as an admission they are just making tweaks to the same god-damn game and these alleged sequels are better classified as expansion packs?

they are right though. you dont a need a new graphics engine; you need a new everything else. it looks fine, its the incredibly dull and played out bare-bones FPS gameplay i have a problem with.

 

[ElPatron]

I would have to agree that a new game doesn't always need a new engine. If they think it works fine then go with it. Modify what you need to and work with the rest.

I agree with there not being a need for a new engine, but I can still question art direction. A lot of the Call of Duty textures just look ugly to me. If they could make a game look pretty without looking like someone threw coffee over every surface, I'd be fine.

fully agree. not every game needs to look awesome.

The problem isn't that CoD actually looks like shit, it's the fact that it runs like shit.

I have noticed that the IW engine takes a lot more power than it requires (for the level of graphics it runs).

I don't know what's the point of having a machine that runs Crysis smoothly if a game that isn't as demanding (when it comes to both graphics and physics) has FPS drops and stutters a lot of times, even on low settings and resolutions.

Oh, right. Because my combination of hardware isn't the one they intended. Call of Duty has been running on an engine that doesn't run well on all PCs (it kind of reminds me of the poor optimization on F.E.A.R., it was a nightmare to make it run smoothly) and still has a lot of problems that come back every year.

The network code could use some polishing, too.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

*ahem*

You tear down the foundation, or at least FIX it when the foundation is an ancient piece of shit that can't support the weight of the house going on top of it.


Why isn't the same true for your laggy, outdated, POS that you call a game engine might I ask?

 

[triggrhappy94]

I think critics are just trying to find something new and technical to complain about, instead of just claiming it's just the same game as before--a valid point none-the-less.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I wonder how many dated looking cods will be made after BO2. Oh and sure consoles are to blame for cods outdated graphics. Since when did developers make a deal out of this. They just put out a way better looking pc version with more details, better physics and high-res textures if it isn`t cod.
Cod looks this way because the funny little house theory doesn`t work anymore and it crumbles since world at war.
While i like that they want to keep a high framerate it sounds more like "We still use our old build and implement shit because we couldn`t keep up our release schedule otherwise", but i`m no programmer so what do i know. I still like Treyarch for their sp campaigns.

I stop ranting now. Cod is my favorite rental franchise for boring evenings.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Noone should make a new engine until Unreal releases their new destruction technology. Then everyone should use that.

 

[Metalrocks]

The problem isn't that CoD actually looks like shit, it's the fact that it runs like shit.

I have noticed that the IW engine takes a lot more power than it requires (for the level of graphics it runs).

I don't know what's the point of having a machine that runs Crysis smoothly if a game that isn't as demanding (when it comes to both graphics and physics) has FPS drops and stutters a lot of times, even on low settings and resolutions.

Oh, right. Because my combination of hardware isn't the one they intended. Call of Duty has been running on an engine that doesn't run well on all PCs (it kind of reminds me of the poor optimization on F.E.A.R., it was a nightmare to make it run smoothly) and still has a lot of problems that come back every year.

The network code could use some polishing, too.

funny. i never had any problems with the games (COD4, black ops and MW3. still wish i woulndt have gotten MW3). they always ran smoothly on my old machine with a Q6600 intel CPU, radeon 3850, 3.2gb RAM and win 7 32bit. even the FEAR games ran smoothly and everything was set to high.
when the first FEAR came out, my machine at that time was not great either, but i was still able to set pretty much everything on high and had only minor lagging.

now i have a better machine with a i5 2400 CPU, radeon 7870 card, 8gb RAM and win 7 64bit. so of course they run anyway without any problem.

 

[Abedeus]

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

If the engine still has most of the original parts, then yes, it's still more or less the same car.

If I change my hard drive, memory, case and clean the fans, it's still the same PC.

I said every piece. What you described is not every piece.

Well, then it's a bad comparison.

Game engines aren't like car engines. You can't take a Quake III engine and turn it into CryEngine 2.0 by just upgrading and changing parts.

If you really want to replace "every piece", then it's called an engine change.

 

[ElPatron]

they run anyway without any problem.

I don't know the chances of being bogged down with IW engine but I think I have some reason to complain when Crysis runs smoothly at 1680x1050 with High/Med settings and Call of Duty has inconsistent performance even on the lowest settings.

 

[ElPatron]

they run anyway without any problem.

I don't know the chances of being bogged down with IW engine but I think I have some reason to complain when Crysis runs smoothly at 1680x1050 with High/Med settings and Call of Duty has inconsistent performance even on the lowest settings.

 

[Metalrocks]

they run anyway without any problem.

I don't know the chances of being bogged down with IW engine but I think I have some reason to complain when Crysis runs smoothly at 1680x1050 with High/Med settings and Call of Duty has inconsistent performance even on the lowest settings.

sorry to hear that. like i said before. i never had any problems what so ever with these games. i was able to play the crysis 2 demo on my older machine (3850 card) with a resolution of 1920x1080, everything set to high and it ran very smoothly, so as the COD games.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

If the engine still has most of the original parts, then yes, it's still more or less the same car.

If I change my hard drive, memory, case and clean the fans, it's still the same PC.

I said every piece. What you described is not every piece.

Well, then it's a bad comparison.

Game engines aren't like car engines. You can't take a Quake III engine and turn it into CryEngine 2.0 by just upgrading and changing parts.

If you really want to replace "every piece", then it's called an engine change.

I didn't intend it as the metaphor that everyone should be using for this. I simply posed an interesting philosophical question that was tangentially related to the article. Calm down.

 

[Abedeus]

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

If the engine still has most of the original parts, then yes, it's still more or less the same car.

If I change my hard drive, memory, case and clean the fans, it's still the same PC.

I said every piece. What you described is not every piece.

Well, then it's a bad comparison.

Game engines aren't like car engines. You can't take a Quake III engine and turn it into CryEngine 2.0 by just upgrading and changing parts.

If you really want to replace "every piece", then it's called an engine change.

I didn't intend it as the metaphor that everyone should be using for this. I simply posed an interesting philosophical question that was tangentially related to the article. Calm down.

I am calm, you are the one getting all defensive.

It was neither a good metaphor nor relevant to the topic.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

If the engine still has most of the original parts, then yes, it's still more or less the same car.

If I change my hard drive, memory, case and clean the fans, it's still the same PC.

I said every piece. What you described is not every piece.

Well, then it's a bad comparison.

Game engines aren't like car engines. You can't take a Quake III engine and turn it into CryEngine 2.0 by just upgrading and changing parts.

If you really want to replace "every piece", then it's called an engine change.

I didn't intend it as the metaphor that everyone should be using for this. I simply posed an interesting philosophical question that was tangentially related to the article. Calm down.

I am calm, you are the one getting all defensive.

It was neither a good metaphor nor relevant to the topic.

It was neither meant to be a metaphor, and if you believe it wasn't relevant to the topic then you never read it. We're talking about things that have been changed so much over the years they are difficult to really call the original object.

I said tangentially related, not "Hey guys, this is how you should be thinking about this." It was "Hey guys, here's something similar. Weird, huh?"

In other words, a joke. Something that you do not seem to understand.

This guy gets it:

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

 

[Abedeus]

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

If the engine still has most of the original parts, then yes, it's still more or less the same car.

If I change my hard drive, memory, case and clean the fans, it's still the same PC.

I said every piece. What you described is not every piece.

Well, then it's a bad comparison.

Game engines aren't like car engines. You can't take a Quake III engine and turn it into CryEngine 2.0 by just upgrading and changing parts.

If you really want to replace "every piece", then it's called an engine change.

I didn't intend it as the metaphor that everyone should be using for this. I simply posed an interesting philosophical question that was tangentially related to the article. Calm down.

I am calm, you are the one getting all defensive.

It was neither a good metaphor nor relevant to the topic.

It was neither meant to be a metaphor, and if you believe it wasn't relevant to the topic then you never read it. We're talking about things that have been changed so much over the years they are difficult to really call the original object.

I said tangentially related, not "Hey guys, this is how you should be thinking about this." It was "Hey guys, here's something similar. Weird, huh?"

In other words, a joke. Something that you do not seem to understand.

This guy gets it:

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

Joke that has to be explained either wasn't told properly or was just bad.

Done "discussing" with you.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

If the engine still has most of the original parts, then yes, it's still more or less the same car.

If I change my hard drive, memory, case and clean the fans, it's still the same PC.

I said every piece. What you described is not every piece.

Well, then it's a bad comparison.

Game engines aren't like car engines. You can't take a Quake III engine and turn it into CryEngine 2.0 by just upgrading and changing parts.

If you really want to replace "every piece", then it's called an engine change.

I didn't intend it as the metaphor that everyone should be using for this. I simply posed an interesting philosophical question that was tangentially related to the article. Calm down.

I am calm, you are the one getting all defensive.

It was neither a good metaphor nor relevant to the topic.

It was neither meant to be a metaphor, and if you believe it wasn't relevant to the topic then you never read it. We're talking about things that have been changed so much over the years they are difficult to really call the original object.

I said tangentially related, not "Hey guys, this is how you should be thinking about this." It was "Hey guys, here's something similar. Weird, huh?"

In other words, a joke. Something that you do not seem to understand.

This guy gets it:

If you have a car, and you've replaced every piece of it at some point along the line, is it still the same car?

Something to think about.

Joke that has to be explained either wasn't told properly or was just bad.

Done "discussing" with you.

If other people got it, I'm inclined to think the problem lies with you. No need to get all "passive aggressive quotation marks" on me.

Maybe you should just stop posturing and accept that you just misinterpreted something?