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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

The thing is though that even they all use the Source engine, a lot of Valve games look like they're running on different ones, as per upgrading it between games. I enjoy a good bit of Zombies as much as the next guy, but aside from slight adjustments to weapon effectiveness, etc. the Black Ops engine seems pretty much the same as the CoD 4 engine. They really ought to change it. After all this time, imagine all the improvement to be made...

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.

ToastiestZombie:

They are actually making a LOT of changes to the formula. They aren't changing the core gameplay, because that would be stupid. But they are changing the way the campaign works (dying affects the whole game, you make choices etc) and they are also changing a LOT about how MP works (they are scrapping everything Modern Warfare 2, BO and MW3 added and starting anew). They also have the obvious new setting, which means more vehicles and such. They have already confirmed fully controllable jets and horses. They are also adding a lot in the zombies front. It'll still be the same "survive endless waves, get money, kill zombies", but it will probably have a lot of changes and they've confirmed it's going to have a 6 hour campaign and other things.

Source for any of that.

Quake 3 variant? Are u serious?

Wow... no wonder why I get headaches from playing TreyArch CoD games. The gfx from Q3 never sat well with me, and every TreyArch CoD made me sick as well...

CrossLOPER:

ToastiestZombie:

They are actually making a LOT of changes to the formula. They aren't changing the core gameplay, because that would be stupid. But they are changing the way the campaign works (dying affects the whole game, you make choices etc) and they are also changing a LOT about how MP works (they are scrapping everything Modern Warfare 2, BO and MW3 added and starting anew). They also have the obvious new setting, which means more vehicles and such. They have already confirmed fully controllable jets and horses. They are also adding a lot in the zombies front. It'll still be the same "survive endless waves, get money, kill zombies", but it will probably have a lot of changes and they've confirmed it's going to have a 6 hour campaign and other things.

Source for any of that.

Some of the things may not be the exact truth, since I just got this out of memory. But there's a kotaku article somewhere, wait a sec. http://kotaku.com/5906808/48-things-that-you-should-know-about-call-of-duty-black-ops-ii

Things I wasn't entirely right about: The zombies campaign (they are adding new zombies modes, just haven't said what they are yet).
The choices and stuff are in a new game mode that links directly to the campaign, they aren't really in the campaign. Which is fine really, since I can imagine the campaign follows one or two major characters whereas this mode follows the larger battles and how they affect what happens to the characters in the campaign.

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.

Metalrocks:
fully agree. not every game needs to look awesome. as long it still looks alright and it works, why not keep it? look at games like portal 2, dear esther. the engine is old but still looks good. or even the unreal engine. its also old but they still manage to tune it up a bit and is still hardware friendly.
i cant remember hearing people complaining about amnesia. the graphics werent nice either but still delivered a nice atmosphere.

but i have to agree with others. the graphics dont look so good in MW3 as in black ops 1. i played black ops again and it does really look much better then MW3 in my opinion. also, less fagkimo noobs.

anyway, it will not be a hardware hungry piece of software that requires some people to get a new machine.

Portal 1 was a beautiful game and Portal 2 looks even better.

CoD stopped looking good after CoD 4 or MW1.

I would agree with this assessment. Blops 2 doesn't need a new engine. I hate COD at this point, but there is no reason they can't make enhancements and have it look and play just fine. It's actually a pretty good engine, it runs well and seems easy enough to optimize....

All that said, they wouldn't make a new engine because the current consoles couldn't support a better engine. It's rather impressive they have it run at 60FPS (not that you would see a difference between 60 and 30 FPS on a console since TV's only actually display 30 frames of information per 60 draw cycles anyway (so it's like having a PC game run at 120FPS on a 60Hz monitor, you only see 60 frames of information so there is no difference)). That of course comes in the form of muddy/blurry textures with tiny little maps with nowhere to go but forward, but still, impressive.

ToastiestZombie:

Some of the things may not be the exact truth, since I just got this out of memory. But there's a kotaku article somewhere, wait a sec. http://kotaku.com/5906808/48-things-that-you-should-know-about-call-of-duty-black-ops-ii

Things I wasn't entirely right about: The zombies campaign (they are adding new zombies modes, just haven't said what they are yet).
The choices and stuff are in a new game mode that links directly to the campaign, they aren't really in the campaign. Which is fine really, since I can imagine the campaign follows one or two major characters whereas this mode follows the larger battles and how they affect what happens to the characters in the campaign.

I looked and saw nothing about jets, there is at least one horse section IN THE SINGLE PLAYER, I see nothing about "choice systems" (though this will be bullshit no matter what they say), "futuristic helicopter" call-ins are still just helicopter call-ins, and I don't care about zombie modes since I have played l4d, killing floor and a bunch of other BETTER zombie games to death.

Again. What does this game bring to the table except for another flashy hollywood singleplayer? If they used the horses for the multiplayer that could be really awesome. But for a couple of parts in the singleplayer? Might be cool I guess.

CrossLOPER:

ToastiestZombie:

Some of the things may not be the exact truth, since I just got this out of memory. But there's a kotaku article somewhere, wait a sec. http://kotaku.com/5906808/48-things-that-you-should-know-about-call-of-duty-black-ops-ii

Things I wasn't entirely right about: The zombies campaign (they are adding new zombies modes, just haven't said what they are yet).
The choices and stuff are in a new game mode that links directly to the campaign, they aren't really in the campaign. Which is fine really, since I can imagine the campaign follows one or two major characters whereas this mode follows the larger battles and how they affect what happens to the characters in the campaign.

I looked and saw nothing about jets, there is at least one horse section IN THE SINGLE PLAYER, I see nothing about "choice systems" (though this will be bullshit no matter what they say), "futuristic helicopter" call-ins are still just helicopter call-ins, and I don't care about zombie modes since I have played l4d, killing floor and a bunch of other BETTER zombie games to death.

Again. What does this game bring to the table except for another flashy hollywood singleplayer? If they used the horses for the multiplayer that could be really awesome. But for a couple of parts in the singleplayer? Might be cool I guess.

Well you're not going to buy it anyway, so I'm not even going to bother arguing with you. It's changing a LOT of stuff, it's not changing it's style because that is stupid.

Understandable. If the options are "nicer graphics" or "maintain 60 fps", I will go with the framerate...

like many others I understand this point. You don't need a brand new engine for each game, and you wouldn't completely replace the foundation of a house if you were remodeling.

But this isn't a house.

No one wants an antique game on their current gen system. I think that they should upgrade to a new, prettier, more efficient engine that is built from the ground up for current hardware. These people are making games based off of an engine released 13 years ago! that's like 200 years in tech time. That's the difference between dial-up and 4g on your phone! That's VHS to Blu-Ray

Dafuq...

I definitely like the feel of the engine they use but I don't want them to pull another MW3. I mean, if Blops 2 just winds up being Blops 1 with slightly different guns, I'm going to be very disappointed. So please Treyarch, don't be like Infinity Ward. Change shit, don't just rehash your last success and expect people to love it.

Well seems like a lot of people are "nah we don't need a new engine" well I don't think you need a new engine for every game but did you know the latest CoD games are built on Id Tech 3.
Games made with the same engine are for example original CoD (2003) and Quake III arena from 1999..... (The most current Id Tech engine is 5 from 2011 for g*d-sake and 4 is from 2004..)

And even though modified and improved it's still not as good looking tech as Source since Source has added so many features and improved it's not even close to Source "1"... whilst Id tech 3 is not too different
(and yea I know about it's harder to develop on source than Id's engines)
It might be a great engine but I believe that you should consider a new engine when you have a brand selling millions of copies for 60$ each... And whilst the Frostbite 2 engine is far from perfect and very demanding it is however far better and so much more fun since it's driving technology forward not bolting it down with standard argument "it's good enough"....

But then again I don't find CoD Multiplayer any fun nowdays, I do however when feeling brain dead the singelplayer is ok.. Linear shooter with some minor story but really simple to just shoot a lot.
CoD looks like s!hit on max details compared to BF 3 on min detail anyway...

ToastiestZombie:

Well you're not going to buy it anyway, so I'm not even going to bother arguing with you. It's changing a LOT of stuff, it's not changing it's style because that is stupid.

That makes no sense. It's changing "a LOT" but you can't name anything substantial. Also, this is your chance to convert me.

Are they going to have dedicated servers to get rid of the constant lag and host migrations? Are they finally going to deal with all of the rampant cheating that's going on? Are they going to get rid of the annoying rock solos every time I reload a weapon or throw a grenade or turn to the side? The perfect aim at 900 yards with an assault rifle? The auto-murdering shotguns? The toobing?

I don't feel like signing up for origin and I am looking for a new multiplayer experience in the coming years. Convince me. Why I should wait for BO 2?

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.

Abedeus:

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.

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.

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.

Silver Patriot:
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.

Soviet Heavy:
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.

Metalrocks:
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.

*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?

knight4light:
oh noes! they didn't make a new engine to make it totally not like everything else?! BLASPHEMY! Everyone knows if you're going to make a new game like this you need MOAR graphics! *stuffs more rendering capability* More graphics! we need more graphics! WE DON'T CARE THAT GRAPHICS CAPABILITIES HAVE PLATEAUED! GIVE US MOAR!

now. that the trolling is over. i think everyone here needs a refresher course.

http://youtu.be/5oK8UTRgvJU

Oh Extra Credits. how we miss you on this site. you are sorely needed. :'(

this episode is also available at http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

In regards to the console hardware limitation: Optimizing you engine works wonders in regards to how much you can get out of how little you have.

We all know how much Halo 2 likes to stutter when the action gets heavy, but on the same console (The original Xbox) there is a game pushing more pixels without being plagued by stuttering, no matter how much smoke, dust, water and other particle streams are flying about (And there are quite a LOT going on!). And all the while in Dolby 5.1 surround and at a constant 60 FPS.

If this is what the ORIGINAL Xbox (Not the 360!) could do, imagine what the PS3 is capable of with a properly optimized game!

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.

I hate the word 'engine'. It implies a level of static capacity that a graphics 'engine' made up of differently coded shaders, models, textures and millions of changebale lines of code that simply does not exist. An 'engine' is simply a bought in pack of basic tools and code to make the process of making a game quicker.

The problem is Call of Duty are not just using the same engine; their assests seem to be remaining static. Their graphical fidelity is almost static. Textures especially are frankly shit.

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.

If more shooters had this same engine, the world would be a better place.

Come on people... help make this world a better place! DO IT!!! DO IT NOW!!!!

It doesn't need a new engine, it needs some new game play. The series is sooo stale.

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

ElPatron:

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.

SL33TBL1ND:

Abedeus:

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.

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.

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.

ElPatron:

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.

Abedeus:

SL33TBL1ND:

Abedeus:

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.

SL33TBL1ND:

Abedeus:

SL33TBL1ND:

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.

Abedeus:

SL33TBL1ND:

Abedeus:

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:

Binnsyboy:

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.

SL33TBL1ND:

Abedeus:

SL33TBL1ND:

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:

Binnsyboy:

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.

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

Done "discussing" with you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here