Black Ops 2 developer baffled by contempt for Call of Duty engine

Isn't the IW engine a modified quake 3 engine? Not sure where I got that from.

Change the record though, 60 frames isn't that important really is it. I'd much rather have a world that feels real and has a physics engine. Playing half life 2 at the mo and it really does make the IW engine seem lacking.

i dont no how long battlefield 3 has been out but i still play it every day and still enjoy it as much as i did on day 1 i played mw3 for 1 month and got rid so do they need to be scared by fps on the pc maybe.in my eyes bf3 online mp is better than all blops call of duty put together.

He thinks it looks gorgeous? Is he blind?

I'm not the least bit interested in CoD, but I feel like I have to defend this guy. So they've used the "same" engine in all their 360 games? The only time you need to rewrite an engine from scratch is when you have new hardware to take advantage of, which the 360 has never had. If they got it right the first time, why should they start over and potentially ruin the most lucrative franchise in the industry?

Valve have been using the same engine since 2004's Half Life 2, albeit upgraded constantly, and Portal 2 looks fantastic on PC. The only problem I have with the Source engine is that movement feels like you're on ice skates.

Physics in game engines is embarrassingly primitive and unrealistic.

Sorry for spoilers, but the final battle in Portal where you have to place objects on a device that has a slanted surface and then run and press a button is made frustratingly difficult by a physics engine that seems to have no concept of friction, making the objects slide off the device as if they weigh nothing.

In Dark Souls, bodies of dead enemies suddenly become like foam rubber, to the extent where they get wrapped around your feet if you try to run past them.

In Oblivion and Skyrim bodies or objects will get stuck in other objects or the floor and slide and jerk around in a way that makes you wish they hadn't bothered with physics at all. Even picking an item up off a table will make every other object on that table slide around.

If it doesn't do something the old game can't then what was the point of releasing a 'new' game, every CoD should really just be dlc. I'd like to see them use iD tech 5 seeing as that runs at 60 and looks 10x more pleasing. Seeing as CoD uses iD tech 3 it shouldn't be too hard to understand an upgraded version, right? Agree with the physics too, there's having physics and it looking a bit awkward 1/10 times, and there's doing nothing and everything looking more rigid than Roger Moore's stool.

Personally, I think BF3s engine looks like a pile of smudgy, yellowist (zing!) art. But the gameplay and stuff that happens is brrrrriiiiiilliant, and it's only in 30fps, so tell me CoD man - why's that game great when according to you it is only a quarter good? (0.5 x 0.5, half as good framerate and half as good textures). Don't get me started on your (cliched) story bits that are forced qtes without the qte... Nice one on doing something interesting though progression story wise though, hats off sir.

lazy, money saving corner cutting. for christs sake, they each get 2 years to put into a game that, as said, is basically dlc maps/perks, and just plum cant be arsed making a better engine that, i dunno, might allow bigger maps? more players? or put the money they pinched by not building the games from scratch into DEDICATED SERVERS

not that it matters to me, i gave up on the franchise 1 month into mw2

I don't expect a complete engine revamp every single game. However, they have done little to improve/tweak it over the years. Take the FIFA franchise, for example. Yes, it is basically the same game every year and only worth buying every few years. However, they update their physics engine every single year and make it even better. Each year, I play the demo, thinking, "WOW, how is it possible to improve on this?" but they do it every time.

The problem with Call of Duty games now is that they have become $60 map packs every year. They also throw in a mediocre "campaign" to boost its content. The early Call of Duty games were masterful pieces of work because they each presented something new. CoD2 and the original Modern Warfare were, IMO, the two best FPS's ever made. 2 perfected the WW2 environment (started by MoH) and 4 introduced the modern aspect. Both the campaigns were brilliant, and the multiplayer complimented it perfectly because it was a simple yet balanced gaming experience.

Trust me - I am no fanboy. But I own and love Battlefield 3 because it presents such a rich, fresh approach to multiplayer. The one thing wrong with the games today is the emphasis on the multiplayer. They put very little into the single player.

As for the FPS, it really doesn't make much of a difference. 30 FPS is perfectly playable. When putting Battlefield 3 next to a CoD game, I can tell that CoD has a better framerate, but Battlefield does so much more to enrich the experience and engross the player into the game.

TL;DR
Dear Treyarch/Infinity Ward,
Stop selling yearly DLC and make something original.
Thanks,
The Public.

lazy, money saving corner cutting. for christs sake, they each get 2 years to put into a game that, as said, is basically dlc maps/perks, and just plum cant be arsed making a better engine that, i dunno, might allow bigger maps? more players? or put the money they pinched by not building the games from scratch into DEDICATED SERVERS

not that it matters to me, i gave up on the franchise 1 month into mw2

why would they need to upgrade the graphics engine when every year it our sells the previous COD game without even trying?
personally i dont like cod games as much as i hate APPLE Products.

but why would they invest money inbto a new engine when its gonna sell 25million copies worldwide....?

Agree with thatoneguy. Call of duty 1, united offence, 2 and 4 were very good, but it hasn't moved on at all since then. Fine keeping the same engine but do something with it. Either work on much better stories or add physics. I can't agree with you msbhvn, play through half life 2 and feel how different it is to CoD. It may go mad on the odd occasion but shoot a barrel and it moves. Throw something in water and it floats or sinks, fire a gun in certain areas and you hear echoes.

When you shoot a bottle in CoD nothing happens, I know it's small but it breaks the immersion that you're in a lived in world. I'm sure it can't be that hard, max payne 2 had it quite well, even duke nukem 3d had more interactivity in its world. It just all feels made of cardboard as they focus on 'cool' explosions. And any argument put to them changing is simply answered with "yeah but 60fps."

Mini rant over

None of it will really happen of course, the game sells more copies than there are people on the planet.

Personally I think the Call of Duty games have shown a graphical progression. CoD4 nowadays looks quite basic in many ways compared to MW3 and I also think that 60fps is quite important to the pace of the game. I know BF3 may look better (on console I don't think it is MUCH better but it is better) however CoD is a faster paced game. I think CoD could look like BF3 with really good graphics but the frame rate would suffer and we would get the pop-up (that is present in BF3) and as a result the gameplay could suffer too..

Having watched the video's of gameplay and trailers etc. (I understand that all videos are made from the Xbox version) I was impressed by the actual quality and detail - especially in the facial animations. There are not many games that can match CoD for its graphics and probably none that can match them and run at 60fps. I know there are games though that do look better - even if the frame rate suffers, but it seems that some people want to find something to complain about despite their unjustifiable reasoning.

Even if CoD had replaced their engine and managed to improve the graphics beyond what we have currently seen and still kept 60fps, people would still complain about something - even without playing it! It seems it has been 'fashionable' to criticise and hate Activision/Call of Duty of late. I know that MW3 had some flaws but it still was the most popular game on xbox live for months! In fact - ALL CoD titles since CoD4 have been in the top twenty! Also some of these titles (not just 1) have been above BF3 too. I am not hating on BF3 as I really like that game too. It seems that there are more people who play it than those who go online to whinge and whine about it! In my opinion, the MW3 map packs are also the best looking maps ever to appear in a CoD title and from what I have seen of Black Ops 2, MW3 will not have that accolade for long!

I can't agree with you msbhvn, play through half life 2 and feel how different it is to CoD. It may go mad on the odd occasion but shoot a barrel and it moves. Throw something in water and it floats or sinks, fire a gun in certain areas and you hear echoes.

Shoot a barrel and it moves? I take it you've never seen brewery vans unloading barrels of beer? It takes a lot of force to move a metal barrel, even an empty one. A bullet would just punch a hole straight through. Barrels are the shape they are for a reason, so they don't easily topple over.

Maybe in the HL2 universe all barrels are made out of super light plastic that just looks like metal?

I worked in a bar, they aren't that heavy! And maybe I should have added with a rocket launcher!

Please tell me you've played it. Such a quality game. Just gone through ravenholm again.

I've got HL2 in the Orange Box, but the buggy section makes me rage so much I've never finished it or played either of the episodes. Ravenholm is great, almost survival horror with the lack of ammo and power-ups.