Support NeoGAF

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Yes thats right, take a blurry screenshot from a compressed youtube video running at 852p then critique the engine. Seems like a brilliant idea?

Spoiler: its a pretty stupid idea especially since the footage was captured on the xbox one so it would be a hardware limited scenario.

A new engine can still have bad animations. Do you even know anything about engines bro?

The small gameplay snippets looked like a beefed up version of the same engine they've always used, blurry screenshot or not.

Edit: the problem here is when you throw around the term "new" it makes people think you have a fundamentally different product, which is what the developers want. Of course they want to market a "new engine".

 

[Cave Johnson]

This has incredible potential. Let's hope sledgehammer doesn't squander it with traditional CoD level design and enemy AI scripting.

If your game is based on how fast you can kill NPC's, I highly doubt you will see a difference in AI.

 

[TheCloser]

The small gameplay snippets looked like a beefed up version of the same engine they've always used, blurry screenshot or not.

You mean, they share a similar art direction because you can't tell that from a screenshot. Oh and by the way, the founder of the studio confirmed that it was new. Its essentially your word against his. I think i'll side with him on this one because he has all the information and you have none of the information.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

Quick info from Game Informer:

• Game is set in 2052
• You play as private Mitchell (voiced by Troy Baker, but only in cut-scenes, not in actual gameplay) who has *intenionally* generic background to fit in every role like jet fighter, submarine pilot and so on... It iwll be story of one man only (thanks god!)
• Mitchell is a friend of Will Irons, son of Jonathan Irons (Kevin Spacey), CEO of ATLAS
• ATLAS is a private military group, admitted into the UNSC and have lots of resources, top notch weaponary and - of course - EXO suits
• EXO suit is one of the key gameplay element, you can customize it and upgrade it throughout the story for points you will earn in missions
• Game is really focused on story which is about big terrorist attack by KVA, well funded worldwide terrorist organization. KVA soldiers will strike lots of cities in the world in one time.
• San Francisco is not one of them yet and you will try to stop the terrorists from attacking the city. Later on you will move to Detroit and possibly to another cities.
• Military technology used in the game is set on actual research or prototypes. Everything was discussed by military professionals and/or scientists.
• Apart from EXO suit you will use augmented reality in visor, grenade which reveal position of enemies, magnetic gloves to climb tall buildings or cloaking system for stealthy missions.
• The game use a new engine, confirmed by Michael Condrey, founder of the studio. No more specific words was spoken about it.
• X360/PS3 versions will be developed outside of Sledgehammer Games, developer is not yet revealed.

Sounds interesting, huh?

COD needs a huge boost in visual fidelity, here's hoping the new engine brings a phenomenal graphics leap for call of duty standards.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

All pics have been removed, had no clue it was from GI.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

You mean, they share a similar art direction because you can't tell that from a screenshot. Oh and by the way, the founder of the studio confirmed that it was new. Its essentially your word against his. I think i'll side with him on this one because he has all the information and you have none of the information.

Ghosts was also a "new" engine according to Infinity Ward, as previously stated. Developers always do this. And yes, I understand the concept that engines aren't just built from the ground up.

So based on the franchise's track record on this subject, his word means very little in my opinion.

Oh wow, those images look good.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

You mean, they share a similar art direction because you can't tell that from a screenshot. Oh and by the way, the founder of the studio confirmed that it was new. Its essentially your word against his. I think i'll side with him on this one because he has all the information and you have none of the information.

Wasn't previous rumors suggested COD 2014 would be using CryEngine?

 

[Natiko]

A lot of pages to parse through so I'll just ask - do we have any info on if these exoskeleton suits are going to impact survivability in MP or if it will comparable to previous titles?

 

[TheCloser]

Ghosts was also a "new" engine according to Infinity Ward, as previously stated. Developers always do this. And yes, I understand the concept that engines aren't just built from the ground up. So based on the franchise's track record on this subject, his word means very little in my opinion.

So the studio's word means little but yours holds weight? Well isn't this hilarious. Ghosts wasn't a new engine but rumors of a new engine at activision have been making the rounds since feb. When the studio head comes out and says this, i'm more inclined to believe him than i am to believe a gaf poster who isn't an "insider".

 

[TheCloser]

Wasn't previous rumors suggested COD 2014 would be using CryEngine?

No, where did you hear that. I never heard that. Why would activision license out another engine and pay royalties when they were demoing their new engine tech earlier this year?

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

So the studio's word means little but yours holds weight? Well isn't this hilarious. Ghosts wasn't a new engine but rumors of a new engine at activision have been making the rounds since feb. When the studio head comes out and says this, i'm more inclined to believe him than i am to believe a gaf poster who isn't an "insider".

Ghosts wasn't a new engine, that is correct, but right from the start the developers kept saying they were using a new engine and it was later understood that it was the modified/tweaked(age old engine).

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

So the studio's word means little but yours holds weight? Well isn't this hilarious. Ghosts wasn't a new engine but rumors of a new engine at activision have been making the rounds since feb. When the studio head comes out and says this, i'm more inclined to believe him than i am to believe a gaf poster who isn't an "insider".

I don't claim to know, I just hate how developers flaunt supposed new stuff when it's just modified. Modified does not equal new, it confuses people.

Now if they're switching to something like cryengine, then the term "new" would make more sense.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

No, where did you hear that. I never heard that. Why would activision license out another engine and pay royalties when they were demoing their new engine tech earlier this year?

It was posted somewhere here in GAF, not on this thread, but another thread long long time back. And some of the parts in that reveal trailer had that CryEngine look and feel to it.

 

[El_Chino]

Some new shots from https://www.facebook.com/CODMP247?ref=hl

[/IMG]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/t1.0-9
/10314601_283499448484991_5873570343376509243_n.jpg

Have these been posted before?

Amazing how excited I am for a CoD. Feels like '07-'09 all over again.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

Amazing how excited I am for a CoD. Feels like '07-'09 all over again.

2007-2009? What happened to 2010-2012 Black Ops and Black Ops II those two games are still the best in COD franchise, closely matched by MW2 and MW1.

 

[BigDug13]

That exosuit looks like it was ripped straight from Elysium.

 

[TheCloser]

Ghosts wasn't a new engine, that is correct, but right from the start the developers kept saying they were using a new engine and it was later understood that it was the age old engine.

Wrong. They were not using the original quake engine. I'm sure if you compared the source code of the original quake engine to that used in ghosts, you would find it to be very different. The issue here is that not enough significant changes had been made to the engine to declare a new iteration so it was still quite similar to what was used in the previous games. At this point, i'm not even sure all 3 studios share the same tech.

This engine talk is tiring, its like when people say titanfall is using the source engine. Its really not, parts of it were gutted and rewritten so its not the source engine anymore. What we have is a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about making uneducated comments about the tech used in the game. It can be very frustrating for devs who are actually working on the game to hear this after the numerous changes made.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

Wrong. They were not using the original quake engine. I'm sure if you compared the source code of the original quake engine to that used in ghosts, you would find it to be very different. The issue here is that not enough significant changes had been made to the engine to declare a new iteration so it was still quite similar to what was used in the previous games. At this point, i'm not even sure all 3 studios share the same tech.

This engine talk is tiring, its like when people say titanfall is using the source engine. Its really not, parts of it were gutted and rewritten so its not the source engine anymore. What we have is a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about making uneducated comments about the tech used in the game. It can be very frustrating for devs who are actually working on the game to hear this after the numerous changes made.

To quote the developers at Sledgehammer Games from 2011 "We don't ship an engine, we ship a game". It will be interesting to see how Advanced Warfare on PS4/Xbox One stacks up against BF4 PS4/Xbox One graphically.

 

[Guess Who]

Wrong. They were not using the original quake engine. I'm sure if you compared the source code of the original quake engine to that used in ghosts, you would find it to be very different. The issue here is that not enough significant changes had been made to the engine to declare a new iteration so it was still quite similar to what was used in the previous games. At this point, i'm not even sure all 3 studios share the same tech.

This engine talk is tiring, its like when people say titanfall is using the source engine. Its really not, parts of it were gutted and rewritten so its not the source engine anymore. What we have is a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about making uneducated comments about the tech used in the game. It can be very frustrating for devs who are actually working on the game to hear this after the numerous changes made.

Thank god someone said it.

To paraphrase an infamous man, if you think modern CoD games run on something that could be fairly called the Quake engine, you literally don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

Wrong. They were not using the original quake engine. I'm sure if you compared the source code of the original quake engine to that used in ghosts, you would find it to be very different. The issue here is that not enough significant changes had been made to the engine to declare a new iteration so it was still quite similar to what was used in the previous games. At this point, i'm not even sure all 3 studios share the same tech.

This engine talk is tiring, its like when people say titanfall is using the source engine. Its really not, parts of it were gutted and rewritten so its not the source engine anymore. What we have is a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about making uneducated comments about the tech used in the game. It can be very frustrating for devs who are actually working on the game to hear this after the numerous changes made.

Yup I get it, thanks for the clarification.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Wrong. They were not using the original quake engine. I'm sure if you compared the source code of the original quake engine to that used in ghosts, you would find it to be very different. The issue here is that not enough significant changes had been made to the engine to declare a new iteration so it was still quite similar to what was used in the previous games. At this point, i'm not even sure all 3 studios share the same tech.

This engine talk is tiring, its like when people say titanfall is using the source engine. Its really not, parts of it were gutted and rewritten so its not the source engine anymore. What we have is a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about making uneducated comments about the tech used in the game. It can be very frustrating for devs who are actually working on the game to hear this after the numerous changes made.

When you add a new engine, interior and coat of paint to a '65 mustang is it now a new car? And how much better did ghosts look than the previous COD? Not much better, yet it was being flaunted as a new engine.

So the question is, if modifying an engine counts as making it new, should anyone really expect something new or just something modified? If it's the latter, then our definitions of words need to be questioned.

 

[iMax]

Nope, UNSC stands for United Nations Security Council in real life )

Don't be so sure...

 

[iMax]

When you add a new engine, interior and coat of paint to a '65 mustang is it now a new car? And how much better did ghosts look than the previous COD? Not much better, yet it was being flaunted as new.

So the question is, if modifying an engine counts as making it new, should anyone really expect something new or just somethig modified? If it's the latter, then our definitions of words need to be questioned.

Last time I checked, this game wasn't a car.

 

[TheCloser]

When you add a new engine, interior and coat of paint to a '65 mustang is it now a new car? And how much better did ghosts look than the previous COD? Not much better, yet it was being flaunted as a new engine.

So the question is, if modifying an engine counts as making it new, should anyone really expect something new or just something modified? If it's the latter, then our definitions of words need to be questioned.

Your analogy is so wrong, its not even funny. If you wanted to use a car analogy, you would examine how a car manufacturer designs and makes cars. All the knowledge used in building the first ford have paved the way for today's future models. We learned how to make better windshields, tires, engines, parts etc. We learned how to make it quicker, better and cheaper. None of the previous knowledge was thrown away. Its like saying the 2014 ford focus is still the same car as the ford model t.

 

[El_Chino]

2007-2009? What happened to 2010-2012 Black Ops and Black Ops II those two games are still the best in COD franchise, closely matched by MW2 and MW1.

Don't get me wrong, I greatly enjoyed BO (my 2nd my favorite CoD of all time) and BO 2 (3rd best campaign) but after the disappointment that was MW2 (somewhat) & MW3 I lowered my expectations immensely.

 

[SMOK3Y]

2007-2009? What happened to 2010-2012 Black Ops and Black Ops II those two games are still the best in COD franchise, closely matched by MW2 and MW1.

imo COD4 & Blops1 were the best of the series (WW2 one was pretty good too I really wish they'd bring back that style of campaign co-op)

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Your analogy is so wrong, its not even funny. If you wanted to use a car analogy, you would examine how a car manufacturer designs and makes cars. All the knowledge used in building the first ford have paved the way for today's future models. We learned how to make better windshields, tires, engines, parts etc. We learned how to make it quicker, better and cheaper. None of the previous knowledge was thrown away. Its like saying the 2014 ford focus is still the same car as the ford model t.

Okay it was a shitty analogy. So tell me, you believe Ghosts was a new engine because the developers put their stamp of approval on it? "Oh, we made the lighting 8 percent better, lets just call it a new engine, hows that sound?" I'm just saying that there is no official standard that identifies an engine as new, so developers throw that word around like crazy and you're not even skeptical even though it just happened...unless you believe ghosts is actually a new engine. And like I said, if that's the case, then what does new mean to you? The engine doesn't do anything fundamentally different than the previous 3 or 4 games.

 

[H4r4kiri]

Most bullshit in terms of hit detection and lag. Bad hit detection was actually a large part of the reason why TTK was reasonable in that game. Funny how they managed to fix something by screwing something else up.

That Game Informer list is great. Especially separate dev for last gen.

A wish list for multiplayer:
- Play-list(s) with no aim assist

Spoiler

AA entirely removed actually, but not going to happen

- More recoil. Seriously. It's hilarious right now.
- Map design needs to be simpler and more bottle-necked. I don't want to worry about being shot from 17 directions at all times or to be afraid to go forwards because some camper will shoot me while also being afraid of staying still because some enemy has already spawned behind me. Cod4 has great maps.
- More health. From 3-4 hits to 4-5 hits average.

This . Fucking this !!
Let me add:
- not too many killstreaks
- not too many perks
- get rid of burstfire weapons. They were always OP in competetive search and destroy on consoles

 

[Magwik]

Okay it was a shitty analogy. So tell me, you believe Ghosts was a new engine because the developers put their stamp of approval on it? "Oh, we made the lighting 8 percent better, lets just call it a new engine, hows that sound?" I'm just saying that there is no official standard that identifies an engine as new, so developers throw that word around like crazy and you're not even skeptical even though it just happened...unless you believe ghosts is actually a new engine. And like I said, if that's the case, then what does new mean to you? The engine doesn't do anything fundamentally different than the previous 3 or 4 games.

You act as if IW pissed in your coffee.

 

[RaderCZ]

Some new shots from https://www.facebook.com/CODMP247?ref=hl

[/IMG]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/t1.0-9
/10314601_283499448484991_5873570343376509243_n.jpg

Have these been posted before?

These are ripped from Game Informer (digital).

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

You act as if IW pissed in your coffee.

Sorry, other developers do it too. I believe Bethesda claimed Skyrim's engine was new, but it was plagued with all the jank and bugginess of their previous titles and looked identical at it's core. It just bugs me that developers do this and people buy it every time.

If developers wanted to be clear, saying that it was heavily modified would be the way to go about it. But why say that when new looks so much better?

 

[TheCloser]

Okay it was a shitty analogy. So tell me, you believe Ghosts was a new engine because the developers put their stamp of approval on it? "Oh, we made the lighting 8 percent better, lets just call it a new engine, hows that sound?" I'm just saying that there is no official standard that identifies an engine as new, so developers throw that word around like crazy and you're not even skeptical even though it just happened...unless you believe ghosts is actually a new engine. And like I said, if that's the case, then what does new mean to you? The engine doesn't do anything fundamentally different than the previous 3 or 4 games.

I don't believe Ghosts was a new engine. Were changes made to the engine during the development of Ghosts? Yes but it was not significant enough to declare a new iteration. I'm not skeptical because this game has been in dev for 3 years making it the longest of any cod game. A game engine only needs to accomplish the goals required for meeting the scope of the game. It doesn't need to do anything else. If they made cod like bf and it had humvees, jets and tanks, does that make it a new engine? No. Most of the in engine changes will not be noticed by the user. You will notice changes to the rendering component of the engine or the animation component because those communicate visually. If you don't notice those changes, it doesn't mean other changes haven't been made.

Anyway, i give up, You win, i need to go to bed.

 

[jaosobno]

OK, so there are a few things I really hope AW will fix (specially when compared to Ghosts):

- longer time to kill: it's extremely annoying that bullets have to graze to and you drop dead instantly. Time to kill has been ridiculously short ever since MW3 (and it seems that Ghosts has even lowered the amount of damage it takes to kill the player).

- simpler and smaller maps: I've been playing Ghosts for a month now and I can't get my KDR even up to 1.00. Every COD so far, it's been around 1.3/1.4 which is at least decent, considering that I despise camping. Ghosts is another story. Maps are huge and overly complex (they have dozens of small passageways and places you can hole up in) and they definitely invite camping play style. Previous COD entries had simpler and smaller maps which could be learner by playing a few times. Now, first I thought that it was me, that somehow I lost my "COD mojo", but then I started reading that many others faced similar problems (good KDR in previous games but they get completely destroyed in Ghosts). I also checked my friends' KDR and people that I know had 2.00+ KDR in previous games were all below 1.00 in Ghosts. Now, fuck me, but there is no way I'm playing any competitive MP game by going prone in some dark corner waiting for unsuspecting opponents to come by so I can waste them. I prefer "dogfights" (dogefights?) and that is definitely not the preferred play style for Ghosts (if you are KDR sensitive). There are maps in Ghosts where I'm even afraid to move forward because I just know that some camper will pick me off from 1 kilometer distance using thermal scope or some shit like that. The best COD game by map design was BO (and MW is not far behind it).

- get rid of this confusing perk system from Ghosts and bring either standard perk system or Pick Ten from BO2.

- if you are going to bring Alien Extinction or Zombie-like modes, make sure you ship them with more than one map. It's pathetic that Aliens had a single map in Ghosts and that DLC adds just one more map.

Now, I've always liked SP part of COD games, but if MP sucks again (like Ghosts), I'm skipping AW entirely (as much as SP intrigues me, I will be playing MP 90% of the time).

 

[fasTRapid]

Yes thats right, take a blurry screenshot from a compressed youtube video running at 852p then critique the engine. Seems like a brilliant idea?

It's blurry simply because of its native res and again, it's not compressed (enough for you to dismiss it this easily anyway), it's from the Gamersyde HQ file.
There's no YouTube compression at work and if you can't see that, I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you.

Click here for a comparison I just made for you: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/73292

Alternative WebM:

http://a.pomf.se/atbxav.webm

(Click right, open in new tab for full 1080p)

This is exactly what the trailer looks like when there are neither motion, nor fast cuts hiding the ugliest scenes and obvious poor IQ (on top of the blurred 900p image upscaled to 1080p).

What we have is a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about making uneducated comments about the tech used in the game. It can be very frustrating for devs who are actually working on the game to hear this after the numerous changes made.

Funny you should say that.

Wrong. They were not using the original quake engine. I'm sure if you compared the source code of the original quake engine to that used in ghosts, you would find it to be very different.

But we're not comparing it to its roots. That argument is so flawed, it's not even funny. That's like say, the VW Golf gets a new model, which is exactly the same as the previous one, but according to your logic, they then can claim it's brand-new since it's not the first iteration any more. Engine's evolve with the times, but that's nothing unusual and nothing a developer can prolly use to say it's brand-new when it's obviously not.

 

[Riky]

- simpler and smaller maps: I've been playing Ghosts for a month now and I can't get my KDR even up to 1.00. Every COD so far, it's been around 1.3/1.4 which is at least decent, considering that I despise camping. Ghosts is another story. Maps are huge and overly complex (they have dozens of small passageways and places you can hole up in) and they definitely invite camping play style. Previous COD entries had simpler and smaller maps which could be learner by playing a few times. Now, first I thought that it was me, that somehow I lost my "COD mojo", but then I started reading that many others faced similar problems

Funny thing is the DLC maps fix this very well, almost feels like a different team working on them, they are much better than the maps shipped on the disc.

 

[Bishop89]

One thing they must do is make good maps. Cant believe how shit they have been after mw2.

Let me have buildings where there isnt 1000 different entrances.

Let me have multiple sniping areas.

Let me freaken camp without worrying about getting double teamed.

Jesus.

Sick of this run n gun only and screw the rest focus the devs have had.

 

[SMZC]

- get rid of this confusing perk system from Ghosts and bring either standard perk system or Pick Ten from BO2.

Why do you find Ghosts' perk system confusing? It's by far the best of the series yet.

 

[jaosobno]

Why do you find Ghosts' perk system confusing? It's by far the best of the series yet.

Because it adds needless complexity to the once simple system. From 16 perks in BO2, we went up to 35 perks in Ghosts. What's next? 50, 60 perks?

I would prefer if things were more simple, like in early MW games instead of adding bunch of perks among which, many are useless.

Not to mention, there is no in-game explanation of how the system works (at least, I haven't seen one).

 

[Stylo]

This is the only Advanced warfare I need:

 

[Marvel]

It feels kinda weird to say how excited I am for this CoD game, it's right up my alley design wise. Finally.

 

[StoppedInTracks]

That exosuit looks like it was ripped straight from Elysium.

Which was ripped off standard military/ science exosuits...

Cannot wait for this game. I haven't been so hyped about a CoD game since the original Black Ops.

 

[Saintguine]

Can you use the suit powers throughout the entire game non-contextually or is it just the wing suit shit from BO2?

 

[Femmeworth]

The exoskeletons look straight out of Elysium. Wait, I might be giving it too much credit.

 

[uncleniccius]

It's almost certainly High Moon Studios, there have been some threads about it, here's the latest one I made some weeks back.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=782955

Interesting, I guess they're working on the port and the game itself then?

 

[SMZC]

Because it adds needless complexity to the once simple system. From 16 perks in BO2, we went up to 35 perks in Ghosts. What's next? 50, 60 perks?

I would prefer if things were more simple, like in early MW games instead of adding bunch of perks among which, many are useless.

Not to mention, there is no in-game explanation of how the system works (at least, I haven't seen one).

If anything, I'd argue that the needlessly complex system is BO2's. It was a step in the right direction, one that may have just allowed Ghosts' own perk system to exist, but it's trivial in its limitations. Why force the player to spend extra points for the mere act of choosing two perks of the same category? Why even continue with the system of categories for perks when you are going to allow people to choose up to two of the same tier? It's not like choosing two perks of the same category makes you even remotely overpowered, as Ghosts' own (and well balanced) system has proven.

As for the amount of perks, just go with the ones you know from previous games. No one is forcing you to check them all out, nor do you need them to stay competitive. They happen to add a lot of replayability to those who are invested in the game, and save for a very small bunch, they are far from useless. Not to mention, when you include BO2's attachments (most of which are just old perks in a different form), it's not like there's much of a difference between BO2 and Ghosts in terms of complexity.

 

[rdrr gnr]

This engine talk is tiring, its like when people say titanfall is using the source engine. Its really not, parts of it were gutted and rewritten so its not the source engine anymore. What we have is a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about making uneducated comments about the tech used in the game. It can be very frustrating for devs who are actually working on the game to hear this after the numerous changes made.

"Engine" is simply a term used by an informed (when it comes to games, but largely uninformed about programming) audience about aesthetic dissimilarity or improvement to visuals in a gaming franchise. That's it. You can take "lol source" or "lol quake 3" as a slightly more erudite version of "grafix suckz" or "same graphix". And it's not like the marketing department or the devs do us any favors by telling us it's a new engine every time. Even if there is a totally legit improvement to the code, it is implicitly understood what is being asked when people bring up engine changes. So when IW says Ghosts is using a new engine the correct response of "lol quake" remains appropriate.

 

[Alienous]

Yes thats right, take a blurry screenshot from a compressed youtube video running at 852p then critique the engine. Seems like a brilliant idea?

Spoiler: its a pretty stupid idea especially since the footage was captured on the xbox one so it would be a hardware limited scenario.

A new engine can still have bad animations. When fifa switched over to their new engine in 07, they still had the same rubbish animations as the ps2 version. Do you even know anything about engines bro? In fact, i'm willing to wager that 99% of the people in this thread would not know what makes a new engine. CryEngine 3 is an iteration of CE2 and the same goes for Frostbite 3. Do you think they throw out legacy code and start from scratch? Seriously please, if you don't know what you're talking about, just stop. If the devs have said it is a new engine, it means the changes that have been made have been significant enough to declare a new iteration of the engine. Until other evidence is provided, you should refrain from making accusatory statements.

Eugh. What?

My point is that it's a heavily upgraded engine. But you can still see the core of the game in the gameplay, particularly from the animations.

Of course modern game engines aren't created from 'scratch', as in nothing, if only for the tools used to create it. But I'd categorize something like Snowdrop as a 'brand new' engine within the context of game engines, compared to Advanced Warfare. That doesn't mean it isn't impressive, or doesn't look good.

 

[TacticalFox88]

"Engine" is simply a term used by an informed (when it comes to games, but largely uninformed about programming) audience about aesthetic dissimilarity or improvement to visuals in a gaming franchise. That's it. You can take "lol source" or "lol quake 3" as a slightly more erudite version of "grafix suckz" or "same graphix". And it's not like the marketing department or the devs do us any favors by telling us it's a new engine every time. Even if there is a totally legit improvement to the code, it is implicitly understood what is being asked when people bring up engine changes. So when IW says Ghosts is using a new engine the correct response of "lol quake" remains appropriate.

So IW/Treyarch has to say bullshit just to appease the ignorant masses who have ZERO clue how game development works?

Fuck that noise.

 

[jabberwocker]

Those are fun renders and all. But what about in game. Until we see this thing really going it's all speculation.

 

[Goreomedy]

These are ripped from Game Informer (digital).

Yeah, not an official Facebook page. These are digital magazine rips.