• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Call of Duty: Ghosts uses "significantly upgraded" version of past game engine

I wan't to know by what level of significance this assertion is based on. I am guessing very close to <0.05. Probably something like 0.0499999999999999999
 
BruiserBear said:
You aren't paying attention then. I've put hundreds of hours into these games. Black Ops 2 looks significantly better than Modern Warfare 1.
Click to expand...
I've put a whole heap of hours in them as well and I really never noticed.

I'm sure if you sat me down and pointed out the little things that make a difference I could be like, "Oh ok", but on the whole, its not noticeable at all for me just playing normally, which means for me, I would not describe the improvements as 'significant' at all. Something significant should be immediately apparent.
 
At E3, I want them to SPECIFICALLY show me what exactly cannot be done on current gen, that they are now able to do on next gen.

No, FISH AI doesn't count. I want real examples like, real time flowing fluids, more players in a match, etc. etc.
 
Seanspeed said:
I've put a whole heap of hours in them as well and I really never noticed.

I'm sure if you sat me down and pointed out the little things that make a difference I could be like, "Oh ok", but on the whole, its not noticeable at all for me just playing normally, which means for me, I would not describe the improvements as 'significant' at all. Something significant should be immediately apparent.
Click to expand...

So you can tell the difference between a character model with 50k polys compared to 500k?
 
DecoyOctopus said:
qmnNMzb.png
Click to expand...

lol I'd buy that
 
I think seeing this in motion running on a PS4/XBOX One on your tv at home the game will look great. Especially for people who've only ever played/seen the 360/PS3 versions and not the PC versions.

With the jump in resolution alone, and the fact that since this game has to run on current gen consoles as well I'm assuming the framerate will be a rock solid 60fps with no dips on the next gen consoles it'll look damn good to players coming over from current gen.
 
It's obvious they want to sell the game on PS3/360. Why is everyone up in arms? They're not going to rebuild the biggest third-party franchise in gaming from the ground up for a combined install base of maybe 7 million people for the holidays between PS4 and Xbone?

If you actually want a new engine, you have a better chance of it next year.
 
I love how they just lied.

'It's a new engine'

'Actually it's the old one'

Next-gen is going to be so fucking dull for the first 3 years. It's going to be 360 up-ports and little more.
 
As much shit as we all give this game, I bet it looks fantastic running 60FPS in 1080P on all our big TV's.

My hope is that the feel of the game hasn't changed.


.... That COD feel.
 
TUROK said:
Same exact deal as Cryengine 3, Frostbite 3, Unreal Engine 4, and REDengine 3.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is false. Especially for UE4 as it was built from the ground up for its new dynamic lighting model. It's the main reason why it won't run without some "significant" changes on legacy platforms and Wii U.

There's a huge difference between implementing new systems on top of existing framework and building a new framework with some existing systems.

The most obvious recent example would be the difference between UE3 with the Samaritan updates vs the completely new UE4 as demonstrated with Infiltrator.
 
iamshadowlark said:
Yeah this is false. Especially for UE4 as it was built from the ground up for its new dynamic lighting model. It's the main reason why it won't run without some "significant" changes on legacy platforms and Wii U.

There's a huge difference between implementing new systems on top of existing framework and building a new framework with some existing systems.

The most obvious recent example would be the difference between UE3 with the Samaritan updates vs the completely new UE4 as demonstrated with Infiltrator.
Click to expand...

What? No, it wasn't. Parts of the engine have been rewritten, but it hasn't been built from the ground up. I have used it already (I work on a company that has used UE before so we got to play around with a build from a couple months ago).
 
This is why I prefer many console ports to go 60fps. That way, it eliminates the defining factor of what makes COD. The smooth controls/frame-rate. Seriously, playing on the PC can literally make that dissonance so much wider it's just too embarrassing. Hopefully, those games make better sales due to better response/controls over XX graphics & set pieces.
 
iamshadowlark said:
Yeah this is false. Especially for UE4 as it was built from the ground up for its new dynamic lighting model. It's the main reason why it won't run without some "significant" changes on legacy platforms and Wii U.

There's a huge difference between implementing new systems on top of existing framework and building a new framework with some existing systems.

The most obvious recent example would be the difference between UE3 with the Samaritan updates vs the completely new UE4 as demonstrated with Infiltrator.
Click to expand...

So first, there's no such thing as completely new. Any company that's starting from scratch is wasting money, so you should be chiding them instead of cheering them on. All that money they wasted could have been put into making a better game in some way. It's amazing that marketing departments have managed to get consumers to think that the exact wrong thing to do is what they should want.

Second, engine names are part marketing, part licensing. It's nothing to do with engineering at all. I work on an engine. It goes through hundreds of revisions in a year. We don't name them all, because that'd be stupid and confusing. Depending on the scale of the work the thing could look very very different from month to month. But we're not licensing it, so a version number is just a waste of time. The end users have no idea.... the engine just serves to display the content anyway.

Third, given the nature of engine, it's very unlikely that end users will ever know what has changed or how. All that stuff you don't rewrite? It manages low level stuff that you never know is happening. So UE4 has dynamic lighting? That's likely a large change to the engine but it's not even close to the whole thing. What about their task manager? Their file loading code? Their audio system? Memory manager? Scripting? UI system? Would you even know if they rewrote it or not? Do you have any idea how long it takes to get that infrastructure in place?

Threads like these just illustrate the huge amount of consumer confusion around engines. Name any failing of the latest COD game that you want fixed in the next... most likely a new engine isn't required to solve it. Maybe significant "upgrades", maybe just minor ones. Chances are actually pretty good that it doesn't have anything to do with the engine at all. A lot of criticisms I see of various engines are entirely content issues.
 
Fuck graphics fidelity, I'm hoping the massive improvement in console power is going to give us more randomized weather affects and events on maps, more story branching opportunities and better AI. I want a Halo 5 where Cortana points out a shifting landscape coming towards you...and the entire landscape is a biomass of individual flood spores attacking. Instead we'll probably get all the processing power wasted on unnecessary bullshit like 128x AA, gigillionwatt hyper texture sampling and quantum atomic lighting systems that light the world better than the real sun in the sky would.
 
Haunted said:
Quake III Engine will never die.


Explains why it looked so underwhelming, though.
Click to expand...

Quake III engine was what made Quake 3 multiplayer so fucking boring. Tiny shitty little maps that couldn't offer anything near the fun the Quake 2 ones did. Loki's Minions CTF / Chaos Deathmatch with the grappling hook....epic times, then III came and Quake 3 turned into a trampoline simulator in small boxy arenas. Fuck you Carmack!
 
wonderdung said:
So first, there's no such thing as completely new. Any company that's starting from scratch is wasting money, so you should be chiding them instead of cheering them on. All that money they wasted could have been put into making a better game in some way. It's amazing that marketing departments have managed to get consumers to think that the exact wrong thing to do is what they should want.

Second, engine names are part marketing, part licensing. It's nothing to do with engineering at all. I work on an engine. It goes through hundreds of revisions in a year. We don't name them all, because that'd be stupid and confusing. Depending on the scale of the work the thing could look very very different from month to month. But we're not licensing it, so a version number is just a waste of time. The end users have no idea.... the engine just serves to display the content anyway.

Third, given the nature of engine, it's very unlikely that end users will ever know what has changed or how. All that stuff you don't rewrite? It manages low level stuff that you never know is happening. So UE4 has dynamic lighting? That's likely a large change to the engine but it's not even close to the whole thing. What about their task manager? Their file loading code? Their audio system? Memory manager? Scripting? UI system? Would you even know if they rewrote it or not? Do you have any idea how long it takes to get that infrastructure in place?

Threads like these just illustrate the huge amount of consumer confusion around engines. Name any failing of the latest COD game that you want fixed in the next... most likely a new engine isn't required to solve it. Maybe significant "upgrades", maybe just minor ones. Chances are actually pretty good that it doesn't have anything to do with the engine at all. A lot of criticisms I see of various engines are entirely content issues.
Click to expand...
True, and then there's also the fact that if a developer's talent were to be determined from creating new engines from scratch then more than half of them out there would be talentless considering just how many of them use Unreal Engine 3.

I always find it funny how people think COD engine is nothing but Quake engine with upgrades, or how Treyarch just "took" the engine from IW (in this argument apparently IW did all the research to create a new engine)...both are obviously false.
 
TUROK said:
Same exact deal as Cryengine 3, Frostbite 3, Unreal Engine 4, and REDengine 3.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Big teams don't just scrap everything they have and start from scratch, at least not very often. So when you choose to rename the engine or up the version number is completely arbitrary, and is only really useful for licensing deals I'd imagine, and to some extent for bullshit marketing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Will Call of Duty skip Game Pass this year?
2
73
1K
Danny22 replied
Taylor Sheridan’s ‘Call of Duty’ Movie Lands 2028 Release Date
34
292
vindafarna replied
Call of Duty advert banned for trivialising sexual violence
2
53
715
uncreativename replied
10 years ago, Call of Duty Movie Director Called War Games ‘Pathetic’ and Said Playing Them is ‘Weak’
33
191
HeisenbergFX4 replied
Rumor: Call of Duty Modern Warfare 4 reportedly being tested on PlayStation 4
2
52
69
MayauMiao replied
Top Bottom