Portugeezer
Member
So the same engine, just making use of some extra horse power to increase polygons and some effects.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Call of Duty: Ghosts uses "significantly upgraded" version of past game engine
- Thread starter Pitmonkey
- Start date
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
This thread made me nostalgic. Im going to fire up Q3A tonight.
Domino Theory
Crystal Dynamics
I don't doubt it, man. Fish swimming away from you? A dog that can move its jaw? Truly next generation stuff right there.
Activision better be careful not to spend so much money on next generation engines for Call of Duty. Next thing you know, Infinity Ward could come up with something so innovative with all that horse power like door knobs actually twisting all the way!
Activision better be careful not to spend so much money on next generation engines for Call of Duty. Next thing you know, Infinity Ward could come up with something so innovative with all that horse power like door knobs actually twisting all the way!
Beermeister
Banned
COD'd.
Punkster_NY
Member
you can tell from the trailer that it's just the same old engine.
http://youtu.be/Zxnx3W-HA18#aid=P-Q6pxOOqOI
http://youtu.be/Zxnx3W-HA18#aid=P-Q6pxOOqOI
I was trying to find the connection between Call of Duty and fish that could compel Infinity Ward to tout 'fish move away from you' next to all of the features in the engine.
Thanks.
shinobi602
Member
Basically the PC version.
professor_t
Member
They probably just didn't have the money to build a brand new engine from the ground up.
While the COD games are definitely not the best looking games out there, I think it should be fair to wait until the titled announced next year. This game is probably going to sell more on PS3 and 360 than PS4 and Xbone, and they probably know it.
Most likely a lot of the assets were done with those two consoles in mind, so I'd like to think we will have to wait at least 1 or 2 years until we see something that looks definitely better.
Still not expecting Killzone levels of quality, but definitely better than what we've seen with Ghosts.
Most likely a lot of the assets were done with those two consoles in mind, so I'd like to think we will have to wait at least 1 or 2 years until we see something that looks definitely better.
Still not expecting Killzone levels of quality, but definitely better than what we've seen with Ghosts.
Yup - nothing in that trailer stood out as next-gen, except maybe the jungle, which others have pointed out is a farce with fake lighting effects.
Ghosts:
BF3 (PC 2011)
Ghosts just looks.... soulless? Devoid of life? bleh
old ass modified iD tech will outsell every game this gen and next gen
take that newell and mark rein. Carmack is still boss
But Source is oldass modified iD tech too.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Not even like "somewhat fake", the godrays were blatantly fake, like they weren't even trying, everything looked so flat. Pathetic.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Which is why he brought Newell into it.
velociraptor
Junior Member
They have indeed although it appears they have make greater strides with their own engine than Infinity Ward have with theirs.
Left 4 Dead 2 and Portal 2 look pretty good to me.
kutthoat5150
Member
that engine is older than most of the people who play cod
TUROK
Member
They stated they're volumetric, so they're not "fake." Or do you really think that there are games in which the sun is a massive light source that casts real volumetric lights over everything?
DragonSworne
Banned
Why is it now that all of a sudden I hear so much about CoD being 60fps?
No one made so noise about the past games being 60fps. Why is Ghost the exception?
No one made so noise about the past games being 60fps. Why is Ghost the exception?
MrCompletely
Member
No new engine is built from the ground up these days... Unreal Engine 4 has elements from the first Unreal Engine in it. Everything is iterative. This is the nature of software development, it's inefficient to start from zero.
I miss this console whenever I boot up game using the Q3 engine.
Holy wow, memories...
ColtraineGF
Member
The games always aspire for 60fps run-and-gun action - it's one of the series' draws. There's a reason why they used 60fps footage during the TV broadcast of the X1 conference, and any tech article about the games will focus on detail improvement while still hitting that mark.
---
As for "next gen" engines, it's just a name, really - No company completely throws away perfectly good code when going to a new gen, they'd probably just improve it in some ways, or use larger, more detailed assets. Code doesn't have an expiration date - if they can reuse things, they'll do so because redoing work unnecessarily is a waste of time and money.
VicDaMoan03
Member
Something about the COD engine feels like even outdoor areas are in tight hallway corridors..
everyone always complains that games aren't 60fps
so when a developer takes a special interest to make 60fps games, everyone complains how bad it looks
Developers just can't win
"new" engines incorporate new heavier rendering features
not using those heavy render features means more power can be used for higher frame rates and more things on screen
so when a developer takes a special interest to make 60fps games, everyone complains how bad it looks
Developers just can't win
"new" engines incorporate new heavier rendering features
not using those heavy render features means more power can be used for higher frame rates and more things on screen
I think a lot of people are missing the fact that CoD's fanbase mainly cares about the fact that it's still locked at 60 FPS.
It's kinda funny, people like to say that mainstream gamers just want the best graphics, but fans of the most popular shooter actually care more about performance.
It's kinda funny, people like to say that mainstream gamers just want the best graphics, but fans of the most popular shooter actually care more about performance.
It's not really the engine, its the level design. You're almost never given the opportunity to do things at your pace, you're always being pushed along, and its pretty much a narrow hallway with all the kill zones, walls or no.
Poimandres
Member
When COD4 launched, it looked pretty good compared to games of its time. A lot of it was smoke and mirrors, but it was an impressive game.
Every COD since then has looked like nothing more than a mission pack.
You don't necessarily need an entirely new engine (most engines are built on the back of at least some old code), but it needs a major overhaul to keep up with the competition. I think COD is going to fall hard this gen.
Every COD since then has looked like nothing more than a mission pack.
You don't necessarily need an entirely new engine (most engines are built on the back of at least some old code), but it needs a major overhaul to keep up with the competition. I think COD is going to fall hard this gen.
toddhunter
Member
RaptorGTA
Member
I think the issue here is...This is suppose to be showing off the Nex Gen features. Why else would you buy a new console? (oh wait...TV, TV tv tv sports!) COD has been one of the few games that has boasted it being the only big FPS with a high frame rate. Now with these new console we should see BF3 graphics with high frame rate. What we see here is a developer claiming they didn't have time to rebuild an engine. Meanwhile we see games like Killzone and Battlefield keep advancing their engines and making noticeable improvements.
I do believe COD hasn't ran a smooth 60 FPS for a long time. I remember watching a breakdown of the wii u version of BO2 and showing only the xbox 360 had a near 60 FPS.
I could be completely wrong. But I thought realistically PS3 AND Wii U were getting 45 FPS.
lol, if there's one thing Activision has moreso than any other 3rd party developer, its money. The reason why the engine isn't upgraded because the fan base simply doesn't care. They're more than happy to play a slightly different version of the same game every year, with a new hook or two thrown in. All the fan base really asks for is 60 fps and good net code. If there's no push to do anything new from these guys, why would Activision even care if they're going to buy it anyway?
Portugeezer
Member
PC version did those things when?
Which is extremely unimpressive in the first place.
SomeOneInaHat
Member
They need them in order to maintain a consistent 60 FPS which should be commended.
Hopefully new tech can widen the battlefield a tad.
Puppet Shadow
Member
Came to post this. A lot of us claim that we'd prefer 60fps over fancy effects, especially for racing games and shooters, and COD is one series that constantly delivers this.
bigboss370
Member
Portal 2 looks great with the Source engine.
I dunno why thats worth mentioning though, cuz Ghosts doesn't look too good >_>
I dunno why thats worth mentioning though, cuz Ghosts doesn't look too good >_>
Louis Cypher
Banned
And yet so far it looks basically like CoD now
tehrik-e-insaaf
Member
Wii U exclusive confirmed, first-person dog view is done through GamePad, swipe the screen forward to bite, asynchronous co-op, killer app
IchigoSharingan
Member
modified quake iii engine.....to never die!
'good enough'... That's the problem. They've gone from being one of the leaders in graphics tech and pushing the industry forward to 'good enough.
Other games have completely surpassed Call of Duty who maintains 60 fps is all that matters. You'll see soon as games like Destiny, Battlefield 4, Killzone, possibly Halo 5 show how far behind Call of Duty is.
VicDaMoan03
Member
I kind of think its the engine. Not sure how to explain but even things like the sky box feel like its right on top of you. COD lacks the open airiness of games like BF, Crysis, Fallout, FarCry. I prefer this felling to tight corridors that remind me of old FPS like original Doom, Castle Wolfwnstine.
