Part two of CVG's interview with Sledgehammer Games general manager Glen Schofield
our engine: everything in it is perfectly freaking clean and fast. lol he just said it a faster copy past engine. Will the game quality and support be consistent across all platforms? Some PS3 and PC Call of Duty players have felt a bit hard done by on previous occasions? I'm not sure what the issues were with the last one, but there's nothing to worry about with this one. how can u not be sure what was wrong with the last one. it really buggs me for him to say that i mean how can u not know? its your game
If that's the case then it looks like they put the porsche engine inside of a kia model! What a waste of computing horsepower then.
Car analogy is stupid. its all about TRADE OFFS PEOPLE. I mean, for a MULTIPLAYER game i dont mind the graphics as much, they are "RESPECTABLE" and i will TRADE OFF better graphics for smoother gameplay and better MP.
Who cares all I want is my fast pace arcade addictive online gameplay. Damn November can't come soon enough :(
"If you put Modern Warfare 2 next to Modern Warfare 3 you would see a huge difference" enough said
I dont think that anyone who hasnt played COD before will be able to distinguish MW2 screenshots from MW3 screenshots. They should stop talking about better graphics, which obviously is not their strongest point.
Another reason why they should stop talking about graphics is because the game is on all current gen consoles.
Maybe a Z4.
oi, leave the Z4 alone!
Or the Panamera. The 4-door Porsche sedan. LOL. For the automobile consumer that has more money than pride...
Except EA hold the rights to Porsche. Sledgehammer will have to make it a RUF engine now. Damn you EA!
Yea right everyone know that this engine is old and looks horrible at this moment compare to other engines
idk what game you been playing but black ops look worse than modern warfare 2 so no the engine doesn't look outdated, it actually looks like a newer engine when you play black ops for a long time
I don't even understand what you just tried to say. OT: The engine is outdated as a muther trucker.
Ah I see their trick! Make a good looking game (cod4) then make it look worse (waw) then make it look just as good as cod4 (mw2) then bad again (bo) then back to normal (mw3) People will think the graphics get better when they really dont lol!
@Ginsunuva You do know that WaW and BO are made by a different studio right?
They modify the engine with each and every COD game released. I'll leave you with this quote from the article "I've said this before - I'm not shipping an engine, I'm shipping a game. So that's why I'm going to talk about the game. You can talk about your engine all you want. It's not fun."
"Compared to other engines" You mean Battlefield 3? You want people to try to compete with Battlefield 3's engine? What.
I'm not the biggest Call of Duty fan, but to say it needs a new engine is kind of ridiculous. What most non-fans don't understand is that the majority of people that play the game online don't care about the visuals. As long as it runs at 60fps on a console and maintains the same level of controller response, they'll be happy. It's far from being a bad looking title regardless. Battlefield 3 is always there for those that want the visual component, but even when I go online with that, the graphics aren't the thing I care about. I'm focused on the task at hand. That's why Call of Duty won't look different this generation, because its played for the pace of the game, not mind-blowing graphics. The Source Engine says hi!
Im pretty sure most CoD players cant tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Like Cliffy B said "give it the mom test".
It's a subconscious reaction. They might not know that it runs at 60 frames, but they'll notice that its fast and more frenetic than most, hence why more people play it over a variety of other FPS's. The pace of the game is equalised by performance. You don't need to know the technicality of it, you just feel it.
No one told them to drop below 60 fps . But they aint really trying that hard nor that hard at work for all their empty talk and bravado . As flawed as it might be , stuff like Rage make them look lazy , and show there are plenty alternative to achieve good lokking 60 fps .
i don't but i feel it when i play ...
@ floetry101 LOOL, you really think 60 frames per sec is the selling factor for CoD games? I bet most gamers don't even know what frames per sec mean. CoD sells a lot because of the perk system, killstreak system, and fast leveling system.
What they need to do, take 4+ years building a new engine. Showcase whats possible with said tech on PC. Later, show far less impressive console footage and watch console gamers whine over lazy developers and whatever other excuse they can, other than point the finger at the aging console hardware. My point is, at this stage, it's not worth creating a new engine for this gen, better off focus on building your next tech for the next gen. COD still looks good enough and runs at a smooth 60fps, one of the few console games that does.
GG made improvements on their engine, you think ND hasnt done some on theirs.. Just take a look at the character models, and you'll be blown away. COD wont change because people are buying it like no tomorrow, so why spend money when you can just release the product and get more money.
And CryEngine 3 Ferrari?
What is the point creating an engine at this moment. This generation is sadly coming to an end and Activision is a business. It makes little sense to spend years developing an engine for last gen consoles. The thing about the COD engine is that it may not have the best visuals but it does deliver 60fps with little to no drop in frame rate. There are not many FPS on the market that can do that for consoles. The tihng is nice graphics is great but with COD having lots of explosions happening at once frame rate dropping/having low frame rate is a big deal so they have an engine that suits that type of game.
I'm not disagreeing with them but.... they would say that wouldn't they? Anyone remember Haze? The devs behind that game said their engine was pretty damn good too ;)
COD MW2 looks pretty good on PC in native 1080p. Really clean and sharp. Much better than most console titles to be honest.
The issue isnt the engine, its just he fact its subHD on console is what gets me, anyone whos played MW2 on PC cannot deny that it looks boss at max settings
Liars. It can't even run 720p on consoles.
@ those who disagree: WHY? He is correct if you didn't know. CoD games don't even run on 720p. It's a little lower.
They disagree because they're mad console players who don't know what resolutions even are.
More like a "2007" Honda Civic.
How dare they compare that trash to a Porsche?? Porsche updates their models and improves not only performance, but visual tweaks too. Something that hasn't happened to the Cod series in a few years. Bring on Respawn's new game.
Who the hell they think they're kidding ? They already said they dont make a new engine for each title, So they just recycle last years one. It's a 2012 Porsche with a 2011 engine, but you still pay $ 200,000 for it. Screw that.
Like a Porsche, looks exactly the same as the last! That said I am looking forward to this game!
So have they fixed the horrible latency issues that plagued the prior 3 or 4 CoD games? $10 says that they were once against too arrogant to bother. Only series I've ever played where you could so easily go 15-1 one round and 4-17 the next, with the only variable being the host...
A Porche compared to F1 cars.
Modern Warfare 3: Our engine is a broken down pinto parked in front of our moms house. -fixed
A new engine isn't what CoD needs at all. Look at the differences between CoD4 and CoD:BO -- the difference is in the quality of the animations, textures, etc. CoD:MW and CoD:MW2 look WAY better than CoD:WoW and CoD:BO. The difference is art. The difference is the art team skills at IW vs the team skills at Treyarch. CoD's death animations and ragdolls, particularly in multiplayer, are terrible. They are extra bad in Black Ops -- it seems like the art team didn't know how to fuel a good ragdoll with animation input at all. They drop in heaps straight to the ground most of the time. Since the point of the game is shooting bad guys, I'd say this is basically a HUGE flaw that they've never corrected. If their engine is so easy to use now, we better see some improvements in MW3 then, right? If Sledgehammer's art team is good, the game will look good. If not.. well.. it won't, no matter how new and spiffy the engine is.
All of you fanboys have no idea how much work goes on behind the scenes. There's more to an engine than just graphics. The current COD engine has been modified to perfection. There's no need to abandon an engine that's not only easy to work with and very productive but perfect for multiplatform development.
Gee, DICE and other Devs don't seem to have a problem doing both graphics and gameplay . Put it like this, other Devs take the time to rebuild both the engine, suspension, drivetrain and bodywork of their new cars, COD games are the same old Porsche engine and suspension and they just put a new body, new paint job, new wheels and a couple more cup holders and call it a " Whole New Car " Lol, they'll prob be using the same tired engine on the next consoles and people will still be saying " Well they really don't need to update it, it looks great, it runs at 60 FPS " If everybody felt this way, weds still be playing Quake 3, hey it looked great, ran great, why change it ? It's called progression, look it up, Are we still driving horse drawn carriages ? Why not ? They worked fine ? Why change it then ? We get it you guys love Call O' Dootie, some of us want something more.
DICE puts graphics above gameplay and features. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 has dozens of multiplayer modes, weapon progression, completely new killstreak system....etc. Battlefield 3 doesn't even have something simple like split-screen online multiplayer.(Does it even have offline multiplayer?)
"I'm not sure what the issues were with the last one, but there's nothing to worry about with this one." It seems to me that a developer working on a game of this magnitude would know what the issues with the last one were.
I bet 99.99% of people commenting here on N4G have no clue about what goes into making a game and wouldn't be able to make a game as good as call of duty even if they did. Also, maybe they don't know the issues from the previous call of duty because they didn't even have anything to do with that game. By the way, why does everyone think graphics come first?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.