CoD ... new engine "counter productive" ...

#1 Edited by 2HeadedNinja (1447 posts) -

Heh ... I thought this is kinda funny. Robert Bowling from  Infinity Ward replied on a tweet from one of his followers that said they should invest in a new engine with this tweet saying a new engine would be counter productive because it takes years and years to develop ... what do you guys think especially with the footage of Battlefield 3 in mind?

#2 Posted by JasonR86 (9375 posts) -

Considering how much money they've made with the last two games I think he has a point.  We all may not like it, but as long as people keep buying COD games they will continue to come out on a yearly basis.  Why would they take the time to make a new engine when they make so much money?  It sucks but that's business.

#3 Edited by Darksaw (315 posts) -

First I'd like to say I don't know a huge amount about game/engine development or design, so please correct me if this is horribly wrong. Valve has been using the Source engine since 2004 now, it's still updated regularly, runs fine and looks pretty good, with this in mind it seems unnecessary to start from scratch every few releases unless a certain leap in technology calls for it. As long as the engine is built well and has good developer support I don't see a problem. This isn't about money, it's just a practical design decision.

#4 Posted by wrathofconn (1460 posts) -

I think that engine is probably fine for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if next year's big CoD is running on something that's at least been tweaked a bit.

#5 Posted by pwnasaurus (1286 posts) -

go away COD :(

#6 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@Darksaw: Source looks really aged though.  L4D2 looks somewhat passable but everything before it doesn't look that good compared to other games.
#7 Posted by Ping5000 (385 posts) -

Yeah, it really just comes down to whether or not the engine lets them make the game they want to make. If IW's engine continues to meet their requirements, then so be it.

#8 Posted by JasonR86 (9375 posts) -

@Darksaw
 
I've heard somewhere that the source engine can be modified more regularly due to the fact that it is primarily a PC-focused engine.  Don't quote me on that though as I don't know a ton about engines either.  That said, even the source engine is starting to show its age.  Game engines can only be modified so far.  The current COD engine has been pushed about as far as it will probably go.  Sort of like Bethesda's problems with the Gamebryo engine, the COD engine probably won't improve the same way the source engine does.  Even those improvements to current engines cost money and I doubt Activision is interested in that.

#9 Posted by ArcLyte (869 posts) -

I will immediately buy and play the fuck out of an Infinity Ward (or Respawn Entertainment) developed call of duty game regardless of the engine.

#10 Edited by Darksaw (315 posts) -
@KaosAngel:  I think L4D2 with maxed out graphics looks great, totally playable, the same with everything that came out in the Orange Box. Portal 2 looks pretty good so far as well. I'm not saying Source should win awards for beauty or anything, it's just impractical to build a whole new engine when you have something that's already usable, that is unless your graphics are the selling point such as with Crysis 2.
 
Edit: I am talking from a PC perspective here, so even with the older games you can just crank up the settings and it still looks good.
#11 Posted by AjayRaz (12389 posts) -
@pwnasaurus said:
" go away COD :( "

#12 Posted by pwnasaurus (1286 posts) -
@AjayRaz: 
#13 Posted by DoctorTran (1526 posts) -
@AjayRaz
@pwnasaurus said:
" go away COD :( "

God he looks like a smug asshole. I bet he likes the smell of his own farts.
#14 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:
" @Darksaw: Source looks really aged though.  L4D2 looks somewhat passable but everything before it doesn't look that good compared to other games. "
Source looks ass on consoles but pretty superb on PC still, considering the age of it. 
 
L4D2 looks really good though, it's just Half-Life 2 (original) and Counter-Strike that show age substantially. 
 
Anyway, Battlefield 3 isn't a new engine, it's just a newer version of Frostbite I read.
#15 Posted by ReyGitano (2465 posts) -

I went back to play the first Modern Warfare, and it looks much worse than I remember, and much worse than modern warfare 2. If they can modify the engine again to make it passable, good on them.

#16 Posted by JoelTGM (5591 posts) -

I'm kind of bored with Call of Duty right now, so um... yeah Battlefield 3 is looking pretty awesome.  Maybe they'll impress me, or maybe it'll just be the same old thing.  They have a lot of money to spend though, and while it's just by the numbers for Bobby Kotick, the developers do actually care about the game, so they can still make something great.

#17 Posted by Asurastrike (2151 posts) -

I'd rather them invest in a decent writer than in upgrading their tech.

#18 Posted by Slaker117 (4835 posts) -

I'm all for using what you've got, and obviously a lot of work went into the engine's development, but unless they start changing something up, I see CoD sales falling off a cliff in the next two years or so. I've liked every game they've put out, but it's getting stale. I think it would be wise to start looking at what could be done differently. That doesn't necessarily require a complete overhaul, though one of the features I would love to see implemented, destructibility, seems like it would be hard to cram into an existing framework. 

#19 Posted by Rawrz (587 posts) -

Call of Duty doesn't even need a new engine, they just have to change the game play a bit to add some life and newness to the series but we all know they will never do that since its not the Activision way. They will just keep rehashing it until they run it into the ground, and then they will stop making it, just like Guitar Hero.

#20 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4282 posts) -

I think it should be pointed out that the core of CoD's engine is Quake 3. 
 
Yes. Quake 3.

#21 Posted by Slaker117 (4835 posts) -
@Gap:  Would you care to support that assertion.
#22 Posted by Vinny_Says (5630 posts) -

That engine can be refined without overhauling the whole thing and spending millions on a new one. It's sensible and fiscally responsible, and as much graphic ass BF3 can kick the masses will still gravitate towards MW3 (or CoD) for at least a little while longer.

#23 Posted by Gruff182 (847 posts) -

Hes spot on.
 
Consoles or Microsoft specifically, needs to come out with new hardware. A new engine would be a waste of time. Consoles versions of CoD don't look half as sharp as the PC version of the game and thus doesn't even show the full potential of the current engine.
 
BF3 was shown off on a PC snd I bet you can expect the same un-aliased, blurry version on the game on the 360.
 
This isn't the developers fault though, they just work with what they have. Also, as far as i'm concerned getting either of these games on console is the 'wrong' version but thats where the money is.

#24 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2128 posts) -

Yay for more CoD soldiers who shine way too much!

#25 Edited by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

Seems counterproductive to make a new engine when you're still working with console tech from 2004. The engine they have is plenty capable of making the game as good as it can look under the console's limitations. The problems with COD's look are related to art direction, new engines don't fix that.

#26 Posted by dagas (2711 posts) -

The BF3 footage is from the PC version right? They sell more games on consoles and the 360 can't look that much better than MW2 so I can understand why they won't make a new engine at this point.

#27 Posted by Jadeskye (4359 posts) -
@AjayRaz said:
" @pwnasaurus said:
" go away COD :( "

"

COD ain't going nowhere x_x 
#28 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@Rawrz said:
" Call of Duty doesn't even need a new engine, they just have to change the game play a bit to add some life and newness to the series but we all know they will never do that since its not the Activision way. They will just keep rehashing it until they run it into the ground, and then they will stop making it, just like Guitar Hero. "
man that is so fucking sad... 
 
i remember when Call of Duty was a really good and genuine video game that thrilled and excited and entertained. i was awaiting CoD 2 like crazy, and then had huge hype for Modern Warfare, and then.... it lost it's charm, lost its unique touch and ability to suck me in, and just turned into this annual bike that everyone rides .. single player is still good, but not as good as before, and it's too cinematic, and playing it once a year makes it fucking boring. 
and the multiplayer.. nothing but a rushed broken asshole-fest with glitches and hacks and mayhem stinking to high heaven
  

what a fucking shame.
#29 Posted by Slaker117 (4835 posts) -

Thinking about it a bit more, it makes sense to stick with it for the remainder of this hardware cycle, but only if they mix it up for the next generation of consoles. CoD still has enough recognition to ride it out a couple years more before needing something fresh. Hopefully Activision will make the right call when the time comes.

#30 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -

Why would they need a new engine?

#31 Posted by Sogeman (852 posts) -

Looking at the Blops Mappack PSN trailer, the engine is damn outdated. Looks horrible.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.