# Treyarch says Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Doesn't Need a New Engine to Advance Graphics



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 doesn't need a brand new game engine to improve the graphics over previous games in the series, Treyarch has insisted. Black Ops 2 is built using the latest, most advanced version of the engine that Call of Duty developers have used to build the first-person shooter series since 2005's Call of Duty 2: a heavily modified version of the id Tech 3 engine. Some fans have called on Activision to invest in a brand new graphics engine in order to spruce up Call of Duty's visuals. But Treyarch chief Mark Lamia said continuing to upgrade the current engine was enough to meet the development team's design goals. "People always ask me, 'Is this a new engine?' he told One of Swords. "I liken it to people who live in an older house that has been remodelled. Just because you're remodelling the house and it will look new or it will have a new kitchen, you don't tear out the foundation, or break out some of the framing. You might even go as hardcore as replacing the plumbing, and we will do that sort of thing, as an analogy. It's a gross simplification, but it's one way to say that. There's a lot of good still in that foundation that you wouldn't get rid of, and we don't. We look to advance in the areas that support our game design.

"Engines, each time they get touched, they change. The creators alter them; they don't modify what they don't need to, and then they alter what they need to. You can't make a competitive product if you're not upgrading that engine along the way." He added: "I think the whole thing about a new engine... sometimes that's a great buzzword. Well, I have a new graphics engine - is that a new engine? Where does it start and stop? Elements of the code, you can trace back for a very, very long time... but whole parts of the code are entirely new. Two areas we did focus on for this game were the graphics and the lighting - a pretty significant amount of work is going into that."When Activision announced Black Ops 2 earlier this month it promised a "visual overhaul", with graphical upgrades a mix of "tech and technique". In a demo to press played on an Xbox 360 build of the game, an unpopulated level set on Socotra Island in Yemen showed HDR lighting, bounce lighting, self-shadowing and a new texture technique called reveal mapping - all running at 60 frames per second.

"I think what people are asking for is for us to push," Lamia explained. "They want us to make a better-looking game; they want things. I don't think those are things people can't ask for. We asked ourselves that very same question - we wanted to advance the graphics. I think the questions are valid. The answer may not need to be an entirely new engine, but you might need to do an entire overhaul of your entire lighting system. "The trick is, we're not willing to do that if we can't keep it running at 60 frames per second - but we did that this time. So this is the Black Ops 2 engine."

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Thank you Crap Daddy for this one!


----------



## helloWorld (May 14, 2012)

Here is a video about this topic. It is in english with german subtitles.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 14, 2012)

and que the CoD bashing in 3...2...1....


----------



## techguy31 (May 14, 2012)

I am definitely looking forward to play zombies.


----------



## brandonwh64 (May 14, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> and que the CoD bashing in 3...2...1....



COD blows BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! LOL had to 

P.S. COD does blow


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2012)

Skyrim used a heavily modified Morrowind Engine and that is about 10 years old, so I guess I am fine with this decision.


----------



## Kaynar (May 14, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> and que the CoD bashing in 3...2...1....



Not really the COD bashing... Its more the "console bashing" about how developer base their game on what an outdated $100 machine that breaks every 6 months can do in terms of graphics - there I did it, I bashed xbox abit!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Skyrim used a heavily modified Morrowind Engine and that is about 10 years old, so I guess I am fine with this decision.



Tech 3 engine is from 1999.......its 2012.........let the engine die.


----------



## erocker (May 14, 2012)

Doesn't matter what engine they use. They'll sell millions of copies and make lots of money. I don't see the big deal. Besides, it's not up to them whether they use a new engine or not. If their customer base decides it's not worth buying their games anymore, maybe they'll change then. Untill then they'll be swimming in their pool of money and make the same game over and over again.


----------



## Kreij (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> But Treyarch chief Mark Lamia said continuing to upgrade the current engine was enough to meet the development team's design goals.



Here's the money quote.


----------



## iLLz (May 14, 2012)

The simple fact they have been beating this engine into the ground for the past several years, means they have made Billions of dollars of profit, so why can't they spend the resources to make a more advanced engine?

Oh, that's right, they don't care so long as it sells and they can regurgitate the same crap with a new menu.  It's alot like the Madden series as of late, no real innovation, just updated rosters, and an animation or two added every year.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Tech 3 engine is from 1999.......its 2012.



If the engine is built robustly, you can add on a lot of new stuff to it with minimal modification to the code. In fact, I am pretty amazed by how much they managed to doll up such an old engine.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> If the engine is built robustly, you can add on a lot of new stuff to it with minimal modification to the code. In fact, I am pretty amazed by how much they managed to doll up such an old engine.



The engine cannot be dolled up anymore. Its dated as hell. I mean really Carmack is on to the Tech 5.5 engine! iD has created two completely new engines in the same amount of time! I mean really? They can't even break down and buy the license for the Tech 4 engine?

Think about that. This is the Quake 3 engine. Its older the Doom 3!


----------



## Steevo (May 14, 2012)

I would rather have a game that is fun and offers good game play instead of pretty, however both would be bad.


----------



## digibucc (May 14, 2012)

this isn't a matter of the engine being good enough so much as the design goals being very very low.




TheMailMan78 said:


> Treyarch chief Mark Lamia said continuing to upgrade the current engine was enough to meet the development team's design goals.


----------



## erocker (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Think about that. This is the Quake 3 engine. Its older the Doom 3!



Add larger textures, update DirectX 9 to the latest and greatest tweaks, processes, and whatnot and viola! Most engines are very basic at their core anyways. They are in the business to make money and puting money and resourses into a new engine is just stupid considering the amount of money they make off of what they are doing now.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The engine cannot be dolled up anymore. Its dated as hell. I mean really Carmack is on to the Tech 5.5 engine! iD has created two completely new engines in the same amount of time! I mean really? They can't even break down and buy the license for the Tech 4 engine?
> 
> Think about that. This is the Quake 3 engine. Its older the Doom 3!



Apparently they think its still possible to doll it up for the next COD game 

Personally I think COD games look ok, certainly not spectacular, but good enough so that you will forget how crap it is during the "heat of battle" (in reality just hearing some stupid 13 yr old bragging his lungs off.)


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Skyrim used a heavily modified Morrowind Engine and that is about 10 years old, so I guess I am fine with this decision.



Gamebryo?

The thing is is that with CoD yeah its a tweaked Idtech3 engine, but its idtech3. The game engine used in Quake 3! They say the game is going to look better then the prior installments, but like always they will have to be within the 60fps mark. I feel like things like this have been said to the community before each CoD release yet it looks EXACTLY the same as the previous games.I mean I was playing MW3 during the free weekend and it looked more like CoD4 then MW2 really, and MW2 did have better graphcis then Cod 4.

At this point i guess its alright to keep using this same engine, but when next gen consoles come out I expect CoD to use a new version of idtech or completely other different one.


----------



## Crap Daddy (May 14, 2012)

In fact it's so damn good it will outlive Bobby Kotick. Who needs the Unreal engine which gave us the Good Samaritan demo. And how dare NV and AMD ask in excess of 500$ for a graphics card?


----------



## Zubasa (May 14, 2012)

> Treyarch says Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Doesn't Need a New Engine to Advance Sales


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 14, 2012)

Zubasa said:


>



you know theres an issue when that statement has "sales" in it rather then entertainment or immersion or quality.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

erocker said:


> Add larger textures, update DirectX 9 to the latest and greatest tweaks, processes, and whatnot and viola! Most engines are very basic at their core anyways. They are in the business to make money and puting money and resourses into a new engine is just stupid considering the amount of money they make off of what they are doing now.



Yeah I know......then I play 5 minutes of the Frostbyte 2.0 engine and remember why I have a 300 dollar GPU and the Tech 3 engine has no place on my SSD anymore unless its Quake 3 for nostalgic reasons.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah I know......then I play 5 minutes of the Frostbyte 2.0 engine and remember why I have a 300 dollar GPU and the Tech 3 engine has no place on my SSD anymore unless its Quake 3 for nostalgic reasons.



even BF3 and Frostbite 2.0 could have been pushed even further.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 14, 2012)

> "I liken it to people who live in an older house that has been remodelled. Just because you're remodelling the house and it will look new or it will have a new kitchen, you don't tear out the foundation, or break out some of the framing. You might even go as hardcore as replacing the plumbing, and we will do that sort of thing, as an analogy. It's a gross simplification, but it's one way to say that. There's a lot of good still in that foundation that you wouldn't get rid of, and we don't. We look to advance in the areas that support our game design."



That's a stupid analogy, sure you can build an extension to a house but it can only be so much before you decide you need a bigger house and move. Yeah you can fit a new kitchen but again its the same house, the same walls and foundation. Same idea with the engine.


----------



## Kreij (May 14, 2012)

An "engine" is *just code *and can be modified to any extent if they have the rights to modify the source code (which I'm sure they do).
If they have heavily modified their current engine, then they have a TON of code in their code base that relies on their mods.
If they get a new engine, they will have to redo it all, or at least spend a butt load of money on regression testing ... and that is not necessarily a good financial move if their design requirements won't facilitate all of the new bells and whistles of a new engine.

Sure, the latest engine tech is impressive, but there is a lot more that comes into play when trying to manage the creation, and budgets, of a AAA game.


----------



## digibucc (May 14, 2012)

i think to most people it signifies that they are not planning to innovate, or do anything "new".
to expect cod to change anything drastically is... not very logical. they have a winning formula, and they will keep releasing games following that formula, because it's a winning formula.
no new engine, no new ideas. they don't need them, because they have millions of customers.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> An "engine" is *just code *and can be modified to any extent if they have the rights to modify the source code (which I'm sure they do).
> If they have heavily modified their current engine, then they have a TON of code in their code base that relies on their mods.
> If they get a new engine, they will have to redo it all, or at least spend a butt load of money on regression testing ... and that is not necessarily a good financial move if their design requirements won't facilitate all of the new bells and whistles of a new engine.
> 
> Sure, the latest engine tech is impressive, but there is a lot more that comes into play when trying to manage the creation, and budgets, of a AAA game.



I don't care how much gravy you add to stale potato's.

If everyone worked this way we would NEVER have new engines. So you mean to tell me iD with a half the sales of the CoD series is able to create a new engine every 5 years but Activision with BILLIONS of revenue can't for their flagship game? BS. They are just being cheap asses because they know the name sells. Doesnt matter whats under the hood.


----------



## Kreij (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I don't care how much gravy you add to stale potato's.



I lover 'taters. Mmmmmm
Your analogy is completely ridiculous, but I still love 'taters.



			
				TMM said:
			
		

> If everyone worked this way we would NEVER have new engines. So you mean to tell me iD with a half the sales of the CoD series is able to create a new engine every 5 years but Activision with BILLIONS of revenue can't for their flagship game?



Of course they can. Why should they if everyone keeps buying their games by the millions?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> I lover 'taters. Mmmmmm
> Your analogy is completely ridiculous, but I still love 'taters.



My analogy is perfect. It over flows with levels of win that cannot be comprehended with the force of one thousand suns.



Kreij said:


> Of course they can. Why should they if everyone keeps buying their games by the millions?


 There used to be a thing called pride in a job. I read about it in books.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2012)

No tesselation for you!  Doesn't mean they won't put a crappy attempt at it in though.  Tesselation is a major design change when used to its fullest extent.


----------



## digibucc (May 14, 2012)

the thing is the engine doesn't really matter. cod is about not having to worry whether your friends are buying the same game or not - that's really the only important point. 
it doesn't have to actually be better than any other game, it's that you can feel safe knowing you aren't weird for trying something new.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I don't care how much gravy you add to stale potato's.
> 
> If everyone worked this way we would NEVER have new engines. So you mean to tell me iD with a half the sales of the CoD series is able to create a new engine every 5 years but Activision with BILLIONS of revenue can't for their flagship game? BS. They are just being cheap asses because they know the name sells. Doesnt matter whats under the hood.



If it ain't broken why fix it? To use a new engine you basically need to retrain your entire workforce to familiarise themselves with a new environment. Given the development cycle of a COD game is about a year, I would say that if they adopt an all new engine the next COD game will only have one guy holding a knife with a few boxes as terrain. 

Bethesda released Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, F:NV, Skyrim and I don't hear as many people complaining. Double standards?



FordGT90Concept said:


> No tesselation for you!  Doesn't mean they won't put a crappy attempt at it in though.  Tesselation is a major design change when used to its fullest extent.



Tesselation is still not one of the more premium features in a game, there are not many (but growing number) games which uses it.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> My analogy is perfect. It over flows with levels of win that cannot be comprehended with the force of one thousand suns.
> 
> There used to be a thing called pride in a job. I read about it in books.



god Mailman is a boss!



Fourstaff said:


> If it ain't broken why fix it? To use a new engine you basically need to retrain your entire workforce to familiarise themselves with a new environment. Given the development cycle of a COD game is about a year, I would say that if they adopt an all new engine the next COD game will only have one guy holding a knife with a few boxes as terrain.
> 
> Bethesda released Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, F:NV, Skyrim and I don't hear as many people complaining. Double standards?



Thats because those games actually were new iterations. All CoD brings each year is more 12 years olds screaming in the mic "I F$@KED YOUR MOM LAST NIGHT".


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

digibucc said:


> the thing is the engine doesn't really matter. cod is about not having to worry whether your friends are buying the same game or not - that's really the only important point.
> it doesn't have to actually be better than any other game, it's that you can feel safe knowing you aren't weird for trying something new.



This is true. When I was growing up I used to strive my best to do the opposite of everyone else at the time. Didn't matter if it was good or bad for me socially. I just HAD to go against the grain. I dunno why that was. I was always the outcast but enjoyed it. I bet today if I was a kid I would be all about BF3 or Bejeweled or something just to spite the crowd.



Fourstaff said:


> If it ain't broken why fix it? To use a new engine you basically need to retrain your entire workforce to familiarise themselves with a new environment. Given the development cycle of a COD game is about a year, I would say that if they adopt an all new engine the next COD game will only have one guy holding a knife with a few boxes as terrain.
> 
> Bethesda released Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, F:NV, Skyrim and I don't hear as many people complaining. Double standards?



1. They already fired 90% of the IW team. Time for a new engine? NAAAAAAAA.
2. No one bitches about Bethesda using the same engine? Are you kidding me? Ill bet you last 5 minutes with Crazyeyes in TS at the mention of that engine.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 14, 2012)

there was a time when people used to play a game for its story above all else. I loved CoD1 for how the story played out. with the more modern CoDs todate, the story has been utter crap. so why not sex up the game visually?? at least players can get immersed in the graphics rather then the storyline. but then i guess CoD players dont really care about how bad/dated the game looks or how crap the storyline is so long as they can run and gun and camp in corners in MP.

Then again. out of all the people who play black ops mainly play or bought it for the zombies.... So why not leave the CoD series be and make Zombie games since thats what a lot of people buy the game for?


----------



## Kreij (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> There used to be a thing called pride in a job. I read about it in books.



That only applies to people who actually do the work ... and yes they have a lot of pride in their creations.
It's the beancounters that crush their hopes and dreams by nailing them to a budget and time constraints that make some things impossible.
Id sells their engine. It's a money maker for them, and their games are not dependant upon the cost of licensing the engine.

Mmmm.. baked 'tater with broccholi, melted cheese and bacon. Drool.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> An "engine" is *just code *and can be modified to any extent if they have the rights to modify the source code (which I'm sure they do).
> If they have heavily modified their current engine, then they have a TON of code in their code base that relies on their mods.
> If they get a new engine, they will have to redo it all, or at least spend a butt load of money on regression testing ... and that is not necessarily a good financial move if their design requirements won't facilitate all of the new bells and whistles of a new engine.
> 
> Sure, the latest engine tech is impressive, but there is a lot more that comes into play when trying to manage the creation, and budgets, of a AAA game.



Like others have touched on it doesn't really matter what engine they use if people are buying their games. If they can tweak their engine and it makes them and their fans happy then they will. Sticking with that house analogy, some people are fine living in the same house for years on end. My point before was there is only so much they can do with a dated engine.

Doesn't effect me as i dont play their or Infinity Wards games.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> That only applies to people who actually do the work ... and yes they have a lot of pride in their creations.
> It's the beancounters that crush their hopes and dreams by nailing them to a budget and time constraints that make some things impossible.
> Id sells their engine. It's a money maker for them, and their games are not dependant upon the cost of licensing the engine.
> 
> Mmmm.. baked 'tater with broccholi, melted cheese and bacon. Drool.



Yeah? How many AAA games you seen with the Tech 5 engine?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> This is true. When I was growing up I used to strive my best to do the opposite of everyone else at the time. Didn't matter if it was good or bad for me socially. I just HAD to go against the grain. I dunno why that was. I was always the outcast but enjoyed it. I bet today if I was a kid I would be all about BF3 or Bejeweled or something just to spite the crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that is so true. I about just spit all over my screen laughing!


----------



## Batou1986 (May 14, 2012)

I really don't care what game engine they use that is not my major issue with the new series of COD games.
I loved the first modern warfare and the games before it then WAW which was ok, what isn't ok is they have been recycling the same boring MP ever since then.

The reason i like BF/TES/DoW/Witcher/Fallout  is the premiss and game play remain similar yet its different enough to be a new experience not just new textures perks and the like.
Tho Bethesda has been lacking any marked improvement in game mechanics where CDPR did a great job making tweaks and improvements.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2012)

Its really sad that people nowadays are bothered about how good a game looks rather than how good the gameplay is (COD fails at both counts though, unless you are playing with your friends pwning noobs). Humans are so superficial


----------



## Kreij (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah? How many AAA games you seen with the Tech 5 engine?



How much does it cost to license it, and what are it's advantages for your given design requirements?
Sure it's good for a studio's e-peen to say they have the latest, greatest engine ... but not if they go bankrupt to get it (and you know the studios aren't in the best shape these days).



			
				4Staff said:
			
		

> Bethesda released Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, F:NV, Skyrim and I don't hear as many people complaining. Double standards?



Lol ... no comment.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Its really sad that people nowadays are bothered about how good a game looks rather than how good the gameplay is (COD fails at both counts though, unless you are playing with your friends pwning noobs). Humans are so superficial



What do fake tits have to do with this?



Kreij said:


> How much does it cost to license it, and what are it's advantages for your given design requirements?
> Sure it's good for a studio's e-peen to say they have the latest, greatest engine ... but not if they go bankrupt to get it (and you know the studios aren't in the best shape these days).



Activision bankrupt from a CoD title......you realize thats what you just said right?


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> What do fake tits have to do with this?



What makes you think of fake tits when I say "superficial"?



TheMailMan78 said:


> Activision bankrupt from a CoD title......you realize thats what you just said right?



They are morally bankrupt?


----------



## Kreij (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Activision bankrupt from a CoD title......you realize thats what you just said right?



No, in this case it's really unlikely. But why should they cut into their profit margins by purchasing a new engine (and the expense of making it work with existing code base) since people are buying their product like hotcakes?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> No, in this case it's really unlikely. But why should they cut into their profit margins by purchasing a new engine (and the expense of making it work with existing code base) since people are buying their product like hotcakes?



Because a new platform is right around the corner and getting a leg up on the competition with a new engine that's future proof NOW will insure future domination of the market?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Tesselation is still not one of the more premium features in a game, there are not many (but growing number) games which uses it.


...because most engines out there are still designed to run on 7 year old consoles.  You won't see tesselation in PC games until consoles support it too.  Sure, there's a few exceptions but they're mostly half-assed.




Fourstaff said:


> Bethesda released Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, F:NV, Skyrim and I don't hear as many people complaining. Double standards?


FO3/F:NV engines really weren't meant to involve guns and they compensated using silly VATS.  F:NV is at least passable.

Skyrim...I really don't like the direction they took it.  It feels like more action and less RPG.


----------



## Crap Daddy (May 14, 2012)

I'm very curious to see what Max Payne 3 is capable of. The system req. go from 8600GT to GTX680. Now that's some engine.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2012)

From what I saw in the ad spots, expect Grand Theft Auto IV with gameplay tweaks.


----------



## Kreij (May 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Because a new platform is right around the corner and getting a leg up on the competition with a new engine that's future proof NOW will insure future domination of the market?



Market domination, or better yet market saturation, in the gaming industry has nothing to do with the engine you use.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ...because most engines out there are still designed to run on 7 year old consoles.  You won't see tesselation in PC games until consoles support it too.  Sure, there's a few exceptions but they're mostly half-assed.



Indeed! There is absolutely no need to upgrade engine if you can't use the newer features! 



FordGT90Concept said:


> FO3/F:NV engines really weren't meant to involve guns and they compensated using silly VATS.  F:NV is at least passable.
> 
> Skyrim...I really don't like the direction they took it.  It feels like more action and less RPG.



Lets not sidetrack by complaining about gameplay, shall we?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Lets not sidetrack by complaining about gameplay, shall we?


Yes, I realized that the moment I hit submit. 

On topic: Skyrim could benefit a ton from tesselation on all those trees, bushes, flowers, etc.  Yet, they didn't because as long as it is playable, people just don't care.  The only benefit, really, is higher average FPS.

It boils down to a simple question: is it worth fundamentally changing the engine to support Direct3D 10/10.1/11 features or are we okay with what we can do without?  Answer is always the latter unless you commoditize the engine (like Epic and id software).


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yes, I realized that the moment I hit submit.
> 
> On topic: Skyrim could benefit a ton from tesselation on all those trees, bushes, flowers, etc.  Yet, they didn't because as long as it is playable, people just don't care.  The only benefit, really, is higher average FPS.



Skyrim can be so much better with DX11, but they didn't and still managed to produce such a good game (well, at least according to the reviews and fanbase anyway). I would rather see Skyrim in DX11 than COD with DX11, setting everything at max and watch the slideshow (the best my pc can do lol) of weather changing from the top of a mountain. 

Skyrim has a very poor data save system, the game slows to a crawl when your savefile becomes too big (and has nothing to do with the graphics). That needs to be fixed before TES VI


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Market domination, or better yet market saturation, in the gaming industry has nothing to do with the engine you use.



Yeah? Let them keep with the same engine into the next gen and see how long they last. DICE didn't get the memo I guess. I mean if that were true then they could have used the BF2 engine for BF3.

They haven't made a new engine because they do not have the talent in house with Treyarch to do so. Treyarch is living off the scraps of IW original crew.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Skyrim has a very poor data save system, the game slows to a crawl when your savefile becomes too big (and has nothing to do with the graphics). That needs to be fixed before TES VI


Yeah, I noticed that a long time ago (Oblivion, I think it was at least respectable in Morrowind).  They literally use | to delimit their save file.  I bet if you delete just one of those, the entire save becomes worthless.  Of all the save files I've examined, Bethesda's are the silliest.


----------



## n-ster (May 14, 2012)

CoD looks like crap on consoles lately IMO, but their graphics on PC are fine


----------



## caleb (May 14, 2012)

Shouldn't this be read as "Its still good enough for consoles anyway" they need to downgrade the game for PS3 anyway so...


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Its really sad that people nowadays are bothered about how good a game looks rather than how good the gameplay is (COD fails at both counts though, unless you are playing with your friends pwning noobs). Humans are so superficial



Well how a game looks is the first thing that will catch someones eye during all the pre release videos and stuff like that. A person would be lying if the first thing they notice is gameplay. Now a game doesn't nessarily need top notch visuals, for instance Diablo 3. It doesn't have crazy high res textures or a high poly count but the design of it and the art is was makes it looks great.


----------



## Jurassic1024 (May 14, 2012)

Some fans have called on Activision to invest in a brand new graphics engine in order to spruce up Call of Duty's visuals. But Treyarch chief Mark Lamia said continuing to upgrade the current engine was enough to meet the development team's design goals. 

Translation:  Ask, and you shall not receive. We know what's best for you.


----------



## Jurassic1024 (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Its really sad that people nowadays are bothered about how good a game looks rather than how good the gameplay is...



No, it's sad that people automatically assume those same players would want them at the expense of degraded gameplay.


----------



## xenocide (May 14, 2012)

People can pull analogies up with other companies all they want, but the major difference will always be as follows.  Each year Activision releases a game, that is basically identical to their last.  The development time is about 12-16 months, and the game hardly changes from the previous entry whichever development studio made.  

You look at companies like Bethesda, they went from Oblivion to Fallout 3, which have similar gameplay elements, and run on the same engine, but they are nothing alike.  They are both games that you can sink hundreds of hours into as single-player adventures.  The games Bethesda made took a couple years for each team to develop, and each one introduced quite a few new elements, either to gameplay or visuals.

Sure, Engines are just code, but they must have limitations as time goes by--inabilities to adequately multi-thread, poor resource usage, etc.  There is always improvement to be made, and if you could just get by with heavily modifying your last engine, why do Epic and id keep releasing new and better engines?


----------



## Kreij (May 14, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It boils down to a simple question: is it worth fundamentally changing the engine to support Direct3D 10/10.1/11 features or are we okay with what we can do without?  Answer is always the later unless you commoditize the engine (like Epic and id software).



^^ This is why Epic and Id create new engines all the time. It makes them money.



TheMailMan78 said:


> They haven't made a new engine because they do not have the talent in house with Treyarch to do so. Treyarch is living off the scraps of IW original crew.



Perhaps, but the "scraps" are feeding them pretty well, no?
Don't get me wrong, TMM, I'm all for new tech in both hardware and software, but if from a business standpoint a major investment will not result in a better ROI (because they are already selling tons) then would it be a high priority? No, it wouldn't and that's how they obviously view it.


----------



## NC37 (May 14, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Skyrim used a heavily modified Morrowind Engine and that is about 10 years old, so I guess I am fine with this decision.



But Quake 3 Arena engine is much older. It is very limited in terms of what you can really do with it compared to engines nowadays. They have heavily modified it to this point but the foundation is still crap.

Black Ops 2 will just be a rehash with better graphics. You can do better effects but the core gameplay will not change because they are limited via the engine itself.

All this time taken using this crappy archaic engine should have been done developing their own engine while the crappy engine brought in the development funds. Now DICE is at 2.0+ on Frostbite and CoD can only keep rehashing.


----------



## Fairlady-z (May 14, 2012)

Cant wait for Black Ops 2 for my 360 lol....  Ahhh what ever guys I got a massive 65"TV with a kicking surround sound I love those single player campaigns lol.


----------



## techtard (May 14, 2012)

As long as the current gen consoles are around there is no need to upgrade their engine. They can't use many of the new features of newer game engines or newer graphics APIs because they are stuck to what the Xbox 360 can utilize.

Also, the PC market has access to much better FPS games than the COD series. That is another reason they don't cater to us.

Dx11 would be a god-send for PC gamers though. You get tessellation, improved shaders, and better multi-threaded performance. Too bad we're second class citizens compared to the console kiddies.
We can hope that the next-gen console refresh will also bring dx11+. Maybe then our CPUs will be able to stretch their legs.


----------



## Disruptor4 (May 15, 2012)

I'm surprised how shit the graphics are in the original Black Ops. Going from games like BF etc back to Black Ops, I was like... UGH yuck! Hopefully they actually have done something to the graphics to make it more like a game you can delve into!


----------



## suraswami (May 15, 2012)

Yeah new engine is welcome but if its going to cost me another graphics card then hell no.  I haven't played MW3 yet got hooked to BF3 but planning to play soon.


----------



## mastrdrver (May 15, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> But Treyarch chief Mark Lamia said continuing to upgrade the current engine was enough to meet the development team's design goals. "People always ask me, 'Is this a new engine?' he told One of Swords. "I liken it to people who live in an older house that has been remodelled. Just because you're remodelling the house and it will look new or it will have a new kitchen, you don't tear out the foundation, or break out some of the framing. You might even go as hardcore as replacing the plumbing, and we will do that sort of thing, as an analogy. It's a gross simplification, but it's one way to say that. There's a lot of good still in that foundation that you wouldn't get rid of, and we don't. We look to advance in the areas that support our game design.



So what happens when the wood frame holding up the house is rotting? Do you keep putting up wall paper to hope people won't notice?

It's not a problem of remolding. It's a problem of the house rotting to the ground. Then sticking wall paper over the holes and celebrating at how much better it looks. :shadedshu


----------



## Zubasa (May 15, 2012)

Jurassic1024 said:


> Some fans have called on Activision to invest in a brand new graphics engine in order to spruce up Call of Duty's visuals. But Treyarch chief Mark Lamia said continuing to upgrade the current engine was enough to meet the development team's design goals.
> 
> Translation:  Ask, and you shall not receive. We know what's best for *our pockets*.


Fixed 
The world "you" haven't exist in their minds for a long time now, all they care theses days are $$$,$$$,$$$


----------



## Fx (May 15, 2012)

erocker said:


> doesn't matter what engine they use. They'll sell millions of copies and make lots of money. I don't see the big deal. Besides, it's not up to them whether they use a new engine or not. If their customer base decides it's not worth buying their games anymore, maybe they'll change then. Untill then they'll be swimming in their pool of money and make the same game over and over again.



+1



fourstaff said:


> its really sad that people nowadays are bothered about how good a game looks rather than how good the gameplay is



+1


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 15, 2012)

meh... no matter how they explain it, it's pretty easy to read their minds.

if they develop the new engine, the game will runs laggy on current consoles. later, decrease on the experience of gameplay will generate less interest on the market that in the end it hurt the game sales..

i'm pretty sure, COD will get all new looks when PS4 or Xbox720 comes out.


----------



## Aquinus (May 15, 2012)

Treyarch just learned how to lose my sale in a heartbeat.


----------



## Delta6326 (May 15, 2012)

there is no need for a new engine when your just releasing a map pack...


----------



## FierceRed (May 15, 2012)

Personally, I'm surprised this thread has gone on this long without anyone mentioning the Source engine.

I mean seriously, I don't have any fucks to give to Activision for anything they do, but if anyone needs an Angel Example of how an engine can evolve over time, all they need to do is look at original HL2 vs. HL2 Episode 2, or HL2 vs. Cinematic Mod, or HL2 vs. *PORTAL 2*. Was I the only one amazed that Portal 2 was still Source engine when I played it?? Some of those faith plate aerial trips and transforming walls were amazing.

If anything, what Valve has done with the Source engine vindicates *the fans requests* rather than Treyarchs "but we _are_ updating it" stance. That the difference between original HL2 and Portal 2 is so massive while the difference between MW1 and MW3/BlOps2 is so minimal is unequivocal proof that everything Mark Lamia has said is bullshit.

It comes down to respect, both self-respect as a professional and respect shown to the community that bankrolls their bonuses with affirmations that you don't think they're all idiots. Treyarchs "design goals" are X360 compatibility, period. Full stop. Done. While no one should blame them for these outdated hardware limitations, it is entirely expected that people be raising their eyebrow at the reprocessed fecal product they funnel to the store shelves per annum that looks like yesteryears pile. And they should definitely be blamed if the skillset of their staff can't do, *with the financial resources that they have at their command*, what other staff (like Valve) have been able to do with other engines (like Source).

If Treyarch don't have the creative freedom due to their development cycle length and contract obligations to improve the engine much if at all, even if they have the professional pride to do so, then that's one thing. And we'll never know if that's the case.

To say that they shouldn't be censured over their complete disinterest in pushing the envelope after so many years of *fan-funded profit margins* and opportunity to do so, is something else entirely. It is what separates a team of developers/a company from being a collection of first-class talent and collective will in the pursuit of excellence for the sheer passion of it, or being a mere tool of the ruthlessly efficient pursuit of the maximum profit:loss ratio of capitalism.

It is what seperates CDProjekt Red from modern day Infinity Ward. And only one of those companies gets my money.


----------



## Aquinus (May 15, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> there is no need for a new engine when your just releasing a map pack...



I've seen re-textured maps in CoD. They're selling you the same content you've already bought. Quite frankly, they need to do something completely new for me to be even remotely interested in it.


----------



## acerace (May 15, 2012)

Blame the game (consoles), not the player (develepor).


----------



## FierceRed (May 15, 2012)

acerace said:


> Blame the game (consoles), not the player (develepor).



Like I said, it isn't just that. People have a valid reason for being upset because the status quo smells fishy. See below.



FierceRed said:


> Personally, I'm surprised this thread has gone on this long without anyone mentioning the Source engine.
> 
> I mean seriously, I don't have any fucks to give to Activision for anything they do, but if anyone needs an Angel Example of how an engine can evolve over time, all they need to do is look at original HL2 vs. HL2 Episode 2, or HL2 vs. Cinematic Mod, or HL2 vs. *PORTAL 2*. Was I the only one amazed that Portal 2 was still Source engine when I played it?? Some of those faith plate aerial trips and transforming walls were amazing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 15, 2012)

Look at the bright side. At least I can play this game on my old laptop with no issues.


----------



## Calin Banc (May 15, 2012)

Sure, but just like it has been said before, the gameplay will remain the same and it will look the same. After all, a game can be as complex and beautiful as it's engine allows it to be.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 15, 2012)

Calin Banc said:


> a game can be as complex and beautiful as it's engine allows it to be



I think the story and gameplay is much more important than ultra visuals and stuff. Just look at the Blizzard engines, pure crap quality, but the games are most popular ever. Graphics isn't everything.


----------



## AphexDreamer (May 15, 2012)

They obviously don't want to risk doing anything else or change to much and end up not making the grossly largely sum of money they have been.


----------



## D007 (May 15, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Skyrim used a heavily modified Morrowind Engine and that is about 10 years old, so I guess I am fine with this decision.



And that went very badly imho. It took the entire modding community to fix it.. I hate how vanilla skyrim looks, modded it's amazing..



Prima.Vera said:


> I think the story and gameplay is much more important than ultra visuals and stuff. Just look at the Blizzard engines, pure crap quality, but the games are most popular ever. Graphics isn't everything.



Proving once again, 12 year olds just love shiny lights and flashy, loud things, no matter how ugly they are.. XD

Game may look great however, never know. Just depends on the finished product.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 15, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> I think the story and gameplay is much more important than ultra visuals and stuff. Just look at the Blizzard engines, pure crap quality, but the games are most popular ever. Graphics isn't everything.



Story and gameplay are equally as important when it comes to games. But intense graphics will draw people more into the game and make it a more immersive experience especially for the people that have a powerful enough system to get the most out of the visuals.

Im more likely to play a game even if it has a shit storyline and mediocre gameplay just because I can walk around the scenery and get totally lost in it and not some game that has turd brown textures for most of scenery throughout 99% of the game - even if it has amazing gameplay and storyline.

I wouldnt be able to bring myself to play it or at least concentrate long enough to even get far into the game


----------



## Fourstaff (May 15, 2012)

D007 said:


> And that went very badly imho. It took the entire modding community to fix it.. I hate how vanilla skyrim looks, modded it's amazing..



Moral of the story: release modding tools and any shit looking game will become pretty given enough time


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 15, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> Moral of the story: release modding tools and any shit looking game will become pretty given enough time



very true.

remember back in the early days when IW/Treyarch used to give the community dev/mod tools for CoD games?? the communty added all sorts of mods and ported maps in from OTHER GAMES into CoD specially with CoD1 and MW4. I saw maps from medal of honor:AA and maps from quake and loads of other games ported to the game.

same thing can be said about earlier Battlefield games and other games where the they gave the community dev tools. 


but publishers and developers want more money so they stopped giving out dev tools and in effect forced the community to buy map packs as there was no other choice if you wanted to keep playing the game. 

CoD4:MW1 on the PC still has quite a large group of active players purely because you can play on modded servers or on servers with a crap load of custom maps.

Those days are long gone, as they think the community isnt 'smart enough' to use the dev tools they provide... Or isnt that what EA said about BF3??? 

who knows anyway. all i know that giving the community SDK tools only adds to the popularity and longevity of a game as vanilla gets boring after a while.

I personally was sick of the stock maps of MW1 after playing it non stop after 2 weeks and i never touched stock maps again after that until i eventually stopped playing the game entirely


----------



## Calin Banc (May 15, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> I think the story and gameplay is much more important than ultra visuals and stuff. Just look at the Blizzard engines, pure crap quality, but the games are most popular ever. Graphics isn't everything.



For me, all of them are important. TW 2 it sure has some fine story and characters, but the gameplay, graphics (LOD system and "shiny" stuff in general), all of them fall behind. Alan Wake has an awesome feeling due to graphics, especially in Eyefinity. Sadly, the boring gameplay mechanic and linearity had manage to destroy almost all of it.

But not only that. If we look in general, except for Battlefield, Red Faction, Hydrophobia, the fire propagation in Far Cry 2 and the easy map creator in MP, euphoria in GTA 4, the open vast environment of Just Cause 2 and some other minor exemple, there aren't any truly new gameplay features out there. Skyrim is pretty much the same as Oblivion, with some simplified things. There aren't any "epic" battles like in Mount and Blade with tens or hundreds of soldiers on screen. Todd said something in line of "more hardware power will only give us a better looking game 7 feet away, where the player doesn't see much anyway. Nothing more". But in some short clips prior to Oblivion, he argued about the dedication of Bethesda to reinvent TES every time and how the new hardware helped them to achieve such a goal. Now, being no new console, he's view suddenly shifted. I'm not surprised. 

Going back to CoD, the gameplay is actually the same as before. Just some new story and new maps. Nothing a moding team can't do in a year or two, which rises the question for me: how come people buy this game in such large numbers? 

PS: Think how the original Deus Ex for instance, would look on the version of UE that was used for Samaritean demo or on Cry Engine 2/3; how the atmosphere, animations, characters and world detail, could improve the game.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 15, 2012)

Calin Banc said:


> <<<snip>>>
> Going back to CoD, the gameplay is actually the same as before. Just some new story and new maps. Nothing a moding team can't do in a year or two, which rises the question for me: how come people buy this game in such large numbers?  <<<snip>>>



Because people are sheep.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 15, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Im more likely to play a game even if it has a shit storyline and mediocre gameplay just because I can walk around the scenery and get totally lost in it and not some game that has turd brown textures for most of scenery throughout 99% of the game - even if it has amazing gameplay and storyline.



Phantasmagoria fan?  Yeah, me to.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 15, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Phantasmagoria fan?  Yeah, me to.



The band or the game?


----------



## _Zod_ (May 15, 2012)

No point in creating a new engine (which they aren't capable of anyway) when your target platform is several year old consoles. When the time finally comes then they will license ID Tech 5 and repeat the cycle again.


----------



## Morgoth (May 15, 2012)

its a pain in the ass to get addapted to a new engine and the new tools that comes with it.. i do rather stick to 1 engine that can do the job what it needs to do an upgrade it trough time when it needs to
i wished if valve released source sdk base 2012...


----------



## Calin Banc (May 16, 2012)

For a professional it shouldn't be that difficult. After all, they receive support from the engine's developer if they don't want to or can't make they're own.


----------



## Aquinus (May 16, 2012)

Morgoth said:


> i wished if valve released source sdk base 2012...



Since the regular SDK Base isn't any different from what they use now. The point is, as technology gets better, old engines can't keep up. Example: Do you see any Source and COD engine games using DX11? I don't think so. Do you see these games using modern graphics technology? Not really. The point is, Treyarch has gotten so lazy that in addition to barely touching the engine, they're reusing levels and then charging you money for a half-assed job. I'm done supporting a company that keeps selling the same game and I will consider getting CoD again when they actually put work into making it significantly different, but until then, shame on them.


----------



## Morgoth (May 16, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Since the regular SDK Base isn't any different from what they use now. The point is, as technology gets better, old engines can't keep up. Example: Do you see any Source and COD engine games using DX11? I don't think so. Do you see these games using modern graphics technology? Not really. The point is, Treyarch has gotten so lazy that in addition to barely touching the engine, they're reusing levels and then charging you money for a half-assed job. I'm done supporting a company that keeps selling the same game and I will consider getting CoD again when they actually put work into making it significantly different, but until then, shame on them.



there is a large difference in Source sdk Base 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, ect


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 16, 2012)

it is interesting to see how long companies can stretch out a game engine. obviously you dont need to have great graphics to have a great game but it doesn't hurt either. and with the right art team behind a project, a game can look amazing even with 5 year old tech.


----------



## de.das.dude (May 16, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Tech 3 engine is from 1999.......its 2012.........let the engine die.



if it aint broke dont fix it.



just because they arent naming this engine different doesnt mean its exactly the same engine as 7 years back.

and this engine is pretty efficient, resource wise.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 16, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> and this engine is pretty efficient, resource wise.



it is on modern ,drastically over specced for this engine hardware  , i can turn every IQ setting to max 24 x enhanced AA(in catalyst) blah blah blah and these games still do 60fps

they are really starting to show their age to me, the blocky shite textures and low detail worlds actually starting to put me off playing at all....   and its as simple as this the AI ,in game physics, lighting and texture detail dont just need upgradeing id start again if i were them its very poor compared to  the frostbite engine 

im not buying another thing from Treyarch till they put some damn effort in


----------

