Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reply
Old 03-Mar-2011, 06:57   #151
joker454
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 3,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dresden View Post
Everytime I see "No Windows XP" support on a game tech slide I giggle slightly inside with glee
joker454 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-Mar-2011, 07:10   #152
Aeoniss
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 557
Default

This kind of blind sided me, especially considering how busy DICE has been. Between MoH online, BFBC2 (Vietnam, DLC etc), and then they throw this at us.

I dunno, I really didn't think Crysis 2 would have any contenders for the PC crown.. But this. This is a game changer.
Aeoniss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-Mar-2011, 08:03   #153
czekon
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 739
Default

Dunno crysis still looks pretty damn good and runs smoooooooth as hell. Besides pretty gfx i hope they will fix somehow SP and MP to be more funny to play. I dont wanna buy this game just to have pretty benchmark after all.
czekon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-Mar-2011, 16:59   #155
fellix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Varna, Bulgaria
Posts: 3,021
Send a message via Skype™ to fellix
Default

__________________
Apple: China -- Brutal leadership done right.
Google: United States -- Somewhat democratic.
Microsoft: Russia -- Big and bloated.
Linux: EU -- Diverse and broke.
fellix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-Mar-2011, 12:11   #156
CouldntResist
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotcooler View Post
Some shots from 1080p@20mbps press trailer.
I wonder if those barely visible civilian bystanders on the first 3 pics are shootable in game.
CouldntResist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-Mar-2011, 16:25   #157
CouldntResist
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 255
Default



link

Last edited by AlNets; 07-Mar-2011 at 18:20. Reason: fixed (Use the code after v= instead of the entire URL)
CouldntResist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-Mar-2011, 18:15   #158
neliz
MSI Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In the know
Posts: 4,901
Send a message via ICQ to neliz Send a message via MSN to neliz Send a message via Skype™ to neliz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CouldntResist View Post
...
that looks [deleted by admin]
__________________
I miss you CJ, 1976 - 2010
neliz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-Mar-2011, 21:15   #159
fellix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Varna, Bulgaria
Posts: 3,021
Send a message via Skype™ to fellix
Default

Infinity Ward Admits Modern Warfare 3 Is Less Technical Than Battlefield 3
__________________
Apple: China -- Brutal leadership done right.
Google: United States -- Somewhat democratic.
Microsoft: Russia -- Big and bloated.
Linux: EU -- Diverse and broke.
fellix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-Mar-2011, 23:54   #160
Silent_Buddha
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,386
Default

I'm not sure why that tweet means it is necessarily less technical. Granted I'm not expecting it to match BF3 in new tech, but that tweet the article references doesn't have anything to do with that.

Updating the existing engine (ala Epic with the updated Unreal Engine they just showcased or Bungie with their Halo: Reach engine) doesn't preclude including state of the art features if that was a direction they wanted to go.

Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-Mar-2011, 03:43   #161
trinibwoy
Meh
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 9,981
Default

It's going to be a recycled money grab, count on it.
__________________
What the deuce!?
trinibwoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-Mar-2011, 10:21   #162
Silent_Buddha
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy View Post
It's going to be a recycled money grab, count on it.
Sure, just like KZ3? Same 2 year developement cycle. Etc. DA2 is going to be an obvious money grab also then. As was ME2 and so will ME3 be.

Doesn't necessarily mean it'll be any less enjoyable or any less of a success.

Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-Mar-2011, 14:30   #163
trinibwoy
Meh
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 9,981
Default

Did you really just try to equate an engine released in 2009 (KZ2) with one released in 2005 (CoD) ? Even so we're hearing more about the improvements to KZ3 than we are to any of the recent CoD releases.

Anyway, how does ME3 or KZ3 make what Activision is doing any less atrocious in light of the effort EA is putting into BF3?
__________________
What the deuce!?
trinibwoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-Mar-2011, 18:32   #164
Scott_Arm
Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,178
Default

The quote to me, is just saying they're not using a new engine for Modern Warfare 3. That is a pretty empty statement on its own. They made some nice improvements from MW1 to MW2, and there's no reason they can't add or improve for MW3.
Scott_Arm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-Mar-2011, 18:45   #165
BRiT
...
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 5,429
Default

I can think of at least a few reasons why MW3 might not have nice improvements: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=56694
BRiT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-Mar-2011, 23:25   #166
Silent_Buddha
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy View Post
Did you really just try to equate an engine released in 2009 (KZ2) with one released in 2005 (CoD) ? Even so we're hearing more about the improvements to KZ3 than we are to any of the recent CoD releases.

Anyway, how does ME3 or KZ3 make what Activision is doing any less atrocious in light of the effort EA is putting into BF3?
Did you bother to read the article that was linked to even know what I was refering to?

Here is the relevant part just so you aren't lost in this conversation.

In response to a tweet suggesting that IW needs to develope an entirely new engine...

Quote:
That would be counter productive. An engine takes years and years to develop and get right.
That doesn't say anything about whether or not new features will be included in the next iteration of the MW franchise.

Just look at COD:WAW compared to COD:BO. Same engine, but a LOT of improved tech was included.

KZ2 to KZ3, same engine but a LOT of improved features.

ME1 to ME2, same engine and again a lot of improved features.

MW1 to MW2, again same situation. Whether you wish to admit it or not due to some irrational hatred of Activision doesn't diminish any of the improvements from MW1 to MW2.

Neither the 2 year cycle nor the ongoing use of an engine precludes new tech.

Claiming that just because they are using the same engine or are on a 2 year developement cycle means that it's a blatant money grab also implies that KZ3, ME2, ME3, Bioshock 2, DA2, Forza 4 and a whole host of other games using the same engine and ~2 year developement cycle are all blatant money grabs with no interest delivering a good gameplay experience or improvement on tech used in prior games.

All that said. I also don't expect an explosion of techy goodness in MW3 as we're likely to get from BF3 but that is completely and totally unrelated to the reuse of an engine.

Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2011, 04:02   #167
Aeoniss
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 557
Default

So what's all this PR nonsense about "bringing the NextGen to the present consoles" or w\e they keep saying?
Aeoniss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2011, 04:30   #168
homerdog
hardly a Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: still camping with a mauler
Posts: 4,396
Default

We call that PR Speak and I've learned to completely filter that stuff out.
__________________
Releasing a game in 2010 without AA is a completely foreign concept to me. If the technique you're using makes it impossible to use AA then you're using the wrong techniques. As simple as that. Releasing a PC game without AA options is OK only if that means you can only have it enabled
-Humus
homerdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2011, 08:43   #169
Arwin
Now Officially a Top 10 Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Posts: 14,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homerdog View Post
We call that PR Speak and I've learned to completely filter that stuff out.
Or who knows it translates to something like: current gen is lasting so much longer than originally expected, we can afford to rewrite significant parts of our engine because the current console cycle will keep on lasting enough to recoup the investment, while at the same time affording us with an opportunity for using DX11 more meaningfully on PC (this goes for stuff like CryEngine 2 and UE '3.5' also)
Arwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2011, 17:35   #170
homerdog
hardly a Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: still camping with a mauler
Posts: 4,396
Default

Okay, they can rewrite the engine as many times as they like. It isn't going to be leaps and bounds better than say Gears 3 or Killzone 3, that much I can tell you. And when I hear "bringing the next gen to current consoles", I expect it to look a generation better than what we have now. It is PR horseshit.

Meh, I need to take my blood pressure medicine. Which is really bad because I don't have high blood pressure.
__________________
Releasing a game in 2010 without AA is a completely foreign concept to me. If the technique you're using makes it impossible to use AA then you're using the wrong techniques. As simple as that. Releasing a PC game without AA options is OK only if that means you can only have it enabled
-Humus
homerdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2011, 18:29   #171
Neb
Iron "BEAST" Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NGC2264
Posts: 8,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homerdog View Post
Okay, they can rewrite the engine as many times as they like. It isn't going to be leaps and bounds better than say Gears 3 or Killzone 3, that much I can tell you. And when I hear "bringing the next gen to current consoles", I expect it to look a generation better than what we have now. It is PR horseshit.

Meh, I need to take my blood pressure medicine. Which is really bad because I don't have high blood pressure.
It's either PR BS or a comfirmation next-gen consoles will be like Wii is to the Gamecube or even less in difference.
__________________
"If you told me that if I ate a kilo of shit I would put on a pound of muscles, I would do it." -Arnold Schwarzenegger
Neb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2011, 22:47   #172
trinibwoy
Meh
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 9,981
Default

@SB, yes I did read the article.
*
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make in comparing the CoD games to other titles that look immensely better. The apathy and greed on Activision’s part is clear as day both from their actions and the products that they release. I don’t think anyone would dare claim that the IQ of the CoD series is even close to the leading titles out there. Now we have explicit statements essentially saying Activision doesn’t think it’s worth it to invest in engine technology despite the boatloads of money they make on the series. The products speak for themselves – the CoD engine is old, outdated, ugly and in need of a refresh. It just looks that much worse now that we have seen what DICE has been able to accomplish on the same hardware.
__________________
What the deuce!?
trinibwoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2011, 01:21   #173
Silent_Buddha
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy View Post
@SB, yes I did read the article.
*
Iím not sure what point youíre trying to make in comparing the CoD games to other titles that look immensely better. The apathy and greed on Activisionís part is clear as day both from their actions and the products that they release. I donít think anyone would dare claim that the IQ of the CoD series is even close to the leading titles out there. Now we have explicit statements essentially saying Activision doesnít think itís worth it to invest in engine technology despite the boatloads of money they make on the series. The products speak for themselves Ė the CoD engine is old, outdated, ugly and in need of a refresh. It just looks that much worse now that we have seen what DICE has been able to accomplish on the same hardware.
You're still missing the entire point evidently. Let me try to break it down into bite sized chunks.

Tweet only says they are not developing a new engine.

Article and people are assuming that:

1. Reusing an engine means no new tech.
2. 2 year developement cycle means blatant money grab.

However, many games reuse their engines and yet still introduce new tech. All those examples that I've provided above.

Many franchises also have a 2 year developement cycle. Again all those examples above.

And yet, due to that one tweet, people are flying off the handle proclaiming no new tech or improvements because they are reusing their engine. Hello? Gears 3 will be using the same engine that Gears 1 used back in 2006. And yet it is going to look vastly better. BTW - COD:MW was a 2007 release not a 2005 release.

As to whether or not you may find MW2 nice or not that's fine. Personally I thought it was one of the best looking games of 2009 even if it didn't have an extensive tech checklist. Just like I thought COD:BO was one of the best looking games of 2010. Certainly far better than the competition from EA, the new MOH game. And MW2 held it's ground and stood toe to toe with BF:BC 2, IMO. I loved how both of those looked but the environment set pieces were so much better executed and more immersive in MW2, again IMO.

Again, to reiterate.

With regards to that one tweet that has everyone up in arms with pitchforks and torches again. Many games reuse their engines just like the COD franchise. Many games are on 2 year developement cycles just like the COD franchise.

Hence, that tweet says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not COD:MW3 will have any graphical improvements or not.

And you also keep missing my personal statement that I doubt very much that MW3 will feature as much new tech as BF3, but that is completely and totally unrelated to that tweet that the article is based on.

Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2011, 02:22   #174
NRP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homerdog View Post
Meh, I need to take my blood pressure medicine. Which is really bad because I don't have high blood pressure.
LOL! You need to chill dawg.
NRP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2011, 02:29   #175
trinibwoy
Meh
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 9,981
Default

SB, I have both the Black Ops and KZ3 demos on my PS3 so I can see the truth with my own eyes. We have the tweet indicating a lack of innovation on the engine side and we have their last few releases as examples of mediocrity. What specifically is leading you to believe that Activision will suddenly turn over a new leaf and produce something impressive with MW3?

It seems like all you're saying is that we don't know for sure that they won't make incremental changes to the engine for MW3. That's not saying much to be honest.
__________________
What the deuce!?
trinibwoy is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.