Battlefield 3 announced
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
Silent_Buddha
Legend
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
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?
Anyway, how does ME3 or KZ3 make what Activision is doing any less atrocious in light of the effort EA is putting into BF3?
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.
I can think of at least a few reasons why MW3 might not have nice improvements: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=56694
Silent_Buddha
Legend
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...
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
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)
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.
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.
@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.
*
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.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
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
LOL! You need to chill dawg.
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.
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.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Really are you just selectively reading?
I've stated in 3 posts now that I'm not expecting anything near BF3 quality. But that expectation has absolutely nothing to do with the tweet.
And that tweet once again says absolutely diddly squat about "lack of innovation." How many games in the past decade have reused an engine? I'd say it's likely greater than 90%. BF:BC2 basically reused an engine and yet they still managed to include things to make it look better than BF:BC.
I'd like to see how you get the idea that the tweet even remotely implies a "lack of innovation on the engine side". I suppose all the stuff Epic put into UE3 in their GDC presentation was an obvious lack of innovation since they just reused the UE3 engine?
Regards,
SB
Greatness?
@SB, you're way too focused on that tweet. That tweet is just one of a long list of things that show Activision are greedy bastards. Why do you care so much about incremental updates when the output is trash? The other games you're comparing to look far better so why bother comparing?
Anyway, why are we talking about Activision's uselessness when DICE's awesomeness is now here for everyone to see? DX11 paper is up! A deferred engine with multiple AA options at varying levels of performance and quality along with efficient transparency supersampling? Way to kick ass repi and co!
http://publications.dice.se/attachments/GDC11_DX11inBF3_Public.pdf
Anyway, why are we talking about Activision's uselessness when DICE's awesomeness is now here for everyone to see? DX11 paper is up! A deferred engine with multiple AA options at varying levels of performance and quality along with efficient transparency supersampling? Way to kick ass repi and co!
http://publications.dice.se/attachments/GDC11_DX11inBF3_Public.pdf
