Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,739
- Location
- Delete *.*
I just pray they finally kill off marty and last stand perks
MW3
- Thread starter StonedPenguin
- Start date
I can't believe how much money they have made on the COD series and still use that old engine,activision only care about making money
Yup, and they have the gall to charge for map packs, apparently the cod games have totalled over $3 billion in revenue yet they continue to milk the crap out of peopple with dlc. Supposodly black ops alone brought in over a billlion in a few months.
Kotick really needs a boot in the swingers.
Last edited:
I can't believe how much money they have made on the COD series and still use that old engine,activision only care about making money
There's no reason for them to build or use a new engine. PC gamers are in the minority - if the current Xbox can only render CoD @ 1024x600, what burden would a new engine place on the system?
I think they'll only switch when the PS4 etc. come along.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 1,517
- Location
- Internet
From wiki which is from afew post up
So they tacked on some crap, meh. Its still gonna look 5 years out of date.
i know but i am pleased dice dont treat us PC gamers like they do,console peasants have a lot to answer to
Target market and all that but we'll still **** and moan.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2009
- Posts
- 4,629
- Location
- Maidenhead
Using an old engine isn't necessarily a bad thing. It has obviously been updated.
That's like complaining about Valve always using the Source engine...It's been updated a lot also!
Overall, the COD engine is pretty good looking. The CM EGO engine is also a sweet DX9 engine as mentioned. Some DX9 games can look terrible, others lovely.
When the new xbox and PlayStation finally arrive with proper hardware, we will see a step up. It's sad to think consoles are still on DX9. Poor people.
That's like complaining about Valve always using the Source engine...It's been updated a lot also!
Overall, the COD engine is pretty good looking. The CM EGO engine is also a sweet DX9 engine as mentioned. Some DX9 games can look terrible, others lovely.
When the new xbox and PlayStation finally arrive with proper hardware, we will see a step up. It's sad to think consoles are still on DX9. Poor people.
I don't care about any new pretty little features a new engine would bring or even the fact its just a reskinned, rehashed CoD4 as long as I enjoy it. If you don't like how much the maps packs are (As do I) then don't buy them, I don't. Games are about enjoyment. I've played MW2 Multiplayer for around 475 hours according to Steam since Christmas 2009 so I got my moneys worth and obviously enjoyed it regardless of whether it's a 9 year old engine or what not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2009
- Posts
- 4,629
- Location
- Maidenhead
Have to say, you make a good point there.
I don't like COD multiplayer, so I don't play it
And yes, I have tried it 
I get enjoyment out of the single player campaign. Yes, it's short. But it's good. A bit over the top. But fun.As long as it looks nice, and plays well, and is fun, it doesn't always matter.
You just have to look at Minecraft to see that graphics don't make gameplay.
Side by side with BF3, MW3 looks terrible though.
Player animations and lighting just pales in comparison.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2009
- Posts
- 4,629
- Location
- Maidenhead
Yeah. But I'm not comparing them. I'm just saying overall, it's still a good engine
Isn't the BF3 engine also DX11? You need to consider that.
Have to say, you make a good point there.
I don't like COD multiplayer, so I don't play it
As long as it looks nice, and plays well, and is fun, it doesn't always matter.
You just have to look at Minecraft to see that graphics don't make gameplay.
As long as you've played it, that's fine with me
. Hate people who say they hate games without even trying them. While MW has never had the cutting edge graphics, it looks perfectly fine in my opinion. The bright colours make it look really nice in my opinion. Some of the textures could do with being upscaled obviously but I don't care about fancy lighting or 32xAA in a game where I run around, shoot a few people, die and then respawn 
. In games like Metro and Space then yeah, good lighting is needed but not in MW.
Last edited:
Yeah. But I'm not comparing them. I'm just saying overall, it's still a good engine
Isn't the BF3 engine also DX11? You need to consider that.
Yeah I'm considering how Activision are pulling back PC gaming by persisting with a totally outdated engine.
It is a worthwhile comparison though, the two games are released at pretty much the same time to virtually the same market, how they look is definitely a worthwhile factor.
That's exactly what I plan on doing
. Watching people play it on YouTube is also a good thing to do. I'll be doing exactly the same thing with BF3 though and pretty much every other game I buy from now on. Sick of being disappointed with games I get blindly 
.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
I think some people need to do more than regurgitate what they read on wikipedia here, there's some very off logic.
People going "lol it's just the COD 2 engine, which is just idTech3", aren't getting how this works. By their logic, Portal 2 is using the Quake 1 engine. I guarantee there's at least some common code between them. Totally outdated engine? Still looks pretty good to me.
Engines evolve. It makes little sense to re-write an engine from scratch if the an existing engine does 85% of the work fine. Developers refactor and replace what they need to, and make the improvements that they need for newer technologies, techniques and effects. There'll be changes between IW5.0 and IW4.0 as there where before. It's not the same engine.
For the record. Boo Activision. I'm not supporting them, but any sensible developer does this to some degree between games.
If only the PS3 used DirectX...
People going "lol it's just the COD 2 engine, which is just idTech3", aren't getting how this works. By their logic, Portal 2 is using the Quake 1 engine.
I guarantee there's at least some common code between them. Totally outdated engine? Still looks pretty good to me.Engines evolve. It makes little sense to re-write an engine from scratch if the an existing engine does 85% of the work fine. Developers refactor and replace what they need to, and make the improvements that they need for newer technologies, techniques and effects. There'll be changes between IW5.0 and IW4.0 as there where before. It's not the same engine.
For the record. Boo Activision. I'm not supporting them, but any sensible developer does this to some degree between games.
If only the PS3 used DirectX...
Yeah saying its an outdated engine is a little ignorant - the idtech3 engine doesn't even support shaders or any form of proper realtime lighting both of which MW3 does. The animations in MW3 are more than acceptable and the lighting fairly decent tho I do think BF3 uses lighting a bit more effectively to produce a sharper more photorealistic look.
A lot comes down to implementation tho at the end of the day, a killer engine with poor art choices, etc. is worse than an adequate engine with good use of the technology.
A lot comes down to implementation tho at the end of the day, a killer engine with poor art choices, etc. is worse than an adequate engine with good use of the technology.