Mw3?!?!?!?
- Thread starter S&D KILLR
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,482
I'll stay with Battlefield 3. 
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 4,081
How else would they release a new game every year.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 677
well thats what happens when a company loses sight of innovation and turns their eyes towards money. CoD has used the same basic engine since CoD:4 and the same basic gameplay since CoD:4. that was their peak of innovation and success, their games are just empty shells now. its the same engine that black ops uses. it was out dated before it was even released, but thats not why CoD is dying, CoD is dying as a series because they dont innovate anymore, its the same thing every year gameplay-wise and graphics-wise(sorta)
you should look into BF3 and other BF games. the BF series continues to show that its developers care more about gameplay and the gameplay experience than just rushing out a rehash of the same game every year.
basic summary; if they cared about making a great, fun game that wasnt the same thing every release, they wouldnt rush to release one a year and would spend a lot more time and effort into a solid product. DICE has been working on BF3 since 2005 when BF2 came out, but only recently have they made the most progress because they kept striving for a more innovative engine for a better and different playing style and now that result is frostbite 2, perhaps the most advanced game engine. only real one that can compete with it is the cryengine 3 or maybe the new unreal engine that is being worked on
you should look into BF3 and other BF games. the BF series continues to show that its developers care more about gameplay and the gameplay experience than just rushing out a rehash of the same game every year.
basic summary; if they cared about making a great, fun game that wasnt the same thing every release, they wouldnt rush to release one a year and would spend a lot more time and effort into a solid product. DICE has been working on BF3 since 2005 when BF2 came out, but only recently have they made the most progress because they kept striving for a more innovative engine for a better and different playing style and now that result is frostbite 2, perhaps the most advanced game engine. only real one that can compete with it is the cryengine 3 or maybe the new unreal engine that is being worked on
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,316
So you mean, work on something else for a few years then come back to bf3 right? Because thats what they did if you haven't noticed. I'm not saying whats going on with CoD is ok, I'm just pointing out the fact. The CoD fanbase, however varied it may be, thinks that engine wise, its completely fine the way it is. Small updates for each is fine with them. Seems the same goes with the Source engine. To be completely honest, I think using the same engine each year with updates is fine. Especially for a game such as CoD or in this case MW3. Attempting to make the game look ridiculously realistic while keeping the arcade playstyle would be a strange experience for the players. It would be like Medal of Honor (2010) all over again.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 677
well first of all, you are assuming they completely stopped working on BF3 while working on bad company and that a large company like DICE pull 100% of its resources into the bad company titles. that is a very bad assumption and one that a lot of ppl make when it comes to game development companies. game companies are very very very big places and there is a video somewhere showing the layout of DICE's headquarters. they have a floor dedicated to each game they develop, so during the tour they showed that one floor was dedicated to the bad company series whilst they had an entirely different floor dedicated to the development of BF3 so they had an entire different team for BF3 than bc and bc2
secondly i dont mean work on another game, i mean spend more time in development as i said, i speak literally most times so dont try and dig into what i say for some hyperbole or metaphor. (it actually kinda annoys me when ppl try and nitpick things i type and say instead of just taking them for what i say)
third, they arent really updating the CoD engine at all, yes black ops has a slight tweak (which in my opinion made the graphics looks worse, i.e. the explosions looked 2D and all explosions also looked too hollywood which is when explosions are gasoline based 90% of the time making explosions very fiery and black smokey instead of large shockwaves with more debris that real explosives produce.) but from i saw of the E3 MW3 gameplay, it looked as if its the exact same engine from black ops with absolutely 0 visual changes.
lastly, my main problem with the CoD series's direction is not the graphics (they are bearable, but could be a lot better looking enviromentally) but my main beef with the series that i used to like is the gameplay direction. the only real objective ppl seem to have in the game is to just to get good k/d's as to where in earlier CoD's the gameplay was a bit more teamplay focused and objective based (still not nearly as much of BF games) i just despise arcade shooters because they are boring, repetitive(one in the same for me), and lack any real wow or fun factor for a person like me. i do love customization options tho, that was always the one thing i could never really criticize in CoD was the customization aspects. its just when i play CoD it just seems to be a grind to unlock weapons and attachments. which is why i rarely go prestige in CoD games because i look at it like this, why? whats the point? i dont feel like burning through all the same stuff again just to unlock the same weapons i worked my bum off for just so i could get a silly e-peen badge next to my name :/
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 2,235
Well the real issue is the consumer speaks with his wallet. If people continue to buy COD games then this is going to keep happening.
I think the trap is set. If one flops horribly all they have to do is say "Sorry, the next one will be better." Next thing you know, BOOM sales are back up.
They've hit bank and are set. I'm pretty sure all they can do now with the COD franchise is see what they can get away with at the consumer's expense. As long as people keep buying the games the sky is the limit. That's what scares me.
I think the trap is set. If one flops horribly all they have to do is say "Sorry, the next one will be better." Next thing you know, BOOM sales are back up.
They've hit bank and are set. I'm pretty sure all they can do now with the COD franchise is see what they can get away with at the consumer's expense. As long as people keep buying the games the sky is the limit. That's what scares me.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,377
Modern Warfare 3 already had a release trailer of its own!
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,641
I think most people are missing one of the big reasons why MW:3 looks just like MW:2. Following the release of MW:2, Infinity Ward basically disolved. Vince Zampella and Jason West, the creative heads of Infinity Ward, left the company and took roughly half of the employees with them to form a new company called Respawn Entertainment.
Their departure left Infinity Ward in shambles and because Activision demands a Call of Duty game a year, they went ahead and made the game anyway. Leaving little to no room for innovation. Sure you could argue that even without the departure of Zampella and West that game would be bland and lacking anything new, but just looking at the gameplay you can see that the game is suffering from the schism.
Their departure left Infinity Ward in shambles and because Activision demands a Call of Duty game a year, they went ahead and made the game anyway. Leaving little to no room for innovation. Sure you could argue that even without the departure of Zampella and West that game would be bland and lacking anything new, but just looking at the gameplay you can see that the game is suffering from the schism.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 677
you misunderstood the whole thing. jumping from cryengine 1 to 3 is a huge difference in optimization and graphics, whereas the IW engine that CoD has used since CoD: 4 has had no major graphical upgrades as seen in frostbite 1 to frostbite 2 or cryengine 1 to 3. i never once said that they didnt change the engine at all, i said that they hadnt made any significant visual or physics upgrades in a long time because they stopped caring about innovation and started looking to how they can make the most money with the least effort.
you are basically comparing apples and oranges, companies that make major improvements over old engines and companies that make minor adjustments over the years.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,387
People will buy this junk. Just see what happened to MW2->Blackops. Pathetic.
And comparing cry engine to cod's engine? LOL. Cry Engine 1 is superior.
And comparing cry engine to cod's engine? LOL. Cry Engine 1 is superior.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 677
i wasnt comparing them in the sense of being near equals, just using the advancement of the cryengine 1 to cryengine 3 to show how a company that cares about innovation upgrades their engine compared to how one that doesnt care about innovation anymore 'upgrades' their engine
the problem with BLOPS is the gameplay
cod is so popular for the fast paced action
blops made way to many buildings and height avantages that it slows the gameplay down
look at the map packs
they are all large maps xcept 1 or 2 medium maps the only small maps are firing range and nuketown (summit = also quite small but not so populair) those 2 maps get (on console (i play it on ps3 not on pc)) chosen 90% of the time when its able to chose them thats why nuketown 24/7 is pretty populair its faster and more fun because you get right back in the action
if they keep making big maps with different floors etc then the cod series is gonna die because the gameplay is going to be slower (trademark that made cod populair = fast gameplay) and the graphics + guns etc cant make up for those losses
just my 2 cents
cod is so popular for the fast paced action
blops made way to many buildings and height avantages that it slows the gameplay down
look at the map packs
they are all large maps xcept 1 or 2 medium maps the only small maps are firing range and nuketown (summit = also quite small but not so populair) those 2 maps get (on console (i play it on ps3 not on pc)) chosen 90% of the time when its able to chose them thats why nuketown 24/7 is pretty populair its faster and more fun because you get right back in the action
if they keep making big maps with different floors etc then the cod series is gonna die because the gameplay is going to be slower (trademark that made cod populair = fast gameplay) and the graphics + guns etc cant make up for those losses
just my 2 cents
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,383
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,387
The talk about the engine was actually directed at the person you quoted
.What I meant (and I wasn't clear), was that there is zilch for significant improvement from MW:2->Black Ops in terms of the engine, which is already inferior to even old engines like Cry Engine 1 in the places it matters.
