Black Ops 2: New engine isn't necessary - Treyarch

4.3
Treyarch's studio head Mark Lamia has dismissed criticisms that Call of Duty needs a new engine to power graphical improvements.

Despite this year's Black Ops 2 running on the same engine engine as 2005's Modern Warfare, Lamia says extensive improvements made to that 'foundation' have resulted in significant advances without the need for an entirely new engine.
"People always ask me, 'Is this a new engine?' I liken it to people who live in an older house that has been remodeled. Just because you're remodeling 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," said Lamia.

"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.

"I think what people are asking for is for us to push. They want us to make a better-looking game," he went on.

"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 II engine," said Lamia.

Activision has said it's "incredibly pleased" with the record pre-order numbers it's seeing for this year's Call of Duty.

Posted:

Source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/347602/black-ops-2-new-engine-isnt-necessary-treyarch/

Comments

"Black Ops 2: New engine isn't necessary - Treyarch" :: Login/Create an Account :: 70 comments

If you would like to post a comment please signin to your account or register for an account.

DeadlyDasherPosted:

Ihatemods Who the hell would still buy this garbage. This is why i wanted to trade in MW3 for a pair of shoes. SO BORING. Graphics from 6 years ago? Really!? No... just no. Won't be buying this unless it has zombies. Not playing anything else.


Naw you'll be one of those people with like 30 days play time that sit in the lobby and bitch about how bad the game is, even though they play it it all day every day.

IhatemodsPosted:

Who the hell would still buy this garbage. This is why i wanted to trade in MW3 for a pair of shoes. SO BORING. Graphics from 6 years ago? Really!? No... just no. Won't be buying this unless it has zombies. Not playing anything else.

-PeaceePosted:

Well there goes buying this .-.

Manasaki-SamaPosted:

Why dose everyone care about the graphics
It all depends on the story

cdula111Posted:

Why can't Treyarch or IW use a realistic ragdoll? Such as Euphoria.

beats91Posted:

you have to be a fool to play this crap

beats91Posted:

As treyarch said ''a new engine isn't necessary'' i say ''This game isn't necessary for my''

TheHeadElf12Posted:

It's pathetic, not that the game is using the same engine its the community here. Really, you have probably all said that the first Modern Warfare was the best and now there using that engine! Its going to be a different Modern Warfare game. SO quit yer' bitchin because everyone knows that win the game comes out. Even when you say your not going to buy it, in 6 months when the game comes out you all will be yelling "WHY, HOW DID HE KILL ME"

LiquidvladePosted:

One of the reasons I see them not using a new engine, it's because it would alter the formula that works very well. A lot of people fail to realize that it would make the game play way differently and it's a huge risk they are taking.

"But oh Call of Duty is going downhill!" Shut up, not it's not. Every year more and more people keep buying the game, breaking records and what not. I work at GameStop and if you see how many pre-owned copies of MW3 we have around 10 counting both systems. Battlefield 3? About a hundred between both systems.

Battlefield looks pretty and it's a great challenger to the series, but it's a game designed for a PC. Call of Duty is a console game which is why it flows and works better. Call of Duty is also aimed to the casual gamer. Battlefield 3 is not.

Between Infinity Ward and Treyarch, in my opinion. IW makes the better games (COD2, MW, MW2), BUT Treyarch comes up with some kickass ideas and they listen to the community better than IW did. Black Ops had a great concept, but non-stackable killstreaks and ghost encouraged camping like no tomorrow, with stackable killstreaks, that one gets the next one and keep on moving.

Modern Warfare 3 is hated, because it's the cool thing to do. Could it have been a better game? yes, but still very playable. I play with a 50/50 team, some suck, some are good and the system MW3 has in the game is great because it at least lets them take a part of the action with support classes. Once again, companies have to expand by getting everyone's attention it's not all about YOU.

I know people that hate Call of Duty yet still buy it, because ALL their friends play it and there is not much competition out there. This year there will be Halo 4, but let's see how that goes. 343 hasn't impressed me with what they have done with Reach after the takeover.

AntPosted:

No_OGs_Left Lazy ****. They need to sort themselves out! This is getting ridiculous. How can they not need a new engine? The faces look like feet for Gods sake. They're still using graphics from 2005?! No wonder Battlefield is better.


Talk about being melodramatic, faces looks like feet lol? If they make a new engine with completely upgraded graphics, it would not be able to run at 60 fps. This is one of cods key selling points that it runs well, even on consoles which have old hardware. Compare battlefield 3 on the xbox to the pc version, the xbox version runs like garbage. PC and console cods run reasonably similar, I play at locked 125 fps (not really any difference after 60/90). Keep comparing a tactical shooter to an arcade shooter though, it's funny to see people argue.