i'm looking forward to seeing what happens when they do go to a new engine. could be good or bad! they've been using that old ass engine for so many years now...
No reason why it shouldn't be Dx11 etc..., as all the next consoles are AMD, so no doubt AMD will have them all in the GE, which has a Dx11 requirement.
hopefully, and some physics would be nice also but i'm expecting more of the same with some better textures...
Considering the huge profit that CoD games make every year, Activision could pull out the best engine out there IF they wanted to. Obviously they don't but with the new consoles there is a slight chance they will drop that horrid supermodified quake 3 engine...
WHAT??!! A new CoD game?! No way, this is just rumor and conjecture.. I really doubt they'll ever be releasing another Call of Duty game. But if they do, I'm sure it will be completely different than the other CoD games that we have seen. Activision is known for it's innovation and fresh ideas for games.
It's DX11 already. So if that's an argument they wouldn't need to change or switch their engine to anything.
why does it need to be innovative though? Its a shooter based on modern and I guess, future warfare. We are still restricted to a keyboard/mouse or gamepad. I enjoy the series, I like the stories and find they look great and run smooth at max res. MOH 2010 and the MOH warfighter did not run as well, were less involving than COD and to me are 2nd class modern shooters. We don't really have any other options either. I've not played BLOPS 2, but I BLOPS 1 didn't really blow my skirt up and I don't class it as part of the same series either. BF3 look nice, but I didn't find it that involving, Bad Company 2 was great however, not sure how many times I played that, but I would welcome a BC3 ahead of another BF or MOH. AS for graphics comparisons to Crysis, not really relevant as both have different targets, and one runs well on medium spec, the other needs high spec. Frankly, I don't understand what is not to like, if you want a modern FPS war shooter with a story, this fits that bill. If you don't like that, then why read the story and comment when you would have flamed whether the news was good or bad.
So with CoD now becoming far too long in the tooth tech wise everyone has long since been awaiting Activision and co to announce what we should expect from possible future games. Well Activision may now have done just exactly that at this years GDC... http://playstationgang.com/new-beginning-for-call-of-duty-activision-revealed-next-gen-visuals/
If that demo really shows their next-gen tech then it might have been worth the wait. It would've been weird if they used this engine all these years, made all that money, without any preparations for the future. Let's see what they come up with.
It's no laughing matter, other studios are afraid to do something different from the CoD formula for fear of commercial failure so indirectly they do set the bar.
Didn't you know? Gurus hate CoD. But i agree that the last 3 cod games haven't been really great. If they are smart they go back to WWII now before someone else does.
They need to give us a slider for LOD bias rigid, not limit it to 0 and then have this ugly object popup galore. Imo a really big flaw for a DX11 game. Yes higher values will cripple gpu performance, but i rather have 70-90fps then 120fps and see objects disappear or shift LODs all the time. At least by COD4 MW I could control it via cfg, by COD5 waw they locked it and its 0 no matter what, now they decided to encrypt it lol fools:bang: Also nvidia decided to tweak this part by COD8 BO2 (r310 and r313 drivers) and since then I cant use more then -250 anymore (COD4), anything higher and it starts clipping objects, I use to play at -500 before and all was fine.. :yawn:
Yes that's true. The first time this really jumped right at me was the shadows in Black Ops. They faded in so late that you could almost dolphin-dive into the fading shadow. Really bad and extremely close.
I doubt the next Call Of Duty (COD) will be PS4 only, they have too much to lose doing that. That said, the other mainstream console only COD, COD 3, was a blazing success, so maybe you can expect the same of the next COD if it is PS4 only. Definition: blazing success Where the initial hype is 'on fire', but after people actually play the game they find nothing more than charred remains.
Blazing success back then, and what they expect now is a very different thing, plus that was both consoles, excluding the PC is easy enough as it rarely make a difference. Plus, from everything i've read COD is very much the best seller on the 360, why they hell would they spend all that money on a new game then release it on a console that is so new the game would end up being a financial failure.
As long as it makes a profit on a platform, they'll put it out. The worst thing they could do is a timed exclusive which is highly unlikely imo as Call of Duty is a big launch. I'm sure current, next-gen consoles and our PC will get the game.
By that logic, it's the consumers fault. It's because publishers care about review scores and ratings. And games that try to do something different tend to knocked, and often compared to CoD. The CoD series has been incredibly dull and stagnate for years now. The developers really need to do something with it. Something beyond just given it a new graphics engine. The gameplay needs a strong focus. A huge one actually.
Why would they change it when very few want them to? I have not been a fan of COD since the fourth game, but they would be stupid to change the gameplay when the majority are happy with how it is, and most just want shinier visuals.
