We five mobile gaming packs to giveaway that include a Sony Xperia Z3, a PS4, a mount for your Dualshock controller and a pop-up gaming tent!
Sony Xperia Z3 Mobile Gaming Giveaway Featuring a PS4!
AusGamers presents a hands-on report of the third major game in the 'World of' series from Wargaming, World of Tanks.
World of Warships Hands-On Preview
We take a look at the latest mobile gaming setup from GAEMS to see just how useful it is.
Tech Tuesday - GAEMS Vanguard Black Edition Review
We chat with 343 Industries about Halo 5: Guardians and the upcoming multiplayer beta!
343 Industries Talks Halo 5: Guardians Multiplayer Beta
Post by Dan @ 11:00am 11/10/12 | 11 Comments
One of the the common complaints levelled by critics at the last few games in the hugely successful Call of Duty series is that the games' underlying engine tech is getting too long in the tooth. Speaking with Official Xbox Magazine UK, Treyarch Design Director David Vonderhaar has come out in defence of the performance of the so-called IW Engine, asserting that much has evolved in the years since its creation, and reminding us that it still hits a smooth 60 frames per second on consoles:
"Anybody who comes at the engine needs to remember it's the 60 frames they love in the first place," Vondehaar reiterated. "And we can make it beautiful - that's through years and years of working with the engine, improving upon it and improving the pipeline and improving our approach, our lighting rendering.

"People like to talk about the engine, but the truth of the matter is that this isn't like something that was invented six years ago," he went on. "At this point that engine doesn't resemble anything like any engine - we've ripped out the UI system, the rendering and the lighting are all new, the core gameplay systems are all new."

"To me, it's like I never really understood," Vondehaar confessed. "It runs at 60 and it's gorgeous. What exactly is there to be upset about with the engine?"
The pursuit of 60 frames per second is a noble one on consoles, but we're not so sure the argument holds up when the PC version of the game is considered. Treyarch might do better to stick to promoting their gameplay innovations this time around as the draw factor. What does everyone else think?



call of dutycall of duty black ops 2activisiontreyarch
Buy now from Green Man Gaming for only GBP£37.99 (USD$89.99 on Steam)!
(compare all prices)





Latest Comments
MARLINBLADE
Posted 11:14am 11/10/12
I think not even a new engine would bring me back to this franchise... I'll leave this one for the console noobs.
Gibsmith
Posted 11:30am 11/10/12
I love how they just overlook the fact that this is Quake 3 engine... ITS QUAKE 3 ENGINE. Id tech made most of it and its like 13 years old... And sure, source engine is also based on the same tech, but at least they phased the last bits of Id software code out in 2004. But I agree with Marlin, this game is a lost cause, even with a new engine. 60FPS is in no way shape or form a bragging point, even if I played a console, I'd rather have 30fps and decent features, like engine physics, than 13 year old game with some s***** particle effects and limited dynamic shading sticky-taped on top to hide those facts.
kappa
Posted 11:35am 11/10/12
If you've played bf3 and cod on console, you will notice cod feels a lot more reactive to your control.

And it's just a better experience for an FPS. I am only commenting on consoles btw, and granted bf3 looks amazing compared to cod.

So I agree with the dev, but only regarding consoles.
Khel
Posted 11:38am 11/10/12
Its not hard to make it run at 60fps though when your engine is 6+ years old. I dunno why they're so proud of that.
badfunkstripe
Posted 12:42pm 11/10/12
I found with Blops 1. Sometimes it looked quite good, other times it looked terrible. In MW3 I actually found the game engine distracting at how bad it looked at times. At one point a Forrest is just flat textures on a wall. Like WTF?

There's also the other issue that the things the engine can't do are responsible for a lot of the repetitive game play.

I wish they just came out and said the truth, "we decided to stick with this until next gen consoles, which has taken longer than we expected."

This has got to be the last COD on this engine though.. right?
parabol
Posted 01:07pm 11/10/12
"It runs at 60 and it's gorgeous"

One of these two claims is not true.

I'll let you work out which ...
arkter
Posted 04:34pm 11/10/12
Its not hard to make it run at 60fps though when your engine is 6+ years old. I dunno why they're so proud of that.

Maybe they were talking about 60fps on an iphone or something and just forgot to mention it?
BladeRunner
Posted 05:30pm 11/10/12
It would be hillarious if they are still using this engine come next gen. They could make it run at 75fps on the next consoles, that will impress critics, I am sure of it.
glynd
Posted 06:04pm 11/10/12
It would be hillarious if they are still using this engine come next gen. They could make it run at 75fps on the next consoles, that will impress critics, I am sure of it.


nah, next console they'll use the "human eye can only see 30 fps" excuse haha.
Everlong
Posted 08:33pm 11/10/12
They talked up the same bs for MW3, even their marketing spiel is dated.
Stalfax
Posted 08:37pm 11/10/12
^This
Commenting has been locked for this item.
11 Comments
Show