Quantcast
Posted by Raine Hutchens on Oct 10, 2012

Treyarch Speaks Up Against Criticism On Black Ops 2 Engine

It’s no secret that Treyarch is using the seven-year-old IW engine to power their new Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 game, but it does come somewhat as a surprise. With the way things are moving in the gaming industry you’d think the development team would try their best to raise the bar, especially when it comes to this iconic FPS series. Some fans were skeptical about the game’s engine, and others have criticized Treyarch’s decision.

In an interview with OXM, Black Ops Design Director David Vondehaar spoke out against the criticism and doubt. He explained that several modifications have been implemented into the game’s engine, and was forthcoming with his surprise that anyone had any criticism at all for the game’s performance.

“Anybody who comes at the engine needs to remember it’s the 60 frames they love in the first place, 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. At this point that engine doesn’t resemble anything like any engine – we’ve ripped out the new 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. It runs at 60 and it’s gorgeous. What exactly is there to be upset about with the engine?”

No matter how an engine performs, how you doctor it up, or how many bells and whistles you have on it, the community will always seek out what’s the newest and the shiniest. To me Call of Duty will always be Call of Duty. Regardless of the engine it runs on, it will always be run and shoot simulator, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As long as they do whatever they can to stop dudes from knifing me through an entire clip of my AUG, I’ll be happy.

Source

Post a Comment