Key point is around 4:47.
This might be obvious to some people – seeing as it’s pretty much the same thing they’ve done for every Call of Duty game for the past decade – but it’s also a little bit confusing. As “New next gen engine!” was thrown around so much at the Xbox One Reveal that you’d figure it wasn’t just more polygons, glass shards, and dog faces. Now I’m sure Ghosts is going to look mighty pretty when compared to those more recent Call of Duty games that they’ve somehow managed to make run at 60 FPS on 8-year-old hardware, but the real question remains: How disingenuous is it to say it’s a new engine when it’s not? In all fairness, the engines that most games come out on today can be traced back to some really ancient technology like Valve’s beloved Source Engine and the QuakeWorld engine dating all the way back to 1996. 1996 is ancient now.
Mr. Volker does make a good point in the video, though. How far along do you have to take an engine to make it a “new engine” rather then just making it look prettier and run smoother? Obviously the difference between Ghosts and Modern Warfare 3 isn’t nearly as massive as the jump from, let’s say, GoldSRC to Source. Times were different back then, though. Gaming technology was advancing at an extremely rapid pace and things were really just starting to get to the point where you could call them “pretty.” Not to mention companies were chugging out consoles in half the time it took this generation. I suppose it was a bit to expect a whole new engine from such a fragmented company since the whole Infinity Ward/Modern Warfare 2 calamity.
What do you think? Should Infinity Ward get even more heat for throwing around a selling point that might not actually exist?