Update - Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling has been in touch with us to clarify his comments in this article regarding a new Call of Duty engine.
Infinity Ward creative strategist Robert Bowling has said that building a new engine for the Call of Duty franchise "would be counter productive".
His comments were made at the same time the internet started going Battlefield 3 crazy over the COD rival's first gameplay trailer, which showed off DICE's impressive Frostbite 2 engine, described by EA as "incredible technology that takes animation, destruction, lighting, scale and audio to new heights".
All of the Call of Duty games since 2005's CoD2 have run on the Infinity Ward engine, which has been modified for each iteration of the series, and it sounds like it's going to be no different when the next CoD title releases.
Bowling was also asked over the last day whether he still works for Activision, and if he's going to join his former bosses at new studio Respawn.
He replied: "I work at Infinity Ward and plan to remain here. We've got a great team and working on a great project."
Infinity Ward is rumoured to be co-developing a new Modern Warfare game for release this year with fellow Activision studios Sledgehammer Games and Raven Software.
Last month, the UK Official PlayStation Magazine lent credence to speculation that Modern Warfare 3 will be a prequel starring fan favourite character Ghost.
As for Battlefield 3, we saw the title in action at GDC this morning and our PC Gamer colleagues labelled it "the best looking PC game in the world right now".
CVG editor Tim was equally impressed with the title's visuals and audio. Read his impressions in our GDC Battlefield 3 preview.
Comments
48 comments so far...
dubplate240 on 2 Mar '11 said:
It's not looking too counter productive for DICE at the moment.
i like jam donut on 2 Mar '11 said:
Lazy c**ts. Anyway i'm done with the series.
LiquidSnack on 2 Mar '11 said:
God Forbid you try and make an effort to improve your game, Infinity Ward
WHERESMYMONKEY on 2 Mar '11 said:
Am i the only one that thinks that MW3 is going to be royally kicked into touch by the competition this year.
KMakawa on 2 Mar '11 said:
New engine gets you the quality of Battlefield 3, you know.. near next-generation quality?
Keep up Call of Duty, what is happening to MoH is now happening to you!
EvilDog77 on 2 Mar '11 said:
IW have a point. Why bother spending loads creating a new engine when there are enough f**ktards out there who'll keep paying top dollar for the same old s**t year after year?
Currychips on 2 Mar '11 said:
Yup, black ops was the final straw. I won't be buying another. Stale like my pants.
only_777 on 2 Mar '11 said:
The COD engine is based on another engine which came out in 2000 and it needs to go.
With all that money they could get a liecence for the Unreal engine and tweak it to COD's needs.
The problem with the COD engine is that it is so old every hacker in the world knows how to break through it now and glitch through the game. PC, PS3 and 360 versions of all MW games and black OP's can be broken quite easy, so sticking to the same engine again just sounds to me like they are being cheap.
Like I said, get a liecence for the Unreal engine, the new one is pretty good and is much harder to break.
10699 on 2 Mar '11 said:
there are very few game engines that aren't iterative of the previous ones used in the industry these days. It is very expensive and time consuming to build an engine from the ground up, look at unreal 3, that engine is iterative of the first one with refined code and systems, etc. The improvements were so big that it deserved being called a new engine due to teh new systems written. But it has been built on existing systems the original engine contained. I expect frost 2 is built on the frost one engine, which in turn was an almagermation of the previous dice battlefield engine and rebranded due to the improvements. The same goes for cryteks cryengine. Its marketing spiel when they say "we have a brand new engine", they tend to mean enough new features to be able to rebrand it.
fps_d0minat0r on 2 Mar '11 said:
agreed.
Gambini on 2 Mar '11 said:
I got burnt with MW2 and never even touched BLOPS... Thank God.
The BF3 footage is just... incredible. Really, it takes a lot this generation to get the entire gaming community excited, and everything I've seen on other forums about the footage is positive. Not easy to do this gen.
RIP COD. RIP IW.
StonecoldMC on 2 Mar '11 said:
Plenty of folk getting their knickers in a twist over this article, no surprise though considering its about COD
.
I still think the IW, COD Engine looks pretty good, maybe not Frostbite 2 good (although weve only seen that on a high end PC), but good none the less
Lets wait till we see what the next COD Game looks like before telling them how wrong they are for keeping the same tweaked Engine.
The_Hun1 on 2 Mar '11 said:
I thought all cod games runs on either the quake 3 engine and now the doom 3 engine, since it is an activison gaming engine, looks like cod games in the future might run on the rage engine.
Shame about not having frostbite 2, that looks sweet, heck even better than crysis 2 one
try4life on 2 Mar '11 said:
and on that bombshell i will not buy another cod. so what IW are saying hey come on guys all the guys whit a brain were all snapped up by respawn and we that are left wouldn't have a clue how to make a new engine.the new battlefield game takes a s**t on anything iv seen from cod
eltonbird on 2 Mar '11 said:
To be fair to it, the COD engine doesn't look that bad, and their console versions run at 60fps* too. This isn't something any of the other FPS developers have ever even attempted, let alone hit.
Lets see how good BF3 looks on cosole, and how fast / consistently it runs before we laud it as the new king?
Maybe IW will re-prioritise, especially as everyone is going gooey for the better detail and effects in BF3 etc, and sacrifice their frame-rate going forward?
*MW1 & 2, no idea about the treyarch ones, never played 'em
STEVONYMO on 2 Mar '11 said:
I guess they have been caught in "no mans land" with Crysis and now Battlefield showing new engines and shiny more realistic graphics. Difficult for them now, really they needed to have been already a couple of years down the new engine road. To start one now means they are wayyyy behind and so they have taken the decision to eeek out as much as they can from old tech.
I have no doubt behind closed doors they are working on a new engine but it won't be ready for their next game so they may just have to let first place go for a while. But don't forget they can ride on the COD name alone...well for a while anyway.
Headsrinker on 2 Mar '11 said:
If it takes years to develop a new engine, then i presume they MUST be working on one now??
I think MW3 will look good, and will probably be a big improvement on BLOPS, which looks abit cheap in places(the multiplayer maps).
COD does need to up its game now, and the Battlefield 3 video should give them a kick up the ar*e, but obviously not in time for MW3.
So, as a gamer im pleased that the competition have upped their game so to speak, as we are likely to have better more polished FPS's.
TheLastDodo on 2 Mar '11 said:
Just to stir it up a bit more, Black Ops First Strike DLC is £11.49 on the PlayStation Store today. Thats more than the MW2 DLC packs for those wondering and it in includes less content.
Now my 4 reasons not to buy MW3 or whatever it will be called.
1. Battlefield 3
2. Brink
3. Killzone 3
4. The epically s**t and broken Black Ops.
HoRNS456 on 2 Mar '11 said:
Yeah, a complete restart with new technology would put COD behind the competition. Next generation COD will likely not be able to carry it's success when there will be a bunch of games copying the same formula hitting all about the same time.
Headsrinker on 2 Mar '11 said:
TheLastDodo
Just to stir it up a bit more, Black Ops First Strike DLC is £11.49 on the PlayStation Store today
I presume its more expensive than previous MW2 DLC because of the increase in VAT. Just like games used to cost £39.99, they now cost £42 -ish. Either way, its still over priced.
spunwicked on 2 Mar '11 said:
Balls to Acti.
I am sick of half arsed developers.
It's like they don't want paying customers.
Well, I'm onto the new Battlefield game for my next FPS. Bye bye Bobby!
TOKEN on 2 Mar '11 said:
Think of yourselfs why dont you?oh sorry you already do.
altitude2k on 2 Mar '11 said:
BF3 says:
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Spudfella on 2 Mar '11 said:
Aww bless them they might have to actually do some work other than copy, paste.
TheLastDodo on 2 Mar '11 said:
@Headsrinker:
Surely if it was down to just the VAT increase then the MW2 DLC would be priced £11.49 too? I think its just greed personally. The Killzone 3 Retro Map pack is £3.99 yet each Killzone 2 map pack is £4.79 if memory serves correct so it can't be down to VAT unless for some reason VAT isn't included in Sony published titles.
messaih216 on 2 Mar '11 said:
it would cost them money to create a new engine and not rehash the same old rubbish,
they could also sort out all the glitches and hackers to..
lazy useless c***s
justforkicks101 on 2 Mar '11 said:
i cant wait for the new cod.. think of all the fresh sh1t we can moan about. good times !
ND1988 on 2 Mar '11 said:
Crysis 2 + BF3 = COD death.
ps3deo on 2 Mar '11 said:
I think that's ridiculous. We need a new engine as I am tired of this same crap. If not a new engine, at least make a huge improvement in terms of gameplay and depth of maps.
COD series is going to be in big trouble if Modern Warfare 3 fails because fans are tired of the same product coming out. Only thing different is each game comes with more bugs. The Modern Warfare 3 website http://mwarfare3.com/call-of-duty-moder ... -sales-162 says the game will do $300 million.
FlimFlam on 2 Mar '11 said:
The CoD engine is so non-descript it doesn't even have a name.
Even if it did, it's doubtful it would be as cool sounding as Frostbite.
altitude2k on 2 Mar '11 said:
Not even if it was called Facef**kerTech 2.0?
Headsrinker on 2 Mar '11 said:
TheLastDodo
Surely if it was down to just the VAT increase then the MW2 DLC would be priced £11.49 too? I think its just greed personally. The Killzone 3 Retro Map pack is £3.99 yet each Killzone 2 map pack is £4.79 if memory serves correct so it can't be down to VAT unless for some reason VAT isn't included in Sony published titles.
Yeah you may well be right. Its a ridiculous price to pay for DLC. Another example, Red Dead Redemption 'Undead nightmare' DLC is £7.99, its like a whole new game and is good value for money, not just 5 maps like in the case of BLOPS. They sell it at £11.49 because they know 4/5 people will buy it. They are greedy bast*rds and it will come back to haunt them at some point soon.
BenJy on 2 Mar '11 said:
If anyone has seen the new Battlefield 3 trailer I'm sure they don't care about Call Of Duty right now.
KMakawa on 2 Mar '11 said:
And yet the Crytek engine (Crysis 2) is actually hailed as one of the most powerful engines.
Really kinda shocked at how LQ Crysis 2 is..
Imaduck on 2 Mar '11 said:
Ye, why polish a turd when you can sell it straight......
MANYOO4EVA on 2 Mar '11 said:
TBH I'm all WAR'D out, even BF3 isn't getting me excited as military FPS's are SSDD. I want FUN in my FPS's and Bulletstorm is just that especially in Anarchy mode with 3 other ppl. Duke Nukem Forever is next on my list.
Nick33 on 2 Mar '11 said:
I said a few months ago that if they didn't bring their engine up to the standards expected in 2011 I was done with the franchise. Well it looks like the lazy bastards think they can keep churning out the same game since 2007 with a few tweaks.
Done with the series, Black Ops was s**te, and Killzone 3 will do me until Battlefield 3. If you want people to respect you then update your engine with some fo teh billions you have made from the series. You think this is still 2009, well it's not. People and game technology have moved on, you haven't.
gmcb007 on 2 Mar '11 said:
What engine do they use? The talentlesspricks.4.0 or nocreativity.2.0? Then again it may be the sames**tdifferentyear which activision are fond of.
EXTREME184 on 2 Mar '11 said:
If you're planning to play Battlefield 3 on a console I wouldn't get too excited yet, as much as I dislike what Activision are doing with CoD.
kimoak on 2 Mar '11 said:
They are a bit stuck, really. Activision have told them the turnaround for the next CoD game and they have no choice but to do the best they can in the short time that they have to create a complete game. A new engine seems like a complete impossibility when you factor in the time you have to develop something.
Beebop10 on 2 Mar '11 said:
Epic are the same, it's sad to see brilliant US Studios becoming the GM and Fords of the gaming world as high tech European(Cryengine 3, Frost bite 2) and Japanese Studios produce better engines. Consolization has bred a kinda laziness, and a 'churn them out' mentality. Hopefully the upcoming big titles from their rivals will snap them out of this . Epic for example ,are already moving with DX11 support and I don't think it's entirely coincidental that this is shown as DICE show BF3, but many would like to see UE4 released.
craiglackenby on 2 Mar '11 said:
To be fair CoD engine is above many FPS engines that still run in sub HD and struggle to maintain 30fps like MoH.
IMO Infinity Ward just don't have the talent to upgrade or even tweak the engine, in Tryarch's defence they did for the swan dive and the chopper. IW can use the excuse of making a new engine takes years, for the age of the engine they could be on >insert engine name here< 3.0.
Lazy money grabbing but f**ks but hey I'll buy MW3 cause I'm a sucker for games and little old me wouldn't make a difference on 10 million.
Paradaz - UK on 2 Mar '11 said:
I'm sure it's only 'counter-productive' for their profit margins.
Very_Silver_Ownz on 2 Mar '11 said:
the engine should have changed for CoD WaW damn the engine was leaking and creaking in that turd of a game.
flashvenom on 3 Mar '11 said:
Heh, yeah. It's bad enough Sony and Microsoft won't develop better hardware- now game studios won't update thier software. I guess it's the economy? Anyways, BIG UPS to DICE for grabbin' thier nuts and not settling for anything less than CUTTING EDGE. Frostbite 2 engine looks SICK and I'm blessed to have a computer that will actually put it to work
I *was* a COD fan... Just like I *was* an Apple fan. But once a company gives the finger to thier fans in an attempt for an easy cash grab - my loyalty is gone... kick rocks IW! Good luck with your rushing MW2.5 onto shelves before christmas...
MattyR95 on 3 Mar '11 said:
Well, you'll fail then. You can't keep up the sales with games like battlefield 3 coming out, when you're game will the look similar if not the same as mw2.
procion on 10 Mar '11 said:
Maybe Activi$ion should start working on their prices. Hell, they could charge half what they are ripping us off for with their CoD dlc(half being what everyone else charges for their dlc)and still make a killing off of us. I only play CoD for the zombies, so theres most of the pack takin up space on my hdd, not being used, yet I had to pay for them. Maybe they should make Ghost into a zombie, change his name to Ghast and star him in Hollar of Buty: Modern Medalled B1tchslap of Kotick's disHonourable Battlefield 3A. I think we might even get our money's worth with that bundle of a game at their prices. And he can shut the studio down after we've virtually bought it out anyway, in order to distribute blame for the poor sales and Move support.
sweatingwheat on 28 Jun '11 said:
Counter productive? The ONLY reason I now despise their franchise is because of their lack of progress. They sell the same s**t to little teenagers like pokemon cards and the kids eat it up. Their current game engine is far too glitchy, far too flawed. They really can't afford to stick with the same thing. Even if they did have something new (besides a fancy new scope for your gun) i wouldn't buy it... i'm ashamed to admit I bought 3 of their games. Never again.