Last week we published the first part of an interview with Glen Schofield, general manager of Modern Warfare 3 co-developer Sledgehammer Games, in which the former Visceral Games boss told us that multiple gameplay innovations will make the upcoming Call of Duty title the most accessible yet.
Here, we quiz Schofield about the Call of Duty game engine, his review expectations for Modern Warfare 3, and his impressions of rival shooter Battlefield 3.
Well I'll tell you one thing, I've worked on a lot of engines over my lifetime and spent a lot of time putting graphics in to them and this thing is Porsche. And what I mean by that is that it is stream-lined, everything in it is perfectly freaking clean. You can tell it's been worked on for years. It's easy to upgrade.
We worked with engines before that are like f***ing spaghetti. You can't work on a part and put it back in without messing with everything else. Modern Warfare 3's levels now are so much bigger than the old ones because they go more vertically, they have a bigger footprint and on top of that, higher fidelity, more textures and a lot more detail.
If you put Modern Warfare 2 next to Modern Warfare 3 you would see a huge difference. Look at all the character models, look at all the gun models, look at the reflections, look at the water. There is so much that we've added, so when someone says 'cut and paste', I don't even want to talk to them because they don't know. They just don't know. They have no idea.
And then on top of that you have what we added to the audio engine. Then there's a lot of stuff under the hood. People don't think about this but when you make your tools better and you can iterate twice as many times, you make the game better. So instead of going, 'Well, I'd really like to move that guy over an inch, that would actually make it better.' And people going, 'Ah, that's a pain in the arse. I'm not going to move him'. Imagine multiplying that over 200 times, 300 times, a 1,000 times over the course of the game. By not moving something, you're really affecting quality. With the tools we've added, maybe we can move them. The more you can iterate, the better the game will be.
I've said this before - I'm not shipping an engine, I'm shipping a game. So that's why I'm going to talk about the game. You can talk about your engine all you want. It's not fun.
Absolutely, and it is. We've been developing on PS3 for over a year. I do get tweeted saying 'We haven't seen any PS3 screens'. What happens is we start developing on 360 and at some point we switch. We switch to the PS3 and you make sure that that's running at 60 frames a second, the graphics look freaking great, and we play both. They're in parity. Every place is exactly the same. I'm not sure what the issues were with the last one, but there's nothing to worry about with this one.
Did the work you did on your initial, third person Call of Duty project go to waste or did you adapt any of the ideas from that and bring them over to Modern Warfare 3? And what specifically is Sledgehammer's mark on Modern Warfare 3?
Comments
40 comments so far...
TroubleMaker411 on 17 Oct '11 said:
It's a Porsche?
You mean, a copy pasted car that looks the same now as it did 20 years ago?
I couldn't have put it better myself!
c3dpo on 17 Oct '11 said:
^^
Take it you never driven one?
And Kudos, so what it has an older engine with plenty of polish and tweaks. Just hope they sorted out the shonky party code that seemed to fail when you had a party greater than 2
KesMonkey on 17 Oct '11 said:
Hahahaha. He really should've chosen his words more carefully!
gmcb007 on 17 Oct '11 said:
Excellent!
Seriously these guys act like they made COD what it is . They're hired help mooching reputation off the COD name.
ensabahnur on 17 Oct '11 said:
Do you think he meant stream-lined?
Nah steam-lined sounds about right cause he's just full of hot air.
All the improvements he's outlined are just small graphical effects, i still haven't heard anything from them to say the gameplay's actually been improved or that it won't just be like playing the last 4 games but in a new setting.
svd_grasshopper on 17 Oct '11 said:
not a developer, but i'd have thought that starting a new engine from scratch would be necessary from time to time.
but seeing as the game does absolutely nothing different from it's many predecessors, then i guess it is not required.
the copy & paste critics are fully justified. that's essentially what they are doing. what new features have they introduced over the years?! a new gun doesn't count, they are just stamping out new maps.
zombiesinmyhead on 17 Oct '11 said:
Oh I said that steam-lined thing in the other story they just put up! Now it looks like I'm robbing comments!
You and your reading skills, making me look bad!
Axemaniac88 on 17 Oct '11 said:
Not to be fickle or anything, but he didn't really expand on what these so-called engine improvements were, aside from a few graphical upgrades and something about working on the audio. Sounds like a load of waffle to me. There really needs to be some kind of innovation in relation to the gameplay or the engine itself (is it not based on an old Quake engine or something?) or else I will probably avoid it.
ensabahnur on 17 Oct '11 said:
Heh, just be thankful that CVG put up 2 different articles. Now we both look like reading gods.
Sleepaphobic on 17 Oct '11 said:
A beta never hit your mind? Really?
TheRandyNinja on 17 Oct '11 said:
if the graphics are actually better does this mean that this cod will be hd... i dobt it
Lurf on 17 Oct '11 said:
Lol a porsche... I mean the engine runs smooth but that about says it all. COD has terrible textures, lighting, no destructibility and the levels are small. And on top of that it is a s**tty game. Battlefield completely crushes COD in every single way. BF<3
TheLastDodo on 17 Oct '11 said:
^ except BF3 runs at 30fps and MW3 runs at 60fps.
Seriously, why can't people enjoy both games?
lmimmfn on 17 Oct '11 said:
So when is this Mod released?
I got 78FPS average in the beta
zombiesinmyhead on 17 Oct '11 said:
Yes... like GODS!
TheRandyNinja on 17 Oct '11 said:
yeah but battlefield runs in hd mw3 will be sub hd just like the rest of them
Metatasian on 17 Oct '11 said:
If the MW3 engine is a Porsche, then the BF3 engine must be a Veyron, cos from what I have seen so far it crushes it in every way!
WHERESMYMONKEY on 17 Oct '11 said:
comment of the week.
If the Cod Engines a porche than the BF3 engine is a Maclaren.
Imaduck on 17 Oct '11 said:
Troublemaker absolutely hit the nail on the head. Comparing the engine to a Porsche was remarkably stupid.
KK-Headcharge78 on 17 Oct '11 said:
When you say in 'every way' what do you mean exactly?
And suddenly no one likes Porshe's?
MW3 will sell by the ton because it is a proven concept, fair enough if you don't like it but why posture seemingly established viewpoints on not one but two games that are yet to be released?
I'm off now to comment on a thread about a game I don't like, never have liked and will never buy safe in the knowledge that I'm spreading my pointless opinion for the gazzilionth time.
Ais4Audi on 17 Oct '11 said:
hhahaha bad example CODster's each Porsche looks like the next Porsche...
HeKTiKzZ on 17 Oct '11 said:
I was going to say that!!
so i will now copy and paste it...
You mean, a copy pasted car that looks the same now as it did 20 years ago?
I couldn't have put it better myself!
veato on 17 Oct '11 said:
Actually he wasn't. He was using the Porsche as the 911 is widely known for essentially looking just like the previous one. But when you look deeper under the hood there are a lot of changes not instantly obvious that make the car better than the previous one. He's saying this is what MW3 is.
Seems perfectly sane to me.
Imaduck on 17 Oct '11 said:
Veato ... you just argued that MW3 will look pretty much exactly the same except for gradual tweaks under the hood. Which is exactly what people bash it for and exactly what people are laughing at the Porsche comparison for. So, what part of that was a good idea?
veato on 17 Oct '11 said:
Because he's saying that's a good thing i.e. it might look the same to a casual observer but when you get into the nuts and bolts it's actually a lot different (better?). I don't see why that's so hard to understand.
FASELI on 17 Oct '11 said:
Doesn't COD still run on ID tech 3 or 4? If that's the case it's not even their engine running it.
Sammy_bham on 17 Oct '11 said:
It cracks me up how much people go out of their way to "slam" COD or any varient.
Its like these children must have their say, they must get their "dig" in quickly on a new thread. So they seem cool amongst their terrible peers.
and whilst, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you guys not realise how pathetic, immature, and well... childish you sound?
it gets cringe-worthy to the point where im embarrassed to read the comments, especially when you get comments like
Really?? every way? EVERY way?... right ok.
im excited about both games, judging by the beta, mw3 will undoubtly be the more pick up and play fun game, and battlefield will be the more realistic game with an epic intense singleplayer. Both should be decent.
i cant wait for battlefield 4, especially when all you children will be "slamming" it for using the same engine and making hardly any improvments "rolls eyes".
but no, its the one that will destroy cod!! FTW !!! RARARARARA! (random trolling as above).
FACE FIVE
Metatasian on 17 Oct '11 said:
Porsche keep persisting with the same boring shape year after year, I don't even turn my head when I see one anymore. Just like the MW engine they keep churning out every year with minor tweaks that you can barely notice. I'm no fanboy I have owned COD1, MW, WaW and BLOPS, and last year I bought BFBC2. Battlefield has so much more to offer, helicopters, tanks, 64 players on PC, dedicated servers, better balance etc. and from what I've seen of BF3 they have really upped the graphics and the general look and feel is just better. Plus they are showing some serious PC love which is rare in this day and age. With a 6 month old at home I only have time for 1 military fps this year and BF3 it is!
KK-Headcharge78 on 18 Oct '11 said:
Porsche keep persisting with the same boring shape year after year, I don't even turn my head when I see one anymore. Just like the MW engine they keep churning out every year with minor tweaks that you can barely notice. I'm no fanboy I have owned COD1, MW, WaW and BLOPS, and last year I bought BFBC2. Battlefield has so much more to offer, helicopters, tanks, 64 players on PC, dedicated servers, better balance etc. and from what I've seen of BF3 they have really upped the graphics and the general look and feel is just better. Plus they are showing some serious PC love which is rare in this day and age. With a 6 month old at home I only have time for 1 military fps this year and BF3 it is!
Yep one of the most successful sports car marques of all time, the 911 itself is a bench mark for manufacturers, ironically also one of the most innovative drive systems too.
So yeah I don't get your point.
Nathan85 on 18 Oct '11 said:
Is this guy a clown, the game hasn't changed at all, just looks different because they are set in different time periods. It will be the same engine same gameplay as before. People copy and paste the same argument because it's true and a scam to the gaming industry, if you keep copying and pasting your games we will keep copying and pasting our arguments. Your basically scamming all these little kids who pay $100 for the game every 10 or 12 months.
agentxnofx on 18 Oct '11 said:
copypasta
TheCrimsonFenix on 18 Oct '11 said:
Difference being that BF hasn't been tired out by using the same game engine over 8 years in every single one of the 10 games. Yes, there have been quite a few BF games but they've been mostly honest expansions and different enough sequels.
Now I'm no huge fan of BF either but 3 definitely has my interest more than another iteration of Hollywood Arcade Warfare. Heck, Bad Company already beat the last four CoDs in terms of game play, sound and looks. In my opinion of course. If there's anyone that will complain about BF3/4, it'll be people who are sick of EA and Acti's bitching and people who just don't like shooters.
Channel4 on 18 Oct '11 said:
All this COD hate is getting hilarious. Did anybody actually read the interview? The man does talk a lot of sense. For one thing hes not wrong in comparing the engine to a porshe. There's only three or four console fps games that look better than COD, and none that look that good while running at near enough 60fps. The technology is as advanced as it needs to be, I'd argue that from what i've seen BF3 on consoles doesn't measure up and it's probably because the engine is a bit of mismatch with the hardware. It's a bit like putting an F1 car on a go kart track.
Anyway, I was a COD hater before it was cool, and now that it is cool I don't hate it anymore. I'm soooo edgy therefore, I win.
gamingassassin on 18 Oct '11 said:
look at the reflections and the water people!! seriously thats the only thing i consider when buying a game...
I dont hate cod tho, i just dont think its worth a full game price. maybe the price of an expansion yeah!
Ill just rent it
BenThomasFoster on 19 Oct '11 said:
Whats deal with everyone calling battlefields engine any good? All i've see of it is terrible except for the sounds. Man the sound is prefect but the graphics ect ect we're are terrible. Not to mention i havn't seen it do anything but a shoot. On the other hand: source, unreal, cryengine are solid
TheLastDodo on 19 Oct '11 said:
Are you talking about PC footage or the two month old console beta with deliberately toned downed graphics?
BOYD1981 on 19 Oct '11 said:
You're basing that on videos and screenshots though, and they never quite show off a game like actually playing it does (unless it's Rage, in which case best stick to video and screenshots) whereas sound is sound, and will actually sound better through a surround setup. So everything will be better in the final product. Hopefully.
And did you ever stop to think that perhaps the reason why you've only seen the BF3 engine used to do "a shoot" is because it hasn't been finished yet and therefore isn't actively being licensed? Hmm?
TheLastDodo on 19 Oct '11 said:
Seems this Schofield bloke enjoys making an arse out of himself lately.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011- ... -bugs-jibe
It can't be true because EA are the "baddies"
@CoD fanboys @BF fanboys: THEY'RE ALL AS BAD AS EACH OTHER.
gmcb007 on 19 Oct '11 said:
He never learns. I though I hated Cramack for his arrogance but at least he has played a major part in gaming unlike the hired help his team is.
Camelbak93 on 26 Feb '12 said:
Well, this engine is getting old. They should stop tweaking it and make a new one instead.