http://kotaku.com/5801345/where-youll-go-how-youll-kill-and-who-will-die-in-modern-warfare-3
So the big news is that Kotaku has spoilers for MW3 already. It's now been confirmed that the sham team Infinity Ward is heading the project with MP by Raven Software and support from Sledgehammer. I say sham because it's not clear why Activision didn't just dismantled the studio considering it's not fooling anyone. A name is only as good as how peopel perceive it, and no one perceives Infinity Ward as the innovative and game leading developers that are now called Respawn.
Now forums are being hit hard because MW3 will be reusing the IW 4.0 Engine developed by the real IW. It's an aging engine based on the ID Tech 3 Engine, even predates the ID4 Engine used in Brink and used by Quake Wars. There is anger among PC Gamers.
I think PC Gamers are hypocrites. They can throw a tsunami of insults towards Activision for using a DX9 Engine based on ID3. But they are hesitant to throw the same insults towards Valve for their Source Engine which is like IW 4.0, based on ID code. Carmack has even said his code still exists in Source and Valve has admitted without ID, Valve would not exist today. There is a duality here. Blizzard can get away with praises with their DX9/DX10 engines with very cartoonie graphics, yet Activision cannot. Crysis 2 released. PC sales have been low and CryTek receiving verbal attacks for CryEngine 3. The raging PC Gamers are unable to recognize the marvel that Crysis 2 is. Yes it's not the PC killing game, but it looks better than any game so far running on so little hardware, that's incredible.
Gameplay hypocrisy. PC Gamers may give Valve and Blizzard much more leniency for their visuals and technology because of gameplay. But let's face it, that's just more hypocrisy. Starcraft 2 gameplay mirrors it's predecessor. Portal 2 has a nifty idea with Portals, but that's all. It's a classic puzzle game with an addition of Portals. Crysis 2 and MW3 receive anger from PC Gamers. Yet COD has set the standard for FPS games. The online progression, the cinematic SP campaign are all mimicked. Even BF3 the angel child for elitist PC gamers will follow that exact same formula, both in MP and SP. Crysis 2 has fast paced gameplay with enhanced abilities not featured in any other game other than Crysis Warhead. It's a unique IP. Yet Crysis 2 will receive insults for lack of gameplay innovations. Maybe it's because PC Gamers will claim Valve and Blizzard despite lack of innovation does it really well. There is absolutely no refuting that COD does fast paced FPS and cinematic campaign the best. Whether you like it or not, doesn't change this fact and should be recognized by these angry elitists. Crysis 2 also the best in class with it's 10 hour campaign for future sci-fi FPS.
This progression of providing better visuals for less hardware is a good thing. This means I can continue to game on my laptop and get excellent framerate, often 60+. IW 4.0 is a marvel of an engine. The clothing, the guns, the environment are well detailed. True IW 4.0 does not have the soft physics that other engines might (physics for cloth/clothing), or DX11 tessellation etc. But when I'm just scanning my screen for an enemy, this matters little. I don't play COD games for Online, not interested, but the SP campaigns have been entertaining. I look forward to more games following the heels of MW3 and Crysis 2. We can look forward to MLAA running on CPU soon in games, already being worked on by Slightly Mad Studios which will allow mobile users to have AA without taxing the GPU further. These studios are providing great visuals with excellent framerate not seen before, this is unprecedented.
Expensive hardware wasted, your fault. PC Gamers will complain that developers don't tax their hardware enough. These elitists have spent $3,000 on their dual GPU laptop rigs that sound like turbine engine and desktop users with SLI, CrossFire with continues issues for both on ALL GAMES. These elitist feel entitled because they spent all that money on a rig for games that don't exist. And then they have the audacity to blame developers for their stupidity? If you want the fastest rig for benchmarking, fine, but don't complain games aren't being made to serve you. Games are for everyone and that now includes the Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo and mobile gamers. Game developers develop for the benefit of all, not just the few who spend thousands each year on hardware for games that don't exist.
Brink, Prey 2, Rage and OpenGL. I think this is a great thing, granted they are all using ID Tech engine. Microsoft lead a good campaign vs OpenGL. But this doesn't hide the fact OpenGL 4.1 is faster than DX11 and provides full access to hardware unlike DX11. The overhead performance costs from an API, OpenGL just makes more sense. But I hope more developers consider using OpenGL. Nintendo's next console is coming. A DX10.1 only, but it will ilkely be running on OpenGL. With PS3 using OpenGL wrapper and Nintendo also supporting OpenGL, I think we may soon see more OpenGL cross platform games. With the top 3 platforms have best graphics in order PC, Nintendo, and PS3 and with only 360 not supporting OpenGL, for any cross platform developer it only makes sense in terms of cost and efficiency.
Unlike many of the PC Gamers that are smashing even some laptop forums, I praise companies that continue to try to provide the best visuals with efficiency. Cross Platform is not going away, and I just see laptop/mobile gamers benefiting from this arrangement. More players able to enjoy games with 40-60 steady framerate is a great thing. Personally love hearing that someone can play the latest games with excellent visuals on their 15" laptop.
Edited by ziddy123 - 5/14/11 at 6:06am
So the big news is that Kotaku has spoilers for MW3 already. It's now been confirmed that the sham team Infinity Ward is heading the project with MP by Raven Software and support from Sledgehammer. I say sham because it's not clear why Activision didn't just dismantled the studio considering it's not fooling anyone. A name is only as good as how peopel perceive it, and no one perceives Infinity Ward as the innovative and game leading developers that are now called Respawn.
Now forums are being hit hard because MW3 will be reusing the IW 4.0 Engine developed by the real IW. It's an aging engine based on the ID Tech 3 Engine, even predates the ID4 Engine used in Brink and used by Quake Wars. There is anger among PC Gamers.
I think PC Gamers are hypocrites. They can throw a tsunami of insults towards Activision for using a DX9 Engine based on ID3. But they are hesitant to throw the same insults towards Valve for their Source Engine which is like IW 4.0, based on ID code. Carmack has even said his code still exists in Source and Valve has admitted without ID, Valve would not exist today. There is a duality here. Blizzard can get away with praises with their DX9/DX10 engines with very cartoonie graphics, yet Activision cannot. Crysis 2 released. PC sales have been low and CryTek receiving verbal attacks for CryEngine 3. The raging PC Gamers are unable to recognize the marvel that Crysis 2 is. Yes it's not the PC killing game, but it looks better than any game so far running on so little hardware, that's incredible.
Gameplay hypocrisy. PC Gamers may give Valve and Blizzard much more leniency for their visuals and technology because of gameplay. But let's face it, that's just more hypocrisy. Starcraft 2 gameplay mirrors it's predecessor. Portal 2 has a nifty idea with Portals, but that's all. It's a classic puzzle game with an addition of Portals. Crysis 2 and MW3 receive anger from PC Gamers. Yet COD has set the standard for FPS games. The online progression, the cinematic SP campaign are all mimicked. Even BF3 the angel child for elitist PC gamers will follow that exact same formula, both in MP and SP. Crysis 2 has fast paced gameplay with enhanced abilities not featured in any other game other than Crysis Warhead. It's a unique IP. Yet Crysis 2 will receive insults for lack of gameplay innovations. Maybe it's because PC Gamers will claim Valve and Blizzard despite lack of innovation does it really well. There is absolutely no refuting that COD does fast paced FPS and cinematic campaign the best. Whether you like it or not, doesn't change this fact and should be recognized by these angry elitists. Crysis 2 also the best in class with it's 10 hour campaign for future sci-fi FPS.
This progression of providing better visuals for less hardware is a good thing. This means I can continue to game on my laptop and get excellent framerate, often 60+. IW 4.0 is a marvel of an engine. The clothing, the guns, the environment are well detailed. True IW 4.0 does not have the soft physics that other engines might (physics for cloth/clothing), or DX11 tessellation etc. But when I'm just scanning my screen for an enemy, this matters little. I don't play COD games for Online, not interested, but the SP campaigns have been entertaining. I look forward to more games following the heels of MW3 and Crysis 2. We can look forward to MLAA running on CPU soon in games, already being worked on by Slightly Mad Studios which will allow mobile users to have AA without taxing the GPU further. These studios are providing great visuals with excellent framerate not seen before, this is unprecedented.
Expensive hardware wasted, your fault. PC Gamers will complain that developers don't tax their hardware enough. These elitists have spent $3,000 on their dual GPU laptop rigs that sound like turbine engine and desktop users with SLI, CrossFire with continues issues for both on ALL GAMES. These elitist feel entitled because they spent all that money on a rig for games that don't exist. And then they have the audacity to blame developers for their stupidity? If you want the fastest rig for benchmarking, fine, but don't complain games aren't being made to serve you. Games are for everyone and that now includes the Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo and mobile gamers. Game developers develop for the benefit of all, not just the few who spend thousands each year on hardware for games that don't exist.
Brink, Prey 2, Rage and OpenGL. I think this is a great thing, granted they are all using ID Tech engine. Microsoft lead a good campaign vs OpenGL. But this doesn't hide the fact OpenGL 4.1 is faster than DX11 and provides full access to hardware unlike DX11. The overhead performance costs from an API, OpenGL just makes more sense. But I hope more developers consider using OpenGL. Nintendo's next console is coming. A DX10.1 only, but it will ilkely be running on OpenGL. With PS3 using OpenGL wrapper and Nintendo also supporting OpenGL, I think we may soon see more OpenGL cross platform games. With the top 3 platforms have best graphics in order PC, Nintendo, and PS3 and with only 360 not supporting OpenGL, for any cross platform developer it only makes sense in terms of cost and efficiency.
Unlike many of the PC Gamers that are smashing even some laptop forums, I praise companies that continue to try to provide the best visuals with efficiency. Cross Platform is not going away, and I just see laptop/mobile gamers benefiting from this arrangement. More players able to enjoy games with 40-60 steady framerate is a great thing. Personally love hearing that someone can play the latest games with excellent visuals on their 15" laptop.
Edited by ziddy123 - 5/14/11 at 6:06am
