In May’s Edition of GameInformer, Sledgehammer Games stated that Advanced Warfare has a brand new engine, but many Call of Duty fans were skeptical as to what that really means. In the newest edition of Edge Magazine, Michael Condrey has clarified what the engine is and how it works.

Condrey says that the team at Sledgehammer has built majority of the engine from scratch. Some of the lines of old Call of Duty engine exists, but majority of it has been built from scratch that the old engine is unrecognizable.

Condrey says, “Although what the studio means by ‘new’ in this context isn’t what the internet means when it complains about the old COD engine.”

There are, says Condrey, lines of the old engine’s code still in Advanced Warfare, just as there are in most studios’ engines entering a new generation, but enough has been built from scratch to make it almost unrecognizable.

“We have new rendering, animation, physics and audio systems”

This makes it the first Call of Duty game to be completely built off of a new, built from scratch engine. All of the previous Call of Duty games ran off the base “Quake” engine, just modifying it to improve the functionality.

SOURCE: Edge Online Magazine

SHARE

269 COMMENTS

    • Take it with a grain of salt. If they still call it the “IW engine”, then it’s still using Quake 3, thus the engine is not new. However, if they just took lines of code from Quake 3 and pasted it on the new engine, THEN it would be new because Quake 3 wouldn’t be the BASE of the engine. However, I think it’s still Quake 3 at its core, which makes the engine NOT new.

        • Not cynical, skeptical, because I’m tired of the developers lying. It’s not a brand new engine.

          • Then no engine is new by your standard. Nobody has ever reinvented the wheel as much as you want them to. Frostbite/Crytek/etc… None of these are new. Technology is a progressive process where we stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us. Please describe what constitutes a a new engine? If Porsche tweaks their 2013 engine and gets a 40% boost in performance is it a new engine? Or do they have to comletely reengineer every single aspect? It would have to be an alien device for it to be accepted under your definition of new. It would take 70 years of engineering because they would literally have to start from scratch and use all new mathematics and engineering, all new materials that haven’t been invented yet. You’re standard is rediculous and nothing in this world would qualify as ‘new’.

          • Frostbite was built from the ground up. From scratch. That’s the thing about new engines, is that they CAN build it from the ground up, and new engines take, on average, 6 months. If 98% of the engine was from scratch and they wanted to copy and paste old code into the “new engine” they’re developing, then yeah, I’d classify it as “new”, but “upgrading” the engine won’t really do a whole lot. However, what I can agree on, is that the engine is not just an upgrade. I’m just worried about SH’s PR and the naysayers that will say “no, this is not a new engine, it’s the same old Quake III Arena they’ve used for the past 10 years”.

            Once we see the name of the engine, if it’s something stupid like “IW 7” instead of an “in-house” engine, then we’d know something is up.

          • “Frostbite was built from the ground up” No it wasn’t. It was built based off the refractor engine, the very engine of the original battlefields.

          • Proof? Because Bad Companies 1 and 2 and Battlefields 3 and 4 play entirely different from the games before them.

          • There is no proof (trust me I have tried to find it) but I am of the same opinion. Having played 2143 and Bad Company back to back you can just tell.

          • Then @Duke of hazzard has a good point, Advanced Warfare’s engine must be new then.

          • The thing is the stuff they’re improving won’t fix the core issues that people would have with the engine. You’re right, it’s being improved, but it’s been getting constantly improved this entire time. It’s going to look better, it can do new things, but it’s the still the same base thing we’ve been looking at since CoD 2. I’m not hating, just simply interpreting this as I understand it.

      • The article even states it’s using the old code. The new additions are… new rendering, animation, physics and audio. Thats not a new engine at all.

        • So does battlefield, halo, gears of war, madden etc. (even Mario kart) All sequels require a bit of old coding to feel like that certain game. According to your logic lets fire every game developer ever

          • No that’s not my logic at all. I never said anyone should be fired. I stand by my statement ID tech 3 is not able to fully utilise next gen hardware and thinks in frames per second this means that the weapons can only have 4 fire rates and so many mechanics are tied to it that it’s just too old to keep being rehashed repeatedly.

      • Quake 3 is not the engine. You are thinking of iD Tech 3. But im guessing iD Tech 3 is still the base engine since they say “lines of the old engine’s code still in Advanced Warfare”

    • “We have new rendering, animation, physics and audio systems”

      It’s not a new engine then is it. It’s a new rendering, animation, physics and audio methods. It’s still ID tech it’s still thinking in frames per second.

      “There are, says Condrey, lines of the old engine’s code still in Advanced Warfare”

      Again it’s not fucking new then is it. Why do people accept this bullshit. When asked if the engine is new they should simply say no but we have done x,y and z not yes…. but the old code is still there.

      • Well it needs to have some tiny bits of Quake 3. Otherwise it wouldn’t feel like the PARTS of COD we LOVE. Would u feel comfortable if this game FELT more battlefield, crysis, titanfall, warface, etc? It still needs to FEEL like COD

        • Finally someone who gets it!! SHG has done everything weve asked these years and people still moan. Unbelieveable!

          • You may call it moaning but I prefer constructive criticism. I’m not bitching or belittling your opinion so please do not dismiss my view as moaning. All I want is Call of Duty to be the best it can be and I no longer believe this 15 year old engine is up to the task.

          • Forgive me if it seemed that way i was talking about some guys here on Charlie Intel, that generally dont appreciate SHG’s effort. You obviously do 😉

          • It’s clear that Sledgehammer are putting a ton of effort into their solo debut and what I have seen so far looks great.

            It’s Activision’s approach to engine development that I have a problem with not the developers themselves.

          • Thanks again for stating your opinions with a polite and reasonable way. Personally i thing the game will be amazing either way and i like what theyve done with the engine. But thats my opinion, doesnt mean im right 😛 I hope you enjoy the game as all of us 🙂

          • Like wise it’s good to meet someone that doesn’t behave like an arsehole when an opinion that differs from their own is presented.

            I will definitely enjoy this game wether it’s just the campaign or the MP as well. Can’t wait to see the MP footage when e3 goes live.

          • Its a pleasure to meet you man, im glad someone has different opinions and is willing to discuss them here, why are these sites for anyway? 🙂 Cant wait too, by the way do you happen to know where i can see E3 in a live stream?

          • Pleasure to meet you too. Xbox usually host a live stream that shows of CoD reveals and a lot of journalists do some streams on Twitch. I usually wait for the vids to hit YouTube though and settle for the Xbox stream. Although I do wonder if Valve will do one on Steam this year.

          • You don’t understand how game development works if you think using a “15 year old engine isn’t up to the task” just because it’s old. Cars have a lovely analogy in this discussion. I suppose you don’t believe Ford’s new 2014 engine’s aren’t up to the task either because it’s over 100 years old and based on the same basic principles, as a Nascar screams down a track at 200 mph with a Ford engine.

          • Bad analogy. Aeroplanes are a better example, can a rotary engine compete with a jet. No, yes the nascar is doing 200 mph but the Jet in the sky is doing Mach 2.
            Using your car analogy think of frame rate based calculations as the internal combustion and the new breed that are not based on frames per second as the jet. The old engine has limitations based on the frame rate or moving parts for the car analogy.
            The Jet engine has no such limitations it can perform calculations independently of the frame rate meaning it can perform much better. Please don’t tell me what I do and don’t understand. This is obviously a subject I know very well.

        • I wish to add to that, its not just the cod feel but also the hit detection. I’ve played games where it’s completely off, and cod does it right. New engine with the good old best hit detection, I can deal with. Male it pretty and make my shots true!

          • Exactly!! if people want to change Cod to something else, then by all means go ahead -_-

          • Nothing has to change, you could build an exact replica of CoD 4 on a completely different engine without any of the negatives associated with ID tech 3 if enough effert was put into it the look and feel is determined by the rendering and graphics engine. That is what you see and feel, that’s all changed anyways so it might lose that CoD feeling without a new engine.

          • You have reasonable thoughts and i respect your opinion man. At least you unlike others know how to talk politely and state their opinions and thank you for that. I have my opinion, you have your opinion. To me though SHG has done everything possible in these 3 years and its shown, to some that might not be enough but to me it is. I hope you do enjoy the game without worrying about such silly details, if its fun and enjoyable its all that matters

          • Cheers bud. I would like to see a completely new engine that is developed to run all CoD games that isn’t tied to the games development cycle. That way the devs can focus on making the game the best it can be while the engine team can take their time to get the engine perfect.

            That way when its ready the developer can have all the benefits of a new engine without it eating away at the games development cycle. Though I know it would be much harder to implement than I am making it sound.

          • There are other engines out there capable of delivering awsome player movement and hit detection Cry and Source instantly spring to mind. You don’t need to have a 15 year old engine to achieve that.

            Don’t get me wrong I’m a big fan of ID tech 3 it’s some of John Carmacks greatest work. But even he would tell you its old, outdate and designed to run on much older hardware than we have available today.

          • I agree with the old part but a lot of times old systems are the cogs of a bigger sceme.

        • Titanfall has got a feeling almost identical to the way that CoD feels and that’s ran on Valves Source Engine. With the addition of exo suits it may well end up feeling like Titanfall even without trying.

          They could use a new engine and still make it function and feel like CoD without any of the negatives that come associated with ID tech. Sure it would take time and money but this is the largest fps out.

          Failure to evolve will lead to CoD’s demise if Activision fail to act. All it will take is a modern or WW2 fps to be built on Cry Engine, Unreal 4, ID tech 4 to seriously rival CoD.

          I want to be able to keep enjoying CoD but each year they get more and more outdated and without drastic change I can’t see myself holding on much longer.

          • Excuse my ignorance about engines, but why don’t they use Id tech 4 then? Is it not the newest version of id tech? Does it not have a cod feel anymore?

          • ID tech 4 is an upgraded ID tech 3 so the same issues are there. ID tech 5 would be a good choice but the defining factor is cost and time.

            They would have to enter negotiations with Zeni Max for the rights to use the engine as the source code has not been released. The feel of CoD isn’t defined by the engines core all the core defines is the way the engine performs calculations.

            All staff that use the engine would also be unfamiliar with its tools and need to learn to use it. Neither is a reasonable excuse for a franchise as big as Call of Duty. Where there is a will there is a way. The will just isn’t there yet.

            Everything else can be altered or changed. It’s more than possible for the game to keep that CoD feel with a newer engine and have none of the limitations that come with ID tech 3.

          • You clearly know a lot more than I do about engines, code and tech etc. and I agree with what you say especially when you mentioned the feel of Titanfall. Personally, I think Titanfall feels more like a CoD game (MW2 especially) than Ghosts does and I hate the feel of Ghosts! which only goes to back up what you say! As for Advanced Warfare, I’ll wait until I get my hands on the game before I judge it after the monumental disappointment of Ghosts.

        • …But they could have easily made a core engine with smoother mechanics than the original IW engine…

      • No engine can ever be claimed to be new under your stringent definition. Can anything be new for you?

    • why sad? Even if theres still old code from the previous engine, they said the physics, Audio, and visuals will be completely new.

      • If it still has IW as a MAIN engine, then it’s not new. If they call it something else, THEN it’ll be new, but physics, audio, and visuals don’t make it a new engine. Gameplay has to be improved. I don’t think it’s a new engine unless they made a new engine from scratch and just copied and pasted some old code into it.

        • most engines arent build from scratch. (if not all) i dont want to insult you but you are really ignorant on the matter. i hope you learned something new though.

          • Frostbite 3. Nuff said. If the game still thinks in frames per second, then it’s not new. Just seeing ‘there’s some lines of old code left’ has me skeptical.

          • Oh wow.. you think Frostbite 3 is a brand new engine from you know… Frostbite 1 and 2? Go do some research. Physics = gameplay. You don’t want the entire gameplay to change or it will play like a new IP, which it is not.

          • hey have you noticed something in that? i mean its called “Frostbite 3” because its the 3rd installment of the engine. probably using code from the 1st and 2nd update of Frostbite? just saying dude, its a possibility! (so obvious sarcasm its not even funny)

          • I get what you’re saying, since FB3 is marketed as a new engine and the Battlefield fans regard it as such.

          • yeah but that doesnt make it a new engine. i dont care who regards it as a new engine, the fact of the matter is that its not new. it hasnt been new for 7 years now.

  1. Advanced Warfare really excites me cause its the first COD where we can really expect something new. I am a little skeptical since we’ve heard this same thing from Treyarch in BO2 but I just can wait for the gameplay at E3!

  2. Yeah I bet the code that is left is the same code that causes the weird lag issues in multiplayer

  3. The keyword is “majority”, meaning they probably stripped the quake engine and updated it like IW supposebly did for Ghosts. Hopefully I’m wrong. Btw, is RileyWoof still an active user here in CharlieIntel? I just wanna assassina… I mean say hi to him!

    • I think I agree, however, I’m still thinking a bit and here’s what I got from this:

      They build a new from the ground up/scratch engine, but put some lines from Quake 3 in it. It’s not Quake, just code used from Quake, like Source.

      • Well exactly they changed almost everything but kept the core of the Quake 3 so that cod remains cod, since most people are afraid-i dont even know how- that AW isnt cod anymore 😛

          • Well depends, its a “new engine if you want to keep the game same”, but if we want a truly new new engine then it wouldnt feel like cod anymore.

        • What? If it still has core Quake 3 then it’s Quake 3 and not new and that’s a fact, hate me all you want, it’s called skepticism.

          • Their new code is built on top of quake, and thus it is still that same engine. You were saying it was a brand new engine with quake 3 in it, but not quake 3 because it was brand new. And then brought up Source out of nowhere. I’m saying it is the same ol’ CoD engine we’ve always known and loved

          • What I meant was that they could have started from scratch and just put a few lines of old code from Quake III in it. It’s still the core engine that we all know and love? Shouldn’t that be a bad thing? That means the entire game will work in frames per second.

        • Well that’s your opinion. BO2 was, and still is, the best COD yet for me. Ghosts was so “meh” to me, apart from Extinction.

          • I nearly had a heart attack when you said best COD yet before I noticed the “for me” part. I think that is enough interneting for me today.

          • Lmao Treyarch does not listen to the community, they care more about competitive than the community. That’s a fact.

          • Well I mean BO2 had a good SP and Zombies, but the multiplayer was off for me.

          • God no campaign was terrible it’s the only CoD campaign I never finished and the leaderboards in BO2 zombies were awful, so was the player tracking Die Rise being the worst for it. Mob of the Dead was awesome but it was let down by those shitty boards that stopped tracking progress when someone left or timed out.

          • Ghosts’s Campaign was far better imo, and yeah the boards and shit for Zombies weren’t that great I agree. BO2 for the most part had a DECENT story but was completely linear.

          • Gotta hand it to IW they know how to make an epic campaign. Treyarch did a good job with WaW and BO1’s campaign, I don’t see how they managed to f up BO2.

          • It was too much of a SCI-FI game over a realistic future like what Advanced Warfare has. I’m glad AW will have a great Campaign.

          • I dont if this is relevant, but doesnt gideon look like a young captain price with the beard? 😛 Haha

          • I’d rather have new characters in general instead of rehashing. 😛

          • Haha that isnt what i meant, i mean a new badass. MW had Price, BO had Woods, AW will have Gideon >:D

          • It way those rts missions that irritated me. They broke the flow of the campaign and my interest quicky dropped off.

        • I must interject. It was actually the last true CoD that had the elements that we all can enjoy. Three lane maps, with choke points making for great shootouts. Decent weapons and equipment (minus shock charges), it wasn’t brown or gray….. Need I say more? But dont get me wrong, I enjoy ghosts (more like I have found a class in ghosts that I can try to find enjoyment with), but the maps are horrid and there’s too much emphasis on quick kill times.

          • It had decent maps, but the remade DLC and Turbine, Aftermath, and Drone were SO bad because of the bullshit in the game, like the Target Finder LMGs, quickscopers, and shotgunners. “Brown or gray”? There are far more issues than color, my friend. Ghosts’s environment and “color palette” are realistic. If you want an FPS game with a strong color palette, then play Killzone Shadow Fall (awesome game).

            You say Ghosts’s maps are bad, but they’re just big. The map’s architecture/structures are not bad at all. Plus, Black Ops 2’s maps had major drawbacks to them; headglitches all over the place.

          • You fail to realize that ghosts has abandoned the three lane map, adding flank points to flank points… Its redicilous. Dont say realistic because if you want realizm go to battlefield, there’s your simulator while cod is an arcade shooter.

            The maps are so poorly done that you have spawn issues no matter where you go. And it takes nearly 20 seconds to reenter combat on a huge map. Seige? (personal hate for that map) its too big!

          • Not everyone likes 3 lane maps and headglitches up the ass. I said Ghosts’s ENVIRONMENT, its ATMOSPHERE, is more realistic than any Call of Duty, not its mechanics. And Ghosts has the best mechanics out of the majority of the CoDs. It was just that the execution wasn’t there and the game lacked innovation. Battlefield is also an Arcade shooter, not a simulator. A simulator would be ARMA or America’s Army.

            The maps are big, but the structure of them aren’t bad. But yeah, more players would have been nice, although that would have fucked up the spawns.

          • That’s purely subjective personally I dislike 3 lane maps. I find them boring and predictable. IW have always shunned three lane maps in favour of multiple pathways. I’m with you on the colour pallet though.

          • I understand the that the three lane maps make for more quick, intense, and dare i say fun gameplay. The large maps with multiple flank points made for unorganized gameplay no matter the team you’re with, nor playing against.

          • I don’t think half a six man team locking down a map camped on those choke points is neither fun or intense. 3 lane maps promote camping on team games and produce boring repetative engagements. Multiple pathways allow people to get to objective, flank campers and keep the game moving without runners and gunners having to go 5-20. Disorganisation is the key to making you think, play smarter, become a better player and a better team.

          • The majority of players of the cod playerbase dont want to think about playing the game to be the best or certain flank routes. Understand that three lanes led the newbies to a firefight, a bungie quote that I’d like to put into this “15 seconds of fun”. Not wander a wide open map for a minute or two just to only find one person.

            Mindless wandering should be saved for arma or dayz and not cod… That is not the spirit of the game.

          • Their is a huge difference between mindlessly running about and tactical movement. 3 lane maps don’t allow tactical movement. They only cater to one specific play style and make spawn trapping too easy for a team to implement.

            Leading noobs to a gunfight is fine but leading them to a death trap they have little chance of getting out of is not. In Halo there aren’t any head glitches and weapons have a slower ttk. This makes holding on to a choke point require more gun skill.

            Titanfall, BFBC 2, Crysis 3 and CSGO are great examples of how maps can be open with multiple pathways but still engaging, action packed and competitive. Even the best CoD maps more open.

            Bog, Backlot, Crossfire, Broadcast, Bloc, Overgrown, Downpour, Pipeline, Strike and thats just CoD 4. Most CoD maps have been based on multiple pathways and its more in the spirit of CoD to have this type of map over 3 lanes. It was BO2 that went nuts on the number of 3 lane symetrical maps that were released.

            3 lane symetrical maps are a lazy way to attempt to balance map design. They show us that the developer has put no effort into thinking about how each mode will be played. Take Arkaden in MW3 there are numerous lines of sight and flank routes that are hidden in the map layout.

            It shows that the devs have thought about how the map will be used and designed the map around it rather than the map dictating to the players how it is to be played.

          • Tl;dr

            To sum up what it was going to say, three lane maps worked for CoD. If you don’t like three lane maps, go play the games you listed in your rant.

          • I have to be annoyed for it to be a rant. I was explaining to you why you’re wrong. I play whatever I like. Is that simple enough for you to ununderstand.

          • Oh but I’m not wrong. In face the vocal part of the community and the pros dislike the ghost maps. They are not good for competitive play, and they lack structure. People who play other games are usually lead by a path to the objectives.

            And you were frustrated. I gave up after i realized that you wrote an essay.

        • Such a bad game. I hope Treyarch can capture that WaW magic for 2015. BO1 mp was awful and BO2 generally was awful.

          • Exactly people are hypocrites saying BO2 was terrible than as soon as Ghosts comes out its all of a sudden the best game ever.

          • Well when a game is worse than the previous then obviously we’ll go back to the previous ones. Same thing with Battlefield 4 except it’s not as bad and boring as Ghosts. I still play Battlefield 3 over it because of the frustration problem. And it’s a normal thing with us gamers.

          • Nah it’s better than BO2. Ghosts is a major improvement from MW3 and BO2.

        • it’s the same old thing every year. Black Ops 2 released – everyone hates it. Ghosts comes out, everyone hates Ghosts to death and says BO2 is the best…I’ve been part of the CoD community since CoD 4. Same old crap every year.

    • OMG!! i can’t believe they actually watched Driftor’s video and tweeted him back about it. They really are serious about making this game for the fans! 😀

      • Are fans the people that will enjoy AW or people who have enjoyed CoD in the past? I mean, I would argue they’ve always made this game for the fans. They’ve been bringing in people from the community for about as long as there’s been a notable community online presence. It’s nice to hear this, I just don’t think it was neglected in past CoDs.

    • So let me get this straight. The game has a completely new engine, graphics miles better than Ghosts, it’s going to have completely new elements to change up the franchise, and Sledgehammer seems to be listening to the community? If I’m not dreaming, then I’m going to cry tears of joy.

    • Drift0r made some valid points in that video. Good to see SHG listening to the community. Hopefully the game is smooth and has a very little amount of bugs. Can’t wait. Hope my pre-order was worth it!

      • This is technically their first CoD IP in a lead role. They want to get it right, they want to set the new standard for CoD games and by completely overhauling and building from scratch, they might achieve this.

        I’m more excited to see what fun stuff I can do in every game I play. I have to say, yes CoD is know for its gun battles but its also a great time finding something fun to do within the game that gets a laugh every time you get a killcam.

        Cheers.

        • Yeah same I love the funny weird stuff. I don’t mind the funny out of this world glitches like the Head Stretch Glitch in Ghosts. That shits hilarious. I’m excited man!

          • I’m not even talking about that. Getting kills with the most oddest of weapons/equipments. Like canister grenades (I’ve come to love them and are my favorite equipment) or a thermal’d CBJ. Odd stuff that gets people to understand that there can be fun in an fps game. (although I do hope to see those elements return in AW, the emphasis on pro meets pub and vice versa… Might have some adverse effects on the average player trying to have fun with odd things)

          • Yeah I see what you mean. I really hope they out do themselves this year. If you the YouTuber Drift0r and watched his video about CoD AW wishlist, you would know he made a valid point in that video about Competitive. All the MLG tryhards play half the game we do in terms of they basically strip it down to a little amount of stuff then make them play that. I say let them use IED’s. Let them face the struggle we have to. I’m sick of watching these MLG tryhards who claim they are better then everyone when they don’t have to deal with the bullcrap we have to.

          • I’ve watched driftors video. Been a subscriber for years now.

            I understand that mlg/pro players play half the game we do. I use to be a competitive player, but it didn’t pan out.

            The pro meet pub idea isn’t a bad one, it just needs to be reminded that they shouldn’t be catering to the less than 5% playerbase which are pro players. (I’m not 100% accurate with my numbers)

            I dont want mlg bitching out about something within the game, in the sane aspect i want to feel as though not only am i playing to win ( maybe competitively this game) but to have fun in the same course.

            Its give and take when it comes to the games we are given now a days and I’m hoping that SH pulls us out of that rut.

      • Well one crazy thing he said was wanting the game to basically be pay-2-win with a bunch of gun dlcs and killstreaks you have to buy. Hopefully that’s not there.

          • He said they’d have to be balanced, but honestly any buyer of the game deserves access to all those things. We shouldn’t have to be pocketed to get access to the 60 dollar game we bought. Besides, it’s very hard for them to be completely balanced without being horrible. But he said “I’d rather see more maps, more guns, more killstreaks”.

      • Not sure he didn’t specify. But Drift0r was asking to have the pros and public match play with the same rule set like LoL. He’s probably referring to that as crazy since it would be a lot of work to set that up.

  4. Well, hot damn. It had to be since the graphics for the console screenshots and trailer alone ran circle around ghosts’.

  5. I’m curious as to what they’re calling it. If it’s “IW 7” then it’s clear that they’re still using Id tech 3, however, it seems like they made a brand new engine, and wrote some of the old code in there. I hope that they call it a new name or just call it “in-house”.

  6. Just remember that Battlefield Hardlines engine is a tweaked engine since 2008 with battlefield bad company.

    We are true cod fans and we must rid the assholes that trash the community yet play it or talk about it 24/7

  7. People will still moan about sledgehammers progression. Simply leave this site, don’t buy the game, and hush child.

  8. “New rendering, animation, physics, and audio systems”. These are all surface elements. This sounds to me like the core problems inherent to the internal mechanics of the old engine will still be present. I’m excited to hear that the stuff we actually see will be true next gen, but the old complaints about how the game “feels” are still going to be there.

  9. from my understanding this new engine is exactly what i was expecting. it has everything new, animations, sound, physics etc but they kept that little piece of ID Tech 3 core so it runs like a COD game and not having identity problems seeming its a completely different game. and thats the best choice. gj SH Games.

      • actually it is…even if it has kept the ID Tech 3 at its core everything else is different. hell, even the current COD engine that Ghosts and every single other game before it using it is a different engine. having a core of an engine doesnt automatically makes it the same. look at Rage that uses ID Tech 5 and then see Ghosts that uses ID Tech 3 at its core. the games are completely different, from the texture levels, colors, anti-aliasing etc to pretty much everything with very small similarities in gameplay. and they both use ID Tech! see the pattern here?

        • Exactly!! I tottaly agree with you. SHG has worked so hard and people want more?? And its not even reasonable they want to change the core of the engine?? Sure, lets change Cod for good! >:(

          • People can’t make up their minds, specifically the haters who will never be pleased. First they say the game needs to freshen up and change a lot, then they say the engine has been changed too much and it won’t play like COD anymore. There’s no pleasing them

          • But they demand to change the core!! They think that that makes an engine different! I mean doesnt all this graphical fedelity and all the other things not enough?? Well if they want AW not to feel like cod so be it :/

          • I would love AW to be a new experience. However I said that last year about Ghosts. Just saying guys Ghosts was a complete different game and look how that turned out. Everyone wanted better Hit Detection because it was sooo awful in Bo2 and they got it and now they moan about it. Hopefully everyone decides to shut their gobs and play the damn game this year and hopefully enjoy it.

          • Haha. Yeah in all honesty I enjoyed Ghosts. I really did. I think its a fun game and they improved a lot of stuff. Perk system was SPOT ON. I can’t be any more serious. I love the perk system. The gun balancing is the best since CoD 4. Anyone who says “M-TAR and Bulldog” well those aren’t OP just very good guns. The only thing people complain about in Ghosts now is IED’s. I’m probably gonna play the absolute crap out of AW. This game has a great chance to bring CoD back up from the ashes.

          • what frustrates me is that people know so little about games and how a game engine works and is developed. i have done my research after witnessing the train wreck (Ghosts) because i got bullshited on. now at least i know how they work and wont be fooled ever again. cant say the same about the rest of the community though.

          • Exactly at least some of us know what makes an engine different. People cant be pleased even if they change everything for the better. They do not deserve SHG’s game, who by far to me migth be one of the best things to happen to the franchise. This guys have heard the community like no one else has. Very little developers are like them in the gaming world and still ignorant people still bash them! Ridiculous!! SHG thank you for everything, i dont care how the game will come up, but i truly havent seen such dedication to the community! Thank you!

          • and your comment pretty much sums up my point. they CARE! they give a damn about us. thats something not many developers do. but ignorant people are ignorant. but lets wait until E3 to see how much of “the same engine” AW is going to be using. cant wait to make a fool out of idiots like @disqus_aKuTpW5nIt:disqus and @sillibk:disqus

          • Yeah, i mean have you seen the screenshots from the magazine? They are incredible, of course its been done by the same engine ( sarcasm )

          • Haha yeah me neither. I want to see that smartass Chief look like an idiot. They look down on CoD every year. If AW really is going to live up to it’s hype than I’m sorry to say no game will be able to compete not Hardline, nothing. The story looks great, the MP looks to be amazing.

        • The same core gameplay mechanics are still there. This means that the game will continue to think in frames per second (which isn’t a good thing), and quickscoping will continue to exist.

          The CoD engine has always UPGRADED the engine, even if the Quake coding on Ghosts was unrecognizable or not, it’s still not a new engine (even if it uses Umbra 3 slapped on Quake III).

          • can you explain the “game thinks in frames per second” cause i’m kinda close in grasping what you’re talking about but i want to be sure before continuing.

          • Hard for me to explain so tell me what you are thinking of first because my mind is drawing blanks right now.

          • what i’m thinking is that whatever you are thinking has nothing to do with the game itself. and what you’re talking about is probably a thing that some games do like lock the framerate to the gameplay and when the framerate drops the game performance drops as well but thats not a thing COD does so…what is the point you’re trying to make?

          • When he says the game thinks in frames, he means that the mathematics that determine how the core mechanics operate are directly tied to the frame rate. How fast a player moves, aims, weapon fire rates etc.. is directly linked to how many fps your system produces.

            This is why the host always has a bad time in BO2 because his system is also the server he gets frame rate drops. This means he moves slower, has a lower fire rate and a bunch of other problems. Carmack designed the engine like this to overcome problems with api’s and hardware that no longer exist.

          • Well who doesnt say that although the core is the same it hasnt been modified since everything else is too, by SHG. We’ll have to wait and see man, but have faith, its SHG were talking about 😉

          • The core has always been the same to attempt to modify the core would be disastrous. Even Carmack couldn’t do it which is why iD tech 5 is a completely new code.

          • Still things like those you mentioned can be excluded, but personally i dont think is that big of a deal 😛 But what do i know?

          • It’s hard to explain but to change the way the engine performs calculations would be like erasing your memory of how to do simple math and then trying to teach you how to do calculus. The amount of work required would take many, many, years to accomplish.
            Tim Sweeny had similar issues with Unreal 3 and Unreal 4 was in development since 2003 because it wasn’t economically viable to modify the code, in the end a complete re-write had to be done.
            I’m not saying it’s impossible its just highly improbable that it could be done in three years.

          • Well then if SHG couldnt do it in 3 years why should i complain? Maybe now that everything is different but the core, will give more opportunities to change even that ( although im still not sure if its a smart move ) by treyarch or infinity ward in the near future. What SHG has done so far is beyond satisfying its revolutionary, to me at least 🙂 .

          • If you have never noticed the problem then indeed there is no need to worry. SHG have done more than any Dev has ever done which is great news, but there is a whole new generation of engines like Cry, Snow Drop, Unreal 4, ID tech 5 and Source (still in development) that really will start churning out great games on the new systems. I just want CoD to be a part of this renaissance, not on the outside looking in.

          • I understand your opinion man, its the next gen generation time, of course we want cod to be part of this-all of us. But i think AW will surprise either way 😉

          • i see what you’re saying, but its too soon to assume that this is still into the engine. after all “keeping the core” doesnt mean that it keeps flaws of the engine. it keeps things like how a player moves throughout the world, hitboxes and a whole lot of other things except what you mentioned. i believe this is a flaw that can be easily taken out from the engine.

            and even if it isnt taken out i dont see anything wrong with it. right now any console or PC is going to be able to keep running a COD game on 60 fps or more without having framedrops either being a host or not. but if we are talking about PS3 and Xbox360, i believe it is time for those people to upgrade into a new console or a PC.

          • In this case it does, keeping the core will bring all the old problems with it.

            “and even if it isnt taken out i dont see anything wrong with it.”

            This is a problem especially for the PC community. It also works the other way higher frame rates mean higher movement speeds, faster fire rates, absolutely everything is tied to the frame rate.

            “right now any console or PC is going to be able to keep running a COD game on 60 fps or more without having framedrops either being a host or not.”

            This isn’t true frame rate drops happen all the time you just don’t notice them because they happen quickly. But it does have an adverse effect on game play. This is why there are frame rate caps on the PC versions of Call of Duty games.
            It’s not a deal breaker yet but in this day and age there is no need for problems like this to exist.

            They could adopt ID tech 5 and have a much easier time developing the game. With ID tech 3 everything is a work around the way the engine functions.

          • if it means faster everything why i never had a problem running BO on 90 frames instead of 60 on PC? this problem sounds like nothing at all. you’re just overusing it to make a point that is non-existent. but hey, its your opinion.

            they could adopt ID Tech 5 yeah but i believe while they thought about it they also thought that they wont be able to remake the gameplay that COD has due to ID Tech 3. as much as advanced ID Tech 5 is it lacks one thing and that is what ID Tech 3 has. fast, arcade-y gameplay. and thats a no-sell for ATVI unfortunately. it took me some time to realize and i was kinda disappointed when i did cause our best bet was to see COD using ID Tech 5 (although i was always dreaming of Unreal) even that isnt possible cause they need to work on it a lot, which means a lot of money on research and development. and ATVI doesnt want to give money on that. they instead merged their own in-house engine with the core of ID Tech 3. will the problems of ID Tech 3 continue to stab COD in the back? we’ll see soon enough.

          • The engine is in it’s infancy, there is no reason why the ID tech 5 couldn’t be adapted to suit the fast paced action style of todays CoD titles.

            “if it means faster everything why i never had a problem running BO on 90 frames instead of 60 on PC? this problem sounds like nothing at all.”

            You won’ have problem running at 90 you will just have a competitive edge over someone running at a lower frame rate. After seeing the MK 10 trailer I would also love to see CoD on Unreal 4 that shit gave me a proper nerdgasm.

            The engine should be developed outside of the games development time and used only when ready. Yes it will cost them a lot of money but not as much as it will cost them if CoD becomes outdated and everyone moves on to the next big thing.

            Console transition is the ideal time for competitors to bring out the big guns and blow everyone away. CoD 4 did it on the 360 and PS3 and I see no reason why it can’t happen again.

          • yeah, Unreal engine is the thing to give nerdgasms to anyone that knows a thing or two about game engines and boy do i like me some Unreal engine, if you know what i’m tlaking about… 😉

            yeah i guess they could. but i still wont believe that the problems of ID Tech 3 are still there until proven otherwise. this thing doesnt even look like it has anything left from ID Tech 3.

          • I wish I shared your optimism, I won’t believe they are gone until I see otherwise.

          • Indeed true gamer porn. Unreal 4 also has a very reasonable licencing deal. Come on Activision make it so!

          • i fully agree with your first sentence!

            what’s the deal? i think it is just 300 or 400 usd/euros if you are a pro or something? but yeah, i vaguely remember that it is good. ATVI needs to take notice.

          • Nah it’s about $20 dollars a month. Cry Engine is $10, of course it’s per licence but still that’s no cost at all really is it.

          • Pretty much yeah. Pretty much the lag in multiplayer in general is thanks to Id tech 3.

          • True, but it’s frame latency not network latency. Some people don’t know the difference.

          • It effects the core functions of the multiplayer, giving an unbalanced experience.

        • Here is where the problem lies though. ID tech 3’s core mechanics are tied into frames per second. There is as long as my arm of little irritating flaws that this causes.

          The game can look and feel completely different but it still carries the engines core and the flaws that are associated with it. The engine was designed around fps to overcome hardware issuse that simply don’t exist anymore.

          Since 1999 hardware has changed massively. The old core simply can not deal with the hardware efficently and needs to be phased out.

          • Im not really familiar with this tying to fps, can you please explain it for me? What sort of limitations does it cause?

          • And as i replied too you, its still possible that its modified to avoid these things, i mean SHG changed everything else and since they listen to the community so much, it might be possible that they modified the core without changing it. Just wait but have faith man 😉

  10. Isn’t this him basically saying it’s still build around the old engine but with new improvements? Lol he can beat around the bush all he wants but he basically just said that SH did the same thing as every other studio.. He just worded it nicely lol

    • So the majority of the engine being new and some lines from the previous engine = previous engine with new things added?

      That logic

  11. That is good news to hear! Finally we’ll be able to play on a brand new engine and not the old engines. I hope that the next CoD after AW do the same and develop a new engine. They should have done it before but it’s understandable how before it was a 2 year cycle instead of 3.

  12. Greatest new ive ever heard!! Theyve changed almost everything and kept the core of the old engine so that this cod remains cod. Congratulations SHG you did it! Also does anyone know where to find the whole version of the magazine?

  13. “It’s the same engine… but we modified it like every other year, so it’s brand new”

    So, same old thing. That being said, I’d say this is better news as
    a) Engine is simply tools, doesn’t build the entire game
    b) They don’t need to waste time getting to the same spot they were already at — they can just build

    • They didnt say that they said that they changed almost everything but kept the core of the old engine so that AW is still recognisable as a Call of Duty.

      • That’s wording it fancy.

        Yes, it appears they did update a lot of things, but the thing is the CoD community is incredible ignorant as to what an engine actually does. It’s tools for building the game, but for some reason everyone things it is the game, which is simply not true. The things they switched are going to make the game look better, but the core issues that the engine leaves are going to remain untouched.

        Ghosts had pretty much this exact same quote last year, this is just worded slightly prettier.

        • Well do we want to core to change? Of course not! Then it wouldnt be Cod, they changed everything else apart from that. And im sorry but you cant compare these big changes that Sledgehammer has done to the engine with the one IW did with Ghosts, this obviously is 50x better.

          • Yes, obviously it is, when we have had no exposure to the actual game yet, just people wording things fancy to market their product.

            Robert Bowling said “no last stand in MW3!” and yet there was still last stand, but that was obviously better than other last stands.

          • Incorrect. There is Final Stand (the death streak). There is no Last Stand (the Perk). You are guilty of taking liberties with a clearly worded, if misleading based on interpretation, statement.

        • Can you just leave? Seriously stop acting like you know everything. These people have had training in programming etc for years. What are you? A fat slob who writes hate mail on the internet? GTFO!

  14. No where does he say its a completely new engine, he says, “Enough has been built from scratch”, just like ghosts.

  15. “Some of the lines of old Call of Duty engine exists, but majority of it has been built from scratch that the old engine is unrecognizable.”
    Of course some lines from the old engine must be present or else the core would be much different and it wouldnt feel like Cod. And theyre right, from the trailers and the screenshots this doesnt look almost anything like the new engine. I dont know why people still bitch about it.

    • So building a new engine from scratch and taking some lines from the old engine = taking the old engine and updating it? You people suck at comprehending. Oh and later the issue when on the say that “This is the first Cod with a brand new engine. The previous Cod engines were just taking the base of the engine and modifying it to improve functionality.”

  16. So according to some of you people in the comment section

    Building a new engine from scratch and taking some lines from the old engine = taking the old engine and updating it?

    And I thought I had terrible comprehension skills.

    • I will not pre order it but I will get an early copy from Kijiji. I always get it at least a week earlier than the scheduled release date and play it offline.

    • You idiot, they started from scratch and took some lines from the old engine. This is a new engine.

  17. Love how it says improve the functionality. Like each game was any more better then the next honestly the game is still all equal just doesn’t have as much bs as thr one before and or after. Lag comp, spawn, connection are my main worries for AW. I don’t feel good knowing it’s a good new engine because you can still throw me in front of the whole fucking team when I come back to life also hate the cheating fucks who hit a switch to win or fuck up someone’s connection because there garbage as fuck. Then to the person who happens to be good no problems but has a much better connection then me. So it’s an unfair treatment from a multi billion company who is now after 7 years making there new engine fucking please.

  18. Didn’t IW do this as well? Anyway it’s good to see that SHG is putting all their effort in AW can’t wait for E3!

  19. U crybabies wanting the classic cod feel on a completely new engine are retarded. Completely new engine means completely new game and i dnt want that. Cod just need to build on what worked from previous engines and rectify what didnt work and it will be fine. I dnt care what the engine is called, as long as they make the core game better while still being able to call itself cod is all that matters. It seems like u guys wont be happy until cod is a carbon clone of some less successful EA shooter. U guys buy cod every year because u obviously like the core game enough to buy a sequel so stop bitching when u get it.

  20. The Cod community is getting dumber by the year. This “new” engine is just the old engine updated again

    • So building a new engine from scratch and taking some codes from the old engine = taking the old engine and updating it? Comprehension skills at its finest.

      • No that is two different things.building a new engine from scratch is implying ur building a completely new engine and putting old code in it. Last year we heard the same thing from IW about ghosts. You sound new to CoD Propaganda

        • “building a new engine from scratch is implying ur building a completely new engine and putting old code in it” Which is what they did. I know that IW lied about a new engine, but guess what? They said that they upgraded the engine, yea, UPGRADE. So no, it wasn’t a new engine, but an upgrade.

        • Well, at least this time they didn’t just say “It’s a new engine” like every CoD game for the last few years. “New engine” = old engine with at least one part reworked or replaced. Not saying it always means “almost exactly like the old one” since some developers actually do major reworking on parts of the engine while replacing some completely, creating something that deserves to be called new. However, for Call of Duty it does.

          Saying majority was built from scratch indeed does imply that you can hardly call it an upgrade. Basically, this time there is no excuse if it still is mostly recycled.

  21. No Call of Duty will ever be good enough for you people. You will knit pick each and every aspect until its release, and then you will buy it and play it constantly and find things to complain about it until the next title is announced. You will also repeat the cycle, which is the worst part. If you’re so concerned about a new engine, go find another game to play and enjoy your 2 to 3 year wait for its next installment.

    • You know else is repeated constantly? Reponses like yours. If people want to complain, they have that right. Planting a soapbox on each and every thread and trying to browbeat them down doesn’t work.

  22. Am I the only one that is concerned when they say that this “new engine” is unrecognizable?

    When Ghosts came out, everyone hated on it saying “this piece of shit doesn’t even feel like a CoD game, it’s more like Battlefield etc..”.

    I’ve played 14 days on Ghosts and to me, whatever IW did with the engine, broke Ghosts and almost broke Call of Duty. It’s not I.E.D’s or anything to do with OP weapons or killstreaks, it’s deeper than that – it’s how the game feels, plays, movements – the basics.

    Just like a band needs to keep it’s uniqueness and own sound, Call of Duty needs to keep some of the basics from it’s original engine it’s carried through from the very beginning. Get rid of all the shit coding that IW have ruined Ghosts with and make a tight game – I think Sledgehammer understand this and have the capability of delivering.

    I really hope SH really grasp this chance and are the fans they say they are, and if they really have built 80% of a new engine, the other 20% is the bits they can’t take away without taking the CoD out of CoD.

  23. This is a very small thing but I’m hoping that Advanced Warfare doesn’t have the sprinting animations (in first person) like Modern Warfare 3. That’d be a small instance that it’s using the same ole engine. That’s what made other people think instantly that Ghosts used the same engine last year when they saw gameplay at E3. Fingers crossed.

    • Exactly! Everyone loved MW2 and many hate Ghosts. But if they take a little from the good stuff from the old days then I am totally fine with that. If it feels enough like a new engine from scratch that is enough from me. Even if a very small portion is carried over. I think half of a great game comes from graphics and the other half comes from ingenuity. BO2 didn’t have the best of graphics. They were good but not great. However, Treyarch had some amazing ideas that made the game fun to play and never seemed to get old.

  24. Actually, the title of this article is misleading. Codrey didn’t say the engine is built from scratch, nor that the old engine is unrecognizable. He said, “enough” was built from scratch, which makes it “almost unrecognizable.” The question is, what is “enough”, and who will hardly be able to recognize the old engine? It seems like an unclear statement. Yet, the article states that this is “…the first Call of Duty game to be completely built off of a new, built from scratch engine.” Where did that come from?

    After watching the few in game trailer scenes, I would say the engine is “recognizable” and that there are (perhaps) enough changes to warrant a new title; but, a new engine? We’ll have to wait and see. Ghost’s was also reported to be an new engine, and it was rather a fresh disaster.

  25. Sorry but I can’t trust them anymore. I agree with sillibk. Must be they copied pasted lots of things that was used for years on CoD. Also saying “the majority” makes me wanna think the graphics engine was just “heavily modified” like they say every year. Every single year they say it in a different way to calm down people that are tired of the game looking the same. Fucking lazy fucks. Look at Ghosts’ new map pack with Favela! They went from using the same layout but “reimagined”, to just the same exact fucking map with Ghosts’ textures and what not. Fucking lazy devs pushed by a greedy publisher. And yeah I’ll buy it because I still wanna see Sledgehammers take on CoD but if we don’t express our honest opinion, we’d have a worst CoD every year. So it’s thanks to “whiners” that they eventually decide to change or improve in certain aspects. I’ll hope for the best but prepare myself for the worst. Low expectations so I won’t be disapointed. Besides I’m too positive and never regret my purchases. Bad quality for things like these imo.

  26. I think we should just play it and decide on whether this was a good move or not. As of now I really appreciate all the hard work they are putting into this next call of duty. As long as it isn’t like a Ghosts #2 then I think it will be a great game, and as of now it looks that way.

  27. So let me see, all of the COD games since World at War has been COPY & PASTE with immediately-forgetable story lines, 1-2 little new features to multiplayer (weapon xp etc.), (obviously) different maps, SAME EXACT shitty graphics engine (only a 280gtx required to run) But now you say this is going to be different. why would we believe you? you said the same thing last time around for ghosts ?
    Besides you can’t even name your engine…what gives?

LEAVE A REPLY