Sledgehammer: Modern Warfare 3 Engine is Not "F***ing Spaghetti"
""We worked with engines before that are like f***ing spaghetti..." says Dev.
Not "F***ing Spaghetti"
Glen Schofield, general manager of Modern Warfare 3 co-developer Sledgehammer Games is a little ticked-off with talk of the game engine being tired.
"If you put Modern Warfare 2 next to Modern Warfare 3 you would see a huge difference," he says in a recent interview.
"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."
In fact, he even makes comparisons, ""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," he points out.
He is also frank regarding engine vs game, "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."
So, well, there.
Source: CVG
"If you put Modern Warfare 2 next to Modern Warfare 3 you would see a huge difference," he says in a recent interview.
"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."
In fact, he even makes comparisons, ""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," he points out.
He is also frank regarding engine vs game, "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."
So, well, there.
Source: CVG
Companies:
Sledgehammer
Read More Like This
Comments
Oldy McOldsalot 17 Oct 2011 15:13
1/3
I'm glad to read this, I'm sick of the BF3/MW3 battle/debate/flame war. It's the worst thing since cancer and it makes me feel like an old man because I simply don't care to get involved in your elementary pissing contests about a video game.
When I was a kid, there were two types of people- Sega or Nintendo. I had a few buddies that were Sega kids, while I was a Nintendo kid. We never argued. In fact, it was nice to hang out and play Sega and try something different for a change (Golden Axe, ftw). Then things got a little heated with the MK/SFII era, but it was still friendly. Now it seems like even the devs have to come out and be like "Chill the f**k out about this "old engine" s**t." and it's sad they have to even waste their time because you little kids will argue over anything.
I could say "I prefer creamy peanut butter over crunchy." and there'll be 10 little kids saying "LULZ! Enjoy your faggot food! QUEER! Crunchy is for MEN! Only MEN eat it, little KIDS eat creamy! JIF keeps making the same stupid creamy peanut butter and they expect me to pay for it!?"
When I was a kid, there were two types of people- Sega or Nintendo. I had a few buddies that were Sega kids, while I was a Nintendo kid. We never argued. In fact, it was nice to hang out and play Sega and try something different for a change (Golden Axe, ftw). Then things got a little heated with the MK/SFII era, but it was still friendly. Now it seems like even the devs have to come out and be like "Chill the f**k out about this "old engine" s**t." and it's sad they have to even waste their time because you little kids will argue over anything.
I could say "I prefer creamy peanut butter over crunchy." and there'll be 10 little kids saying "LULZ! Enjoy your faggot food! QUEER! Crunchy is for MEN! Only MEN eat it, little KIDS eat creamy! JIF keeps making the same stupid creamy peanut butter and they expect me to pay for it!?"
Oldy_McOldsalot 17 Oct 2011 15:35
2/3
@Oldy_McOldsalot
Also,
I'm a software developer. I write code for a living. Even the simplest of programs have an "engine". So when I read stuff like kids bashing the engine, I really get irritated. They don't understand what an engine does. It's a "catch phrase" they heard or read in some magazine and it makes them feel like they know something about development- and they simply don't. In it's primitive form, all an engine is, is a set of basic rules for the structure of the game.
This could be anything from how high the character jumps, to how AI acts, what determines the character is standing on something solid or not, what bullets can pass through, bullets' changed trajectory after passing through objects, or how much health is lost with each type of weapon depending on which hit box is activated... the list goes on, but generally speaking, a list of rules which don't change very much from game to game. (Can't speak to these as far as Activision is concerned, since I've never looked at their source code, but generally speaking, this is how engines work)
Now upgrades to AI, hit detection, character-to-ground... these happen in upgraded engines. Not to mention the textures, graphics upgrades, and additions to mechanics they usually add. There's simply NO reason to RE-WRITE code that will do the exact same thing as originally intended and performed. Do you want the character to jump higher? Do you want the bullets to do more damage? These are variables and the sub routines don't need to be re-written because the outcome would be very, very similar. Change the mechanics too much, however, and it becomes a different style of game all together (ie, you get Halo mechanics in a COD game with people jumping all over the place, and bullets doing 1% damage on head shots, etc). No game-maker wants to do that because then the common complaint would be "It's a completely different game. It doesn't feel the same at all!" which according to sales, is counter productive. They have a good engine. They don't need to change that formula. The upgrades are most welcome, however.
Also,
I'm a software developer. I write code for a living. Even the simplest of programs have an "engine". So when I read stuff like kids bashing the engine, I really get irritated. They don't understand what an engine does. It's a "catch phrase" they heard or read in some magazine and it makes them feel like they know something about development- and they simply don't. In it's primitive form, all an engine is, is a set of basic rules for the structure of the game.
This could be anything from how high the character jumps, to how AI acts, what determines the character is standing on something solid or not, what bullets can pass through, bullets' changed trajectory after passing through objects, or how much health is lost with each type of weapon depending on which hit box is activated... the list goes on, but generally speaking, a list of rules which don't change very much from game to game. (Can't speak to these as far as Activision is concerned, since I've never looked at their source code, but generally speaking, this is how engines work)
Now upgrades to AI, hit detection, character-to-ground... these happen in upgraded engines. Not to mention the textures, graphics upgrades, and additions to mechanics they usually add. There's simply NO reason to RE-WRITE code that will do the exact same thing as originally intended and performed. Do you want the character to jump higher? Do you want the bullets to do more damage? These are variables and the sub routines don't need to be re-written because the outcome would be very, very similar. Change the mechanics too much, however, and it becomes a different style of game all together (ie, you get Halo mechanics in a COD game with people jumping all over the place, and bullets doing 1% damage on head shots, etc). No game-maker wants to do that because then the common complaint would be "It's a completely different game. It doesn't feel the same at all!" which according to sales, is counter productive. They have a good engine. They don't need to change that formula. The upgrades are most welcome, however.
TimSpong 17 Oct 2011 15:46
3/3
Oldy_McOldsalot wrote:
@Oldy_McOldsalot
Also,
I'm a software developer. I write code for a living. Even the simplest of programs have an "engine". So when I read stuff like kids bashing the engine, I really get irritated. They don't understand what an engine does. It's a "catch phrase" they heard or read in some magazine and it makes them feel like they know something about development- and they simply don't. In it's primitive form, all an engine is, is a set of basic rules for the structure of the game.
Also,
I'm a software developer. I write code for a living. Even the simplest of programs have an "engine". So when I read stuff like kids bashing the engine, I really get irritated. They don't understand what an engine does. It's a "catch phrase" they heard or read in some magazine and it makes them feel like they know something about development- and they simply don't. In it's primitive form, all an engine is, is a set of basic rules for the structure of the game.
Hi,
You wouldn't fancy expanding on this for an wider feature? I'd love to print it.
Regards
Tim