Originally Posted by bd2003
Id either just stopped licensing it or the industry as a whole thumbed their nose at it. Look at a list of idtech 4 games - they're all id or related properties. I know Carmack said they just stopped wanting to license it out so they could focus in house, but that might just be saving face after their failure to garner interest for their tech.
idtech was going in a direction that wasn't going to work for cod. They were going for big sprawling maps in quake wars: enemy territory with their megatextures, which is completely unusable for random spawning MP games in cod. Even in idtech 5, textures need to reload even if you do so much as turn around
. Rage also has horrendous animation, and really poor environmental effects. It's just a terrible fit for cod, and it's no coincidence Rage didn't have your standard deathmatch MP.
Unreal engine has never focused on speed, just features and frame quality over rate, so that was never going to be a good fit either.
So their only real choice was to develop the engine on their own, in the direction they needed it to go. They may have licensed Idtech 3 almost 10 years ago, but it's hardly the same engine it was then. Its like saying gears of war 3 is based on the same tech that powered unreal tournament. Its a pet peeve of mine that people swallow this "brand new engine" marketing nonsense. Its such a bum rap to label cod as old tech, ignoring the fact that every modern engine is a derivative of its predecessor. Some modern engines might be capable of things beyond current consoles, and can produce some epic bullshots and trailers, but that's irrelevant as soon as you put the disc in the drive.
People seriously need to be reminded what quake 3 looked like.
Well, it's wrong to label it new tech too. The core engine is still there, even if modified. It's not a knock at all, just a fact that the engine was so versatile that it's been going forever. Even when COD launched, we were seeing other games that were more technically impressive. But they didn't do 60FPS. They didn't have the feel of COD. Didn't get the level design right. Or the gameplay, ect.
I just have a problem with people trying to rewrite history on what made COD the industry leader it is. It was never the tech. The people that propelled it's sales just don't know and don't care about that stuff. People and even reviews will claim it's the best looking game out there. They might not play many games, and they don't care. To them it is, because it's what they know.
And it's worth pointing out when us GFX geeks get all riled up about pushing technology, or publishers lament system limitations.
In the end, a modified Q3A engine ran a 3 billion dollar franchise, and still is. MW3 is actually the first game where it appears they started hitting barriers in their level design and animations systems where it's not going to cut it anymore, and even those instances were few and far between.
As for ID, they're in trouble with their engines as far as I know. Unreal has been the defacto console engine this gen for just about everything. Mostly because it can scale properly, unlike ID's processor intensive tech shows. They went with something more open environment with Rage, but it still is very power hungry and isn't going to scale well based on needs, as you've pointed out. Unreal on the other hand is just insane how many different genres and types of games it has serviced, everything from hallway shooters to open world games to freaking side scrollers.
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON
Let's also consider how much Square Enix spent making the FF13 engine. Now compare screenshots of 13 vs HD renders of 10, the difference is actually rather small.
An expensive high tech engine isn't always the best choice.
Which goes to my point. New systems and new expensive engines to take advantage of those systems ain't going to fix bad games, and the woes of publishers. I love new tech and toys too, but to think it's going to save the industry from the slump they are in is not realistic. It's just going to sprinkle some sugar on a **** cake.