Activision’s Bobby Kotick must be on extreme damage-control mode, storming through offices making sure his employees aren’t making the company look any worse for wear by actually being honest with the public. That postulation follows events from a few days ago when the gaming community lambasted Activision after the whole Modern Warfare 3 vs Battlefield 3 fallout occurred when Infinity Ward’s creative strategist, Robert Bowling mentioned that Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 wouldn’t be running on a new engine. Well, CVG landed an interview with Bowling because Kotick probably wanted him to clear the air and make it known to the gaming universe that Bowling didn’t really mean what he tweeted.
Bowling said in the interview with CVG that…
"I was speaking hypothetically and from a top-line philosophy that building a ground-up engine is counter productive. [I was] not referring to any specific project, simply clarifying with that user that we never - for any game - build a 'brand new' engine, but iterate on a solid base as you noted in your article, adding what's needed and innovates it.
Of course. Isn’t that what every developer does for sequels? However, some people have recognized the evolution in gaming with some franchises. Bungie did this between Halo 2 and Halo 3 and between Halo: ODST and Halo: Reach. Crysis 2 for instance, is running on the newer CryEngine 3, an upgrade from the CryEngine 2 for Crysis. Of course, DICE’s upcoming Battlefield 3 is running on the new FrostBite 2.0 engine, which is a half-step up from the FrostBite 1.5 used in Bad Company 2. So you don’t have to build an entirely new engine for an ongoing franchise but it doesn’t hurt to upgrade to a newer engine if the franchise is expected to compete and innovate in an industry that’s all about interactive innovation.
Anyway, Bowling wanted to further clarify his point on the matter so no one walks away confused, he mentioned that…
"The key point is the difference between inferring 'nothing new' and what we were actually discussing which was 'ground-up'. This is standard, as near every engine currently in use by us and other developers are iterations on their previous codebase."
Just to be clear, the exact exchange between Bowling and the user went as follows: "someone just needs to spend the $ and construct a new engine for the CoD franchise... Ground up," Bowling replied: "That would be counter productive. An engine takes years and years to develop and get right."
I still don’t see the counter productivity in designing a new engine given that a strategic development move like that (initiated years before they got to this rock and hard-place scenario) would have allowed the team to break away from the current, formulaic route the Call of Duty franchise is currently on. However, it does make sense why they wouldn’t start from scratch for a game that’s supposed to be due out this fall. Usually an engine built from the ground up is attached to a new IP to showcase the engine and game’s potential, such as the Source with Half Life, CryEngine with Far Cry or id’s Tech 5 with Rage.
Nevertheless, Bowling’s comments are still irksome insofar that he simply could have responded with “No worries, we’ll surprise gamers soon enough.” Or “Tech-schmeck, Battlefield 3 is no sweat off our backs.” Something smarmy and sarcastic would have done just as well to add some mystery to the project and a little bit of hope that we won’t end up with Black Ops 2.0 in a game called Modern Warfare 3. But simply out-right denying the use of a brand new engine for Activision’s biggest franchise was literally asking for community backlash. How does it look that a billion dollar franchise leading the pack of first-person shooter games in sales is the last of the bunch to do anything new, original, unique or different? 60 frames per second will only carry you so far but it takes more than smooth frame rates and blockbuster set pieces to justify the amount of money the Call of Duty franchise is now raking in.
One thing is for sure: Battlefield 3 has Activision up in a stir and it’s not because the game is a threat to sales but a threat to the company’s publishing integrity. Everyone is now looking at Activision to step up to the plate and prove that they’re not just in it to squeeze money off consumers with annual outings consisting of a $60 re-skin and new maps.
You can keep up to date on both games by heading on over to the Official Call of Duty Website or the Official Battlefield Website.
Babygirl's Director Explains Why Working With Intimacy Coordinators Is Like Working With Stuntmen
Harrison Ford Revealed The Project He's Felt The Most 'Comfortable' And 'Confident' Working On, And It Makes So Much Sense
The Story Behind Joe Pesci Accidentally Biting Macaulay Culkin While Filming Home Alone And Scaring Him
