So basically it just comes down to a "NO U!" but in slightly fancier words. You haven't said what's wrong with the evidence, just that you refuse to accept it. Fantastic, this has gotten nowhere.

At least other people came in who challenged what I said instead of just running away screaming "LALALALA IW SAID SO I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU" like you are.

CoD4 is a heavily modified Q3 tech. there was an article by a infinity ward employee stating that exact thing.

No developer would ever lie, then? Those HL2 E3 scenes WERE all dynamic and not scripted!

http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/493584
I guess that's wrong about CoD4's link to Q3 too?

Just to you. The rest of us stopped caring when you went off the deep end yesterday.

Carmack's is a long-time programmer as well as a director and he talks in blogs and interviews about the nuts and bolts of EVERY technical aspect of hardware, software, drivers, API's, you name it. So, he clearly knows his shit. So for whatever reason Doom 3 failed as an engine, Carmack bears some heavy blame. I'd like to see him succeed with the next engine because he is quite talented.

This is rapidly approaching absurd.

There are two sides - one is the developer stating it is a proprietary engine; the other is you, a random person on the internet, saying it isn't. Is it really surprising that people disagree with you?

So basically it just comes down to a "NO U!" but in slightly fancier words. You haven't said what's wrong with the evidence, just that you refuse to accept it. Fantastic, this has gotten nowhere.

and I still disagree entirely with everything you said (that the CoD4 engine isn't proprietary), as I do not accept any of the "evidence" you give to support the claim.

Like what? Make an actual game?

Ooohhh burnnnnn!

Please point out any quote that mentioned a graphics engine? nin's original post said nothing about graphics. I said nothing about graphics.

The fact that you didn't even bother to read a damn word I said shows me that I really shouldn't bother responding. But I've never been known as someone who listens to what I SHOULD do. Go back and read my post, and read what I was responding to, and then reply if you still disagree. The quote was about engine, not graphics engine, and I said Quake3, not Doom3.

I don't give two shits what some developer says, as the box and the evidence says differently. I also specifically pointed out that CoD4 using the Doom3 graphics engine was an ignorant statement, but yet it was completely ignored like it never happened.

These comment threads are becoming increasingly lame to be a part of. It's simply a circle-jerk of wrong information and some sort of PC vs console conspiracy nowadays.

It's one thing when a message board says something uninformed (CoD4 is Doom3 engine) but it's another when the developer itself spreads a bald-faced lie.
It's one thing when a message board says something uninformed (CoD4 is Doom3 engine) but it's another when the developer itself spreads a bald-faced lie.
It's one thing when a message board says something uninformed (CoD4 is Doom3 engine) but it's another when the developer itself spreads a bald-faced lie.

Maybe you'll see it this time.

These comment threads are becoming increasingly lame to be a part of. It's simply a circle-jerk of wrong information .....

we’re pushing on the fidelity, visually. We’re also pushing on the gameplay fidelity. Those two things are huge. For us, we’re doing things that we’ve never done before.

I'm fairly sure that CoD4 uses a heavily modified version of the Build engine.

On some level this is all semantics. What do you mean when you say "engine?"

I don't know if I'd call the master browser protocol a fundamental thing or not - at some point given how many games were written to Quake 3's specs that set of commands becomes a de facto standard.

Anyway, I think we fundamentally agree on the major points and are really arguing semantics. We draw different lines about what "new engine" means, but I think a lot of that is because all the terms are overloaded to the point of implosion.

BTW, I am not disagreeing that CoD was originally based on Quake 3, but given how far their games have evolved from CoD1 -> CoD4 I find it pretty unlikely that anything of great significance remains. I'd be very curious to compare how much is left in IW's games vs. (say) Source.

BTW, I'm told by someone in IRC that they also claimed CoD2 was a proprietary engine, even though you could find references to Quake 3 in the exe file, and OpenGL error messages despite it being a Direct3D game. So this wouldn't be the first time IW is playing loose with definitions as it pertains to their engine.