new engine from id

[BFG10K]

After the Doom3 letdown ...

Letdown? To whom? The title was a commercial success.

 

[apoppin]

so was Spiderman3 game

 

[cyrillus]

it's not even Commander Keen!

I miss commander keen...:-(

 

[Barfo]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
i dont understand why anyone expected doom to be anything other than doom.

Did you ever play the original doom or doom 2? doom 3 was not like them, not at all.

 

[0roo0roo]

they even have doom 1 on xbox 360 live http://www.atomicgamer.com/article.php?id=301
4 way split screen is kinda interesting

 

[UF Matt]

I'd expect him to stick to coding that he knows. To dumb it down a lot, it's like how I still use notepad (html w/tables) and paint shop pro to make websites. Doesn't mean it can't look good.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: apoppin

just like they saw when we first showed Doom 3, that John Carmack still has a lot of magic left."

where?


After the Doom3 letdown ... i am not going to be first in line to buy 'his' game on whatever engine ... his engines are seriously cool, however
--and i think he just wants to get in on the 'DX10 money'

edited

Doom 3 is *STILL* one of the best engines out there.

I thoroughly enjoyed the game, i dont understand why anyone expected doom to be anything other than doom.

You have got to be kidding me? Doom 3 was crap, the engine was crap, the game was crap... it should have been named crap 3. I was stupid enough to buy it on launch day, there is no way in hell I'll make the same mistake again.

Have you played HL2 yet... nuff said..

Actually I think Doom3 had much better lighting effects and shadows than Half-Life 2. Although Half-Life 2 was a much better experience and a better engine (runs better on a variety of hardware).

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: apoppin

just like they saw when we first showed Doom 3, that John Carmack still has a lot of magic left."

where?


After the Doom3 letdown ... i am not going to be first in line to buy 'his' game on whatever engine ... his engines are seriously cool, however
--and i think he just wants to get in on the 'DX10 money'

edited

Doom 3 is *STILL* one of the best engines out there.

I thoroughly enjoyed the game, i dont understand why anyone expected doom to be anything other than doom.

You have got to be kidding me? Doom 3 was crap, the engine was crap, the game was crap... it should have been named crap 3. I was stupid enough to buy it on launch day, there is no way in hell I'll make the same mistake again.

Have you played HL2 yet... nuff said..

Doom 3 was a pretty good game, not the best game ever (as some were expecting before release) but to say the game is "crap" is going too far. The lighting/shadows are amazing and way better than anything Half-Life 2 has. Quake IV, on the same engine, was a great game and one of the better FPS's I've played in recent years.

 

[Modelworks]

aww no commander keen ?
sigh,
.../me goes back to playing zork

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Doom 3 is *STILL* one of the best engines out there.

I thoroughly enjoyed the game, i dont understand why anyone expected doom to be anything other than doom.

I'll stand for a lot of things, but I won't have that abomination of a game be called Doom. I was a Doom nut back in the day and to say that Doom 3 was *any* kind of a successor to Doom 1 and Doom 2 is a slap in the face to those games.

 

[BladeVenom]

What was so great about Doom3?
The textures looked plastic
The polygon count was low, everyone had pointed heads
The number of characters in the game at one time was low
The environments were small with no open places
The A.I. was pathetic
The physics were average
Maybe the horrible gameplay and poor level designs helped mask the bad features?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
What was so great about Doom3?
The textures looked plastic
The polygon count was low, everyone had pointed heads
The number of characters in the game at one time was low
The environments were small with no open places
The A.I. was pathetic
The physics were average
Maybe the horrible gameplay and poor level designs helped mask the bad features?

i absolutely have always hated the Doom3/Quake4 engine. It was also unoptimized when released, considering the defects you mentioned. It's not a problem now since current gen video cards chew up the D3 engine easily. but yea, it was a worthless engine. No wonder the UE2.0/2.5 and Source engines were licensed much more, with the UE2 engine series seeing the most licensing, of course.

the only thing it excelled at, as Extelleron stated, was the lighting in the engine. That was great for what existed at the time.

 

[BFG10K]

I thought Doom 3 was fantastic, both the engine and the gameplay. I'm actually playing through it again right now for the fifth time and it looks gorgeous with ultra textures and full shadow details @ 1920x1440 with 4xAA.

Even today it's projection shadows are far better looking than even games using deferred rendering. Also Doom 3 runs far faster than said games and AA works with it too.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Good news for gamers and OpenGL:thumbsup:
.

Do you really think the next engine will be OpenGL? Especially now with Vista and DX10.

That's actually more of a reason to use opengl. You can still use all the DX10 features in OpenGL, and you can do it in Win XP, Linux, or any other operating system. With DX10 you're locked into Vista, and a lot of people are sticking with XP for now.

Microsoft ain't going to be happy

There are more gamers here per capita than any company outside of game companies themselves. We love Carmack and his work. Doom 3 sales for XBox wasn't exactly a kick in the nuts for us

 

[Regs]

Is there anybody using these engines other then the original creators? I guess other producers think it's cheaper making an engine in-house (that looks like crap). All these good engines and I haven't seen too many ports on the PC using them. Instead we get crap like....wait I don't even know their names because that's how bad they are.

They make cheap-crap games and sell them for 30-35 dollars.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
What was so great about Doom3?
The textures looked plastic
The polygon count was low, everyone had pointed heads
The number of characters in the game at one time was low
The environments were small with no open places
The A.I. was pathetic
The physics were average
Maybe the horrible gameplay and poor level designs helped mask the bad features?

i absolutely have always hated the Doom3/Quake4 engine. It was also unoptimized when released, considering the defects you mentioned. It's not a problem now since current gen video cards chew up the D3 engine easily. but yea, it was a worthless engine. No wonder the UE2.0/2.5 and Source engines were licensed much more, with the UE2 engine series seeing the most licensing, of course.

the only thing it excelled at, as Extelleron stated, was the lighting in the engine. That was great for what existed at the time.

The polygon count you speak of isn't as simple as what you would think. There were actually a great number of polygons used for the lighting effects then a simpler set used for geometry. You could see real shadows from lips on a face that would interract with dynamic lights moving around yet the mouth itself may have been flat for geometry purposes (that's how it ran on the hardware of the day when other games had to wait years to do the same). Some games may have looked as good in screenshots but nothing looked as good in full motion.

The thing you monkeys are forgetting is that doom 3 pulled of realtime shadows on an ATI 9700pro. Every time the industry shows some "oooh-aaahhh" graphics engine it's using features that Carmack was able to do years before. Unreal was the first non-id 3D engine worth a crap and that came out years after GLQuake (or non-gl quake for that matter that pulled it off with software rendering only).

Commander keen was one of the first examples. It seemed simple but no other game for the PC could do it. You could only see fluid scrolling (meaning the game didn't "pause" then move the next screen into place) on Arcade games using non general purpose CPUs. That sh!t was some genius programming. So was Wolfenstein, so was Doom, So was quake (1st 3d), So was quake 2 (first hardware accelerated), So was quake 3 (name any game that isn't borrowing carmacks shaders), so was Doom3 (no prerendered static lighting, scaled polygons, bump mapping, per polygon weapon hit zones), so is ETQW (unlimited texture sizes & every pixel worth of game surface has a different physics property). I'm as excited about Crysis as the next guy but look it's going to be out half a decade after Doom 3 and still cripple $700 graphics cards.

If you can't recognize the beauty of these games then you're nothing more than Bubba-beer-belly hootin and hollerin at a fine wine tasting.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
What was so great about Doom3?
The textures looked plastic
The polygon count was low, everyone had pointed heads
The number of characters in the game at one time was low
The environments were small with no open places
The A.I. was pathetic
The physics were average
Maybe the horrible gameplay and poor level designs helped mask the bad features?

i absolutely have always hated the Doom3/Quake4 engine. It was also unoptimized when released, considering the defects you mentioned. It's not a problem now since current gen video cards chew up the D3 engine easily. but yea, it was a worthless engine. No wonder the UE2.0/2.5 and Source engines were licensed much more, with the UE2 engine series seeing the most licensing, of course.

the only thing it excelled at, as Extelleron stated, was the lighting in the engine. That was great for what existed at the time.

The polygon count you speak of isn't as simple as what you would think. There were actually a great number of polygons used for the lighting effects then a simpler set used for geometry. You could see real shadows from lips on a face that would interract with dynamic lights moving around yet the mouth itself may have been flat for geometry purposes (that's how it ran on the hardware of the day when other games had to wait years to do the same). Some games may have looked as good in screenshots but nothing looked as good in full motion.

The thing you monkeys are forgetting is that doom 3 pulled of realtime shadows on an ATI 9700pro. Every time the industry shows some "oooh-aaahhh" graphics engine it's using features that Carmack was able to do years before. Unreal was the first non-id 3D engine worth a crap and that came out years after GLQuake (or non-gl quake for that matter that pulled it off with software rendering only).

Commander keen was one of the first examples. It seemed simple but no other game for the PC could do it. You could only see fluid scrolling (meaning the game didn't "pause" then move the next screen into place) on Arcade games using non general purpose CPUs. That sh!t was some genius programming. So was Wolfenstein, so was Doom, So was quake (1st 3d), So was quake 2 (first hardware accelerated), So was quake 3 (name any game that isn't borrowing carmacks shaders), so was Doom3 (no prerendered static lighting, scaled polygons, bump mapping, per polygon weapon hit zones), so is ETQW (unlimited texture sizes & every pixel worth of game surface has a different physics property). I'm as excited about Crysis as the next guy but look it's going to be out half a decade after Doom 3 and still cripple $700 graphics cards.

If you can't recognize the beauty of these games then you're nothing more than Bubba-beer-belly hootin and hollerin at a fine wine tasting.

I can see the artistic value in Doom 3, but I prefer Valve's texturing to Doom's. It's pretty much personal preference, but in Doom 3 everything is smooth and shiny. I prefer the grittier look of Half-life 2.

I can appreciate why people like the way Doom 3 looks. I find most modern games look good, but the game play is what really makes me want to play them. I have to give other games the nod on that over Doom 3.

 

[Skacer]

I'll buy every Id game they make simply because I love what they stand for and what they do. Doom3 wasn't everything I wanted and it actually took me awhile to appreciate everything that was present in the game. Infact, it wasn't until so called "more advanced" games came and went that used worse technology before it finally clicked that yea, they did some amazing stuff here. Carmack had plan updates long before blogs, Carmack did yearly (still does?) conferences with real community members at QuakeCon and such. Their company has never sold out like they could have. Especially where the gaming market is today, I really like what Id Software stands for.

From what I recall, a lot of Id Software has been itching for a new IP. I hope this is the motivation they needed to make something truly great.

Oh and I understand we had Doom3 arguments back in the day, but if you still can't friggen understand what it did well at this point in time, frankly I think you need to stop posting on things you know nothing about. Doom3's biggest flaws were low res textures and very jarring gameplay. If you start listing things other than that (low polygons wtf) then you show a complete misunderstanding for the engine.

 

[Skacer]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
I can see the artistic value in Doom 3, but I prefer Valve's texturing to Doom's. It's pretty much personal preference, but in Doom 3 everything is smooth and shiny. I prefer the grittier look of Half-life 2.

I can appreciate why people like the way Doom 3 looks. I find most modern games look good, but the game play is what really makes me want to play them. I have to give other games the nod on that over Doom 3.

HL2 had higher textures. That is a simple change, not a technological feat. Its based on what hardware you wanted the game to run on. Has very little to do with the actual engine. Infact, back in the day people proved this by simply importing HL2 textures into Doom3, which was very easy, but trying to recreate Doom3 style levels within HL2 became impossible (HL2 uses a lot of flat wall environments).

HL2's real progress came from it's lip syncing, excellent gameplay, physics and ease of use of the source engine.

 

[CP5670]

Neither of those engines were all that great, at least in the way they were implemented in those particular games. D3's lighting looked heavily overexposed and washed out while HL2 was at the other extreme, with not much in the way of lighting at all. Both also had stuttering issues of different types, although D3's problem was much worse. I think Far Cry had soundly beaten them both graphically, and a few months in advance too.

 

[Skacer]

Originally posted by: CP5670
Neither of those engines were all that great, at least in the way they were implemented in those particular games. D3's lighting looked heavily overexposed and washed out while HL2 was at the other extreme, with not much in the way of lighting at all. Both also had stuttering issues of different types, although D3's problem was much worse. I think Far Cry had soundly beaten them both graphically, and a few months in advance too.

Stuttering and washed out graphics sound like performance issues on your machine. I guess it is common place to form an opinion based on your machine, but you should really try to troubleshoot the problem before stating it as some sort of common occurance.

FarCry's engine had absolutely horrific indoor environments. It excelled at large areas of vegetation which weren't even 3d (sprite based vegetation w/ 3d trunks) and draw distance.

Edit: I'm actually not sure how Farcry's vegetation was done, but I know it won't be true 3d until the new Crytek engine which will have real vegetation that the player model interacts with.

We will see what Doom3's engine is capable of draw distance wise with ET: Quake Wars.

 

[CP5670]

No, they are well-documented issues that occur on any system. I have gotten them on several different setups regardless of the graphical settings used. I know more about D3's problem, which has to do with the physics engine getting desynchronized with the framerate at any refresh rates over 60hz. It causes a persistent frameskipping effect that can't be fully corrected without either dropping the refresh rate to 60hz or setting a command line option so that the game speed depends on the framerate. I actually played through D3 and Q4 with the latter settings, so it effectively went into slo-mo during fights, where the framerate dropped.

Far Cry's indoor sections were a mixed bag, but some areas were easily superior to anything in D3. It had a rudimentary form of parallax mapping from what I remember, similar to what was seen later in SCCT, and the HDR (after the HDR parameters were properly adjusted) made a lot of indoor sections look excellent.

 

[Shadowknight]

What id reall needs to do to shock the world is to release an actual game, instead of charging $50 for a tech demo. I'm lookin' at you, Doom 3.

 

[AlucardX]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Doom 3 was a lousy game, but a damn impressive engine.

Thats exactly how I feel. Felt that way about Quake 3 as well.
And the Quake 3 engine was used in a CRAPLOAD of games outside of Id.

I keep hoping for a KOTOR 3 with a slightly newer engine like Unreal 2 or Crytek or Source.

huh that sucks.. i was just playing some rocket arena 3 last night :beer:

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: Shadowknight
What id reall needs to do to shock the world is to release an actual game, instead of charging $50 for a tech demo. I'm lookin' at you, Doom 3.

I actually liked the game itself apart from the graphics engine. The "scary" factor was nonexistent, but the combat and weapons were generally cool and the PDAs added a lot of depth to an otherwise generic story.