• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

UNREAL Engine KILLS Doom 3

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Did you fall down and hit your head? How is what he said "pimping nVidia?" 😕
Click to expand...

Any thread that casts ATI in a good light is challenged. Any thread that casts Nvidia in a good light is supported.

Since it is well known that Nvidia cards run Doom 3 better and ATI will run Half-life 2 better (or at least that's general consensus), you can't even post about one of those games without drawing a response.

I'm not trying to bash Rollo just for the fun of it (I know, a little late to say that now.) I just think it's amazing that a person is so much a proponent of one company over the other. He obviously is not some kid just shooting off - I've seen some of his contributions in this forum, and they are significant and numerous. It's just remarkable that someone would make SO MANY comments, ALL from the same side of the fence, about the video card manufacturers, their products, and the games that run well on them.
 
a 3.4Ghz K8 should be pretty powerfull come 06 ?, just think we'r at 2.4Ghz now. Should run quite well me thinks.
 
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
the way hl2 is goin at the mo....its gonna be a straight fight between source and UE3 and u know which is gonna lose..if it ever gets released,

release candidate means jack till my 6800gt is stitching the frames together for me
Click to expand...

Hmm what makes DIII out of the race. You guys are pimping HL2 and saying it is teh roxor already and it hasn't even been released. Yeah weve seen screenshots but why count out DIII. Just because DIII itself was masked in a lot of shadows doesn't mean the engine isn't awesome. And what do you mean that it is between Source and UE3... last time i checked they aren't even on the same level or year. Nothing is competing with this PRE ALPHA engine!!!

Also why the hell are we comparing a 2 year future engine to a current and past engine!?!?! DUH we already know which one is going to be better.

This is a flamewar waiting to erupt.

-Kevin
 
I'm amazed so many of you are seeing it for the first time even though it's been months since the release of the video from which these screenshots have been extracted.
 
Originally posted by: Rollo
I don't know about you, Schadenfroh, but I'm going to wait for the REAL killer graphics of Unreal3 in 2006 instead of settling for this "baby step" of Doom3. :roll: This is a pretty silly topic, as has been duly noted.
Click to expand...

Graphics are always progressing. When Unreal 3.0-based games start coming out, they'll look pretty good, but we'll all start noticing the flaws, they won't be "killer" in the same way that DOOM 3, FarCry, etc. aren't "killer" now, and naturally there will be some far more advanced technology in the works, due out in 2008-2009 or something. You can sit around forever waiting for the next big thing that will trump everything that's around currently if you like, but I doubt you'll ever be satisfied because the next big thing is always just around the corner and just out of reach.
 
At least its not the Tribes:Vengeance engine. Played the demo, saw how much the gfx sucked, pretty made my choice for m not to get T:V. Tribes2 had a much better engine.
 
Originally posted by: Is
Originally posted by: Rollo
I don't know about you, Schadenfroh, but I'm going to wait for the REAL killer graphics of Unreal3 in 2006 instead of settling for this "baby step" of Doom3. :roll: This is a pretty silly topic, as has been duly noted.
Click to expand...

Graphics are always progressing. When Unreal 3.0-based games start coming out, they'll look pretty good, but we'll all start noticing the flaws, they won't be "killer" in the same way that DOOM 3, FarCry, etc. aren't "killer" now, and naturally there will be some far more advanced technology in the works, due out in 2008-2009 or something. You can sit around forever waiting for the next big thing that will trump everything that's around currently if you like, but I doubt you'll ever be satisfied because the next big thing is always just around the corner and just out of reach.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that 'killer' comment. I find doom 3 at 1600x1200 High Quality pretty close to the killer mark to tell you the truth. It looks fantastic. Nothing really that nice anywhere else to tell you the truth.
 
I think Unreal 4 has better graphics than Doom 3 already.
Doom 3 is very good at some things implimented in their shaders.
Quake IV is based on the Doom 3 engine and will see what the Doom 3 engine can really do.
From the early photos of Quake IV it's looking pretty dam good.
 
I'm amazed so many of you are seeing it for the first time even though it's been months since the release of the video from which these screenshots have been extracted.
Click to expand...

This thread is months old, check out the OP 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Did you fall down and hit your head? How is what he said "pimping nVidia?" 😕
Click to expand...

Any thread that casts ATI in a good light is challenged. Any thread that casts Nvidia in a good light is supported.

Since it is well known that Nvidia cards run Doom 3 better and ATI will run Half-life 2 better (or at least that's general consensus), you can't even post about one of those games without drawing a response.

I'm not trying to bash Rollo just for the fun of it (I know, a little late to say that now.) I just think it's amazing that a person is so much a proponent of one company over the other. He obviously is not some kid just shooting off - I've seen some of his contributions in this forum, and they are significant and numerous. It's just remarkable that someone would make SO MANY comments, ALL from the same side of the fence, about the video card manufacturers, their products, and the games that run well on them.
Click to expand...

You can find plenty of posts where I favor ATI, 3dfx, even Matrox. I just like video cards.

Glad you got a laugh out of the post though! 🙂

P.S. I just thought it was pointless to post "future game looks better than current game". I wasn't saying anything brand specific.
 
Originally posted by: Is
Originally posted by: Rollo
I don't know about you, Schadenfroh, but I'm going to wait for the REAL killer graphics of Unreal3 in 2006 instead of settling for this "baby step" of Doom3. :roll: This is a pretty silly topic, as has been duly noted.
Click to expand...

Graphics are always progressing. When Unreal 3.0-based games start coming out, they'll look pretty good, but we'll all start noticing the flaws, they won't be "killer" in the same way that DOOM 3, FarCry, etc. aren't "killer" now, and naturally there will be some far more advanced technology in the works, due out in 2008-2009 or something. You can sit around forever waiting for the next big thing that will trump everything that's around currently if you like, but I doubt you'll ever be satisfied because the next big thing is always just around the corner and just out of reach.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic/facetious IS. (that's why the rolling eyes smiley)
 
P.S. I just thought it was pointless to post "future game looks better than current game". I wasn't saying anything brand specific.
Click to expand...

And, by the way, your point is dead on. You can be biased and still be right. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Rollo
I was being sarcastic/facetious IS. (that's why the rolling eyes smiley)
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Emoticons help in conveying intent via text communication, but there is still quite a bit of room for interpretation. I misinterpreted the rolling eyes as more of a scoff to emphasize how unworthy you felt DOOM 3's graphics were. Sorry...carry on. 🙂

 
Originally posted by: SourTimes
I don't know about that 'killer' comment. I find doom 3 at 1600x1200 High Quality pretty close to the killer mark to tell you the truth. It looks fantastic. Nothing really that nice anywhere else to tell you the truth.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it doesn't look good. On a technical level it is pretty impressive. But I think the problem is that it's extremely polarized in terms of graphics. Some aspects of the game's graphics are spectacular, truly beyond anything we've seen up to this point. But other aspects, like poly count and a lot of the textures, are really sub-par. I don't think you can really call a game "killer" when games that were released 3-4 years prior had less compressed, more detailed textures. At the end of the day, I find some games like TES III: Morrowind and Serious Sam to be more visually pleasing than the most advanced offerings today because of the style factor. id software used to have style, I can still enjoy playing the original Quake because of this.
 
Originally posted by: Is
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it doesn't look good. On a technical level it is pretty impressive. But I think the problem is that it's extremely polarized in terms of graphics. Some aspects of the game's graphics are spectacular, truly beyond anything we've seen up to this point. But other aspects, like poly count and a lot of the textures, are really sub-par. I don't think you can really call a game "killer" when games that were released 3-4 years prior had less compressed, more detailed textures. At the end of the day, I find some games like TES III: Morrowind and Serious Sam to be more visually pleasing than the most advanced offerings today because of the style factor. id software used to have style, I can still enjoy playing the original Quake because of this.[/quote]

This is undoubtedly also a valid point. And I agree with you on the merits of many previous games being excellent. Just a note to any with a 6800 gt/ultra or x800xt/pe, go back and play some Max Payne 2 at 1600x1200 with everything turned up & on. It's wonderful.

😀
 
By looking at these images all I can say is WOW!. DX9 is capable of producing that kind of graphic, it's incredible.
 
Originally posted by: Is
Originally posted by: SourTimes
I don't know about that 'killer' comment. I find doom 3 at 1600x1200 High Quality pretty close to the killer mark to tell you the truth. It looks fantastic. Nothing really that nice anywhere else to tell you the truth.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it doesn't look good. On a technical level it is pretty impressive. But I think the problem is that it's extremely polarized in terms of graphics. Some aspects of the game's graphics are spectacular, truly beyond anything we've seen up to this point. But other aspects, like poly count and a lot of the textures, are really sub-par. I don't think you can really call a game "killer" when games that were released 3-4 years prior had less compressed, more detailed textures. At the end of the day, I find some games like TES III: Morrowind and Serious Sam to be more visually pleasing than the most advanced offerings today because of the style factor. id software used to have style, I can still enjoy playing the original Quake because of this.
Click to expand...


That is very true, thats why i also thought the games engine is not mature enuf or was used to early as current GPUs cant handle the workload, with all the technology of the lighting they had to make other things look worse.

But with UE3 everthing is balanced and they all look outstanding. They dont have to cut corners to keep frame rates up, because they are building it for future hardware, while Doom 3 was built for old hardware then ported to be used on more current hardware rather than building for the future.
 
Originally posted by: Drayvn
That is very true, thats why i also thought the games engine is not mature enuf or was used to early as current GPUs cant handle the workload, with all the technology of the lighting they had to make other things look worse.

But with UE3 everthing is balanced and they all look outstanding. They dont have to cut corners to keep frame rates up, because they are building it for future hardware, while Doom 3 was built for old hardware then ported to be used on more current hardware rather than building for the future.
Click to expand...

Good point, and I think that this will amount to a more balanced graphics engine for UE3. Of course, this is a double edged sword, because unlike D3, UE3 isn't testing too many new waters with it's engine, it's mainly a refinement of existing technology. It looks incredible now, partly because a lot of it's technology is new in terms of PC gaming. 2-3 years from now it won't have that advantage, because we will be very used to seeing normal maps, shaders, and those types of things being used in games. By that time, DX10 could be out, providing a whole new set of features for us to drool over. I'm not saying that any of that diminishes what UE3 is capable of, but graphics are all about perception. UE3 won't appear quite as cutting edge as it does today.

I'm not trying to suggest that UE3 won't be a significant step forward in terms of graphics, I think it will be and I'm really excited to see what some creative teams out there can do with it. I'm just saying, I don't think it will be "killer" because today's killer is always tomorrow's prey when it comes to technology. In 10 years, the engine will be nothing but a relic, it's the games we'll remember, and not for the technological features they utilyze but for the ingenuity of how those features were utilyzed to create an engrossing and immersive experience (non-technological artistic factors like the writing, the plot, the voice acting, the artwork, etc. also apply).
 
Originally posted by: Is
Originally posted by: Drayvn
That is very true, thats why i also thought the games engine is not mature enuf or was used to early as current GPUs cant handle the workload, with all the technology of the lighting they had to make other things look worse.

But with UE3 everthing is balanced and they all look outstanding. They dont have to cut corners to keep frame rates up, because they are building it for future hardware, while Doom 3 was built for old hardware then ported to be used on more current hardware rather than building for the future.
Click to expand...

Good point, and I think that this will amount to a more balanced graphics engine for UE3. Of course, this is a double edged sword, because unlike D3, UE3 isn't testing too many new waters with it's engine, it's mainly a refinement of existing technology. It looks incredible now, partly because a lot of it's technology is new in terms of PC gaming. 2-3 years from now it won't have that advantage, because we will be very used to seeing normal maps, shaders, and those types of things being used in games. By that time, DX10 could be out, providing a whole new set of features for us to drool over. I'm not saying that any of that diminishes what UE3 is capable of, but graphics are all about perception. UE3 won't appear quite as cutting edge as it does today.

I'm not trying to suggest that UE3 won't be a significant step forward in terms of graphics, I think it will be and I'm really excited to see what some creative teams out there can do with it. I'm just saying, I don't think it will be "killer" because today's killer is always tomorrow's prey when it comes to technology. In 10 years, the engine will be nothing but a relic, it's the games we'll remember, and not for the technological features they utilyze but for the ingenuity of how those features were utilyzed to create an engrossing and immersive experience (non-technological artistic factors like the writing, the plot, the voice acting, the artwork, etc. also apply).
Click to expand...


The last bit in brackets.........*cough* well thats not Doom 3 then 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Drayvn
The last bit in brackets.........*cough* well thats not Doom 3 then 🙂
Click to expand...

Sadly, too true. I think we were all a bit underwhelmed by DOOM 3. Ah well, we still have the first 2, and thanks to zDOOM, they still run under XP!
 
I'm sure the Doom3 engine has a lot of headroom. Look at the difference between call of duty united offensive and quake 3, or half-life and quake. I'm sure a 6800ultra with a high end a64 or p4 could run the first UE3 game in some respect. It's gonna take a little while for fast, complex chips (200M+ transistors, 16 pipelines) with large amounts of ram (256mb 1GHz+) to filter down far enough to make that a minimum requirement. I'm sure it would play, probably the same way Doom3 plays on a Geforce4 Ti4600. I'm sure the vast majority of people who bought doom3 had less than a geforce4 ti.
 
i think this unreal 3 engine will run much better than the doom 3 engine on todays hardware. becaue anything from unreal always has ran 10x better than any other engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top