• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Where is the next Quake3,Doom3 technology? Will John Carmack reinvent the 3d wheel?

Apocalypse23

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2003
1,467
0
0
It's been over 10 years since Quake 3 entered the 3d gaming world and revolutionized PC Gaming forever. Then in 2004 came Doom 3, another technological marvel, it completely changed the look of 3d gaming, introduced better graphics, textures and a whole new way of gaming. Then came Quake4 which was a rebuff of Doom3, and then followed similar looking and better looking games. Lets not forget Far Cry and Crysis, but remember who was first, it was Quake 3. How many games were based on the Q3 engine after it was released? I'm sure the number will surprise most of us.

John Carmack has always been a legend in the 3d developing world and due to his initial efforts, I think we have witnessed a breathtaking breakthrough in PC gaming on a wide scale.

I'm now wondering whether Id software and John Carmack will release another thriller that will knock our socks out, a new level of graphics, something higher than most other games. Crysis by all means has taken the lead in terms of being the best looking game of all time, but will there be anything after that?

Are Id Software's Quake 3 glory days over or is there something radical upcoming on our doorstep?

Post your thoughts.
 

Udgnim

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2008
3,654
81
91
I read somewhere that id's game, Rage, using the id Tech 5 engine has already been altered from id's original intent due to 360 disc limitations.

regarding whether id Tech 5 will be a popular engine to use for other developers, who knows. id will have competition with the UE3 engine and probably the Crysis 2 engine, and plenty of developers license other lesser known engines or create their own. we'll see how everything pans out.
 

EvilComputer92

Golden Member
Aug 25, 2004
1,316
0
0
It's been over 10 years since Quake 3 entered the 3d gaming world and revolutionized PC Gaming forever. Then in 2004 came Doom 3, another technological marvel, it completely changed the look of 3d gaming, introduced better graphics, textures and a whole new way of gaming. Then came Quake4 which was a rebuff of Doom3, and then followed similar looking and better looking games. Lets not forget Far Cry and Crysis, but remember who was first, it was Quake 3. How many games were based on the Q3 engine after it was released? I'm sure the number will surprise most of us.
Unreal Engine 1 > Quake 3 Engine IMO. I mean just look at how good Unreal Tournament still looks in comparison to the graphics of Q3. I never got the hype around the Quake 3 Engine.

Also, Unreal Engine 3 is the new Q3 engine in terms of how many games use it. It's pretty much been the standard game engine for the past few years, and has more games developed on it then any other engine in the history of games.
 
Dec 28, 2001
11,391
3
0
I will agree w/ the OP that the Quake Engine was game engine to beat at the time (quickly followed up by the Unreal engine) but I think we can all agree that Far Cry was the game to usher in the next-gen engine and Doom III was lackluster at release at best.

Currently the engine to beat would be Crysis as id has been somewhat stagnant in developing well, anything really - and they really shot themselves in the foot when John Carmack stated that the goal of idtech isn't necessarily to market/license to other developers IMO; especially when there's so much competition at this time (namely the Source Engine and UE3).

Not disrespecting any work that iD has done in the past and the ramifications of said work, but I think the next "Quake/Doom" tech is coming, but unfortunately not by id.
 

EarthwormJim

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,239
0
76
iD lost out to Unreal and Source by choosing to stick with an OpenGL engine and not letting id Tech 4 scale down to older DX7 cards like Source could (Doom 3 would run on a Geforce 4 MX, but that was really it as far as DX 7 hardware).
 

CurseTheSky

Diamond Member
Oct 21, 2006
5,401
1
0
Graphics aren't the only thing. I personally would love to see more innovation in terms of making the world come to life - destructible everything, realistic particles, realistic physics, great NPC interactions, intelligent AI, etc. For example, when I played the original Half-Life, I was far more amazed that the marines would run from a grenade and (usually, though clumsily) duck behind cover. I had never seen anything like that before, and it just made sense.
 

CrystalBay

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2002
2,175
1
0
he's to busy making iphone apps ,lol..id software sold out to a media company Zenimax/bethesda...
 

AndroidVageta

Banned
Mar 22, 2008
2,421
0
0
Graphics aren't the only thing. I personally would love to see more innovation in terms of making the world come to life - destructible everything, realistic particles, realistic physics, great NPC interactions, intelligent AI, etc. For example, when I played the original Half-Life, I was far more amazed that the marines would run from a grenade and (usually, though clumsily) duck behind cover. I had never seen anything like that before, and it just made sense.
This will come some day...but there are two things hold something like this back...

One being the hardware...to have a game that has everything you mentioned would take the CPU power (not to mention GPU power) of a computer that simply does not exist today...and if it does, its something that would take up your whole house and blow the power transformer outside your house lol...I mean, consider just a glass bottle...if this object were to react even 50% realistically, your talking 100's of particles on top of the actual physics involved per particle...could it be done on a modern house hold PC now? Sure...but to have a whole box of them, followed by EVERYTHING else in this world would simply take a super computer to run...one of which, again, doesnt exist.

Second is the amount of time and money that would be needed to bring a world like this to life...I cant even begin to imagine the amount of coding and time needed to do something like this...especially to the amount of realism Im sure you (and myself as well) would like.

Youre basically talking about the Matrix lol...something that would be totally kickass to see before I die...and something that I hope comes about!!!
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Excuse me? John Carmack is 1.2 billion miles from Earth in his spaceship. duh!
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Carmack has lost for now.
Unreal Engine 3 is this generations Quake 3 engine, and hey, maybe CryEngine3 will be the next one to take over.
There's no guarantee that iD/Carmack will ever return to their glory days, but then there's nothing to say they can't.
UnrealEngine is this generations Quake 3 though, it's the engine everyone is using, and the next one will be whatever it ends up being, but we're not going to get totally blown away really until the next gen of consoles.
 

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
Unreal Engine 1 > Quake 3 Engine IMO. I mean just look at how good Unreal Tournament still looks in comparison to the graphics of Q3. I never got the hype around the Quake 3 Engine.
I didn't think UT99 looked very good even on release, it seems almost all UE1 games are plagued with horrible animations, out of place lighting on actors, and very blocky architecture. It's awkward graphics didn't stop me from loving the game, but I certainly think ID Tech 3 looks far better than UE1.

As far as tech 5 goes, I believe it was announced that Rage was aiming for frame rate, while Doom 4 will be aiming for visuals. I still don't really expect anything to surpass CryEngine for graphics however until the next generation of consoles, as has been mentioned.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
You guys do realize that COD Modern Warfare 2 uses a modified version of the doom3 engine right? Infinity Ward bought teh source code for ID Tech "4" and used it rather than developing their own engine.

Anyways, CryEngine3 is the most capabale engine out. They are just too far ahead of the game. Will IDTECH5 be comparable? Probably, but they better make a good game with it.
 

CurseTheSky

Diamond Member
Oct 21, 2006
5,401
1
0
This will come some day...but there are two things hold something like this back...

One being the hardware...to have a game that has everything you mentioned would take the CPU power (not to mention GPU power) of a computer that simply does not exist today...and if it does, its something that would take up your whole house and blow the power transformer outside your house lol...I mean, consider just a glass bottle...if this object were to react even 50% realistically, your talking 100's of particles on top of the actual physics involved per particle...could it be done on a modern house hold PC now? Sure...but to have a whole box of them, followed by EVERYTHING else in this world would simply take a super computer to run...one of which, again, doesnt exist.

Second is the amount of time and money that would be needed to bring a world like this to life...I cant even begin to imagine the amount of coding and time needed to do something like this...especially to the amount of realism Im sure you (and myself as well) would like.

Youre basically talking about the Matrix lol...something that would be totally kickass to see before I die...and something that I hope comes about!!!
Perhaps, but they need to start somewhere. ;)

There's no reason why I should be able to walk through an environment blowing apart enemies and props alike with my rocket launcher, only to be stopped by a thin metal or wooden door that needs a key. That door must be made from some extraterrestrial materials because a direct hit won't even dent it...

Sure, that would invalidate just about every level design out there today, I think the locked door cliche needs to go. We're all running around with machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, hell, even crowbars. Unless it's a giant blast door, I expect it to either blow open, or not be there in the first place.

There are dozens of other instances like that.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
Graphics potential is not what makes a game engine successful. If it was, tons of games would have used the 1st and 2nd Cry Engine. UE3 is successful because of how good the tool set is compared to everyone else's while still having the potential to deliver really good looking games. It's far easier to make a gorgeous game on it than it is on competing engines.

Epic is more of a game engine company now than anything else. Making actual games seems to have taken a back seat. This can be seen as a good thing though. Without UE3, many developers wouldn't have bothered with a next gen engine due to expense and difficulty. They would keep trying to squeeze out what they could off of yesteryear technology.
 
Last edited:

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
You guys do realize that COD Modern Warfare 2 uses a modified version of the doom3 engine right? Infinity Ward bought teh source code for ID Tech "4" and used it rather than developing their own engine.
I'd like to see the source of that info because as far as I know, they used Tech 3 for COD1 and 2, and then switched to their own engine from then on.

:Edit: Ah, the Wiki does say MW was on modified Tech 4, though doesn't mention it as a licensed game on the Tech 4 wiki page, I'd still like to see a proper source on that. Would be quite interesting if true.
 
Last edited:

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
I'd like to see the source of that info because as far as I know, they used Tech 3 for COD1 and 2, and then switched to their own engine from then on.

:Edit: Ah, the Wiki does say MW was on modified Tech 4, though doesn't mention it as a licensed game on the Tech 4 wiki page, I'd still like to see a proper source on that. Would be quite interesting if true.
Look at the opening Credits of the Game. To my understanding, they actually purchased the source code as a building block for their future efforts. It's not a license to use ID's version, they bought the source and will modify to their needs from here on out, essentially making it their own.
 

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
Look at the opening Credits of the Game. To my understanding, they actually purchased the source code as a building block for their future efforts. It's not a license to use ID's version, they bought the source and will modify to their needs from here on out, essentially making it their own.
I don't own the game to take a look, but I'll take your word for it. Indeed interesting, too bad they chose to use such horrible textures, and static lighting. Oh well, I don't play it anyway.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
I wish the gaming studios and purchasers would focus less on graphics and eye candy and more on solid game play. I'm less interested in the graphics and more interested in having a new arena style FPS game that will be as revolutionary and as addicting as the original Unreal Tournament (1999). (I'd settle for a bona-fide UT99-2, however.)
 

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
I wish the gaming studios and purchasers would focus less on graphics and eye candy and more on solid game play. I'm less interested in the graphics and more interested in having a new arena style FPS game that will be as revolutionary and as addicting as the original Unreal Tournament (1999). (I'd settle for a bona-fide UT99-2, however.)
I think UT3 is a great follow up to UT99. 2K4 was slower paced in not only player movement, but in kill or be killed, because the weapons did less damage, and armor gave more protection. It seemed like it was trying to make players more powerful so they wouldn't get so destroyed by the newly added vehicles. UT3 on the other hand is very fast, and even with capped protection and health, you can still get slaughtered rather easily. The UI and match creation options were my only gripe on launch, but with the MapMixer mod, it has more options than UT99/2k4 ever had.
 

coloumb

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,097
0
81
I think Carmack is more interested in his "space program" than developing a new engine. His role in a new engine is probably technical advice rather than main developer.

We have Unreal and Cryengines which have done quite well - do we really need another engine? :)
 

Jovec

Senior member
Feb 24, 2008
579
2
81
Carmack could code Crysis/Cryengine in his sleep. So could Sweeney/Epic, and so could a lot of other programmers/teams. Though I agree Carmack's heart isn't into it like it once was.

The challenge isn't in adding graphical features, it's accurately pairing the engine with the right performance and features for the (often unreleased) CPU and GPU hardware while also having a streamlined map, level, and asset creation process so your designers aren't being slowed down by the programmers. Staying on budget and on time certainly help too.

Epic obviously put a lot of effort into engine tools for the purpose of licensing and it really shows. id Tech 5 is supposed to allowed for 100% unique textures with out any framerate hits as well as all engine ports using the exact same resources - make the game once, from code to art, and it will run on PC, 360, and PS3, and wherever else they've ported Tech 5 to.

The 360 issue had to due not with Tech 5, but with Rage requiring 3 DVDs and id not willing to pay the per-disc royalty to MS for 3 discs. Apparently it's quite high.

The Crysis engine reminds me of the original Operation Flashpoint. I threw double and triple the hardware at that game over the years and it simply didn't scale well, from a P3 800Mhz to P4 2.4Ghz with whatever the current high-end NV card was at the time. I'd wager the same would hold true if I reinstalled it today. It's simply a crappy engine no matter how well it looked at the time. Crysis had enough hype (and curiosity about how well it would run on your system) to overcome its lackluster performance on the vast majority of systems in use at that time.
 
Last edited:

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
79,056
11,965
126
Sorry, but neither in engine nor gameplay did Doom3 revolutionize anything. In fact that game marks the end of an era of fun, and the beginning of an era of high MSRP's, inflated production costs, and repetative, uninspired stories. Not to mention I could never trust PC Gamer again

No offense to Doom 3 lovers. If it makes you happy, great. But for me it was a serious let down.

Quake 3 on the other hand was a huge boon the video game industry.
 
Last edited:

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
Crysis had enough hype (and curiosity about how well it would run on your system) to overcome its lackluster performance on the vast majority of systems in use at that time.
I don't agree with this, Crysis' graphics are in a league of their own, and almost all of the people complaining about performance simply have unrealistic expectations. You simply can't run a game with the visuals of Crysis at the same frame rate as MW2, tune Crysis to similar visuals of other recent games, and the performance scales accordingly IMO.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY