• 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?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
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.
Motsm, I agree. This guy doesn't know what he is talking about and obviously isn't keeping up with what CryTek has done for CE3. CryEngine is the by far the most capable engine available. CryTek has spent the past 4 years working on performance and scalability, not graphics. he obviously hasn't seen the LiveCreate demos.

http://www6.incrysis.com/cryengine3_march_2010_brochure.pdf

CryEngine takes the cake.

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=851&Itemid=1
 
Last edited:

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
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.
The Doom3 Engine was awesome.

Only problem was, Far Cry hit the shelves long before Doom3 did, and after I tore through Far Cry, Doom3 didn't impress me. Crytek beat Id to the punch in every way.
 

Jovec

Senior member
Feb 24, 2008
579
2
81
CE3 may very well being end up being the best thing out there. Good for us if it is, but it's not out yet. While a lot of the goals are the same (i.e. console focus), Crytek and Epic are definitely focusing on engine features and expandability/customization for licensing, while id is focusing on it's megetexturing and a unified design pipeline. Two are focusing on being all things to all people, while one is focusing on simplification. Each is targeting what they feel is important to them. Carmack has said he doesn't want id to do the 100+ staff, 3 year, $30 million dollar game development.

Graphic effects are not voodoo magic. You can probably find white papers on the all the effects used in modern games that are 5-10 years old. The trick is how you implement them while maintaining acceptable performance. Any of the top game companies can bring a CPU and GPU to single digit FPS if they wanted to. It's about matching performance to the hardware. Crysis took a gamble that they could overshoot the hardware and it succeeded for them. Though good, I don't think Crysis is universally hailed as great game (graphics excluding), with a 91 metacritic score but "only" a 7.7 user score. They sold a lot of units based on the hype and the "Can it run Crysis?" jokes.

I'm not saying Crytek is bad - far from it - but the level of graphic effects, texture size, polygon count, view distance, etc, isn't too much of an indicator of an engine's prowess.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
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.
I completely agree. Crysis is still way, way, way ahead of its time.
 

EarthwormJim

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,239
0
76
CE3 may very well being end up being the best thing out there. Good for us if it is, but it's not out yet. While a lot of the goals are the same (i.e. console focus), Crytek and Epic are definitely focusing on engine features and expandability/customization for licensing, while id is focusing on it's megetexturing and a unified design pipeline. Two are focusing on being all things to all people, while one is focusing on simplification. Each is targeting what they feel is important to them. Carmack has said he doesn't want id to do the 100+ staff, 3 year, $30 million dollar game development.

Graphic effects are not voodoo magic. You can probably find white papers on the all the effects used in modern games that are 5-10 years old. The trick is how you implement them while maintaining acceptable performance. Any of the top game companies can bring a CPU and GPU to single digit FPS if they wanted to. It's about matching performance to the hardware. Crysis took a gamble that they could overshoot the hardware and it succeeded for them. Though good, I don't think Crysis is universally hailed as great game (graphics excluding), with a 91 metacritic score but "only" a 7.7 user score. They sold a lot of units based on the hype and the "Can it run Crysis?" jokes.

I'm not saying Crytek is bad - far from it - but the level of graphic effects, texture size, polygon count, view distance, etc, isn't too much of an indicator of an engine's prowess.
I'm sure a lot of those low user scores are from people annoyed that their computer's are too slow for the game at max settings, and not fair judgments of the game itself.

It's really an awesome FPS all on its own. Even when it came out my midrange GPU (8800gt) could play the game at high/ultra settings at moderately high resolution (1620x1050). For how good the game looks, that's not bad.
 

Tsavo

Platinum Member
Sep 29, 2009
2,644
37
91
ID have not put out a good game for 11 years, so no hopes that they ever will put out another.
 

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,040
1
76
I've got to dash to work, so I don't have time now to really go into things, but the ratio of ignorance vs. commonly available knowledge here is appalling.

* An engine isn't a game! It's just a means to make a game. Blaming the Q3 engine for iD's love of brown and dirty art direction is like saying the Yugo was a crappy car because the USA drives on the right side of the road. Conversely, games like Crysis are pretty, but deathly boring.

* Carmack is such a genius that he'll write device drivers for fun. His tech work on iDTech5 has been pretty much done for a while as anyone who has read interviews with him knows. His Armadillo Aerospace work doesn't distract from this iD work any more than someone with a hobby takes away from their day job unless they're someone who's blowing off work to WoW raid. The holdup on Rage has nothing to do with the engine or the smaller capacity DVD media of the Xbox.

* The major selling point of the iDTech 5 engine is that it's supposed to be a "write once/run on anything @ 60 Hz" deal meaning devs will only have to create one set of assets and the engine will be able to compile fast-running output for the PC, Xbox, and PS3 with minimal massaging of the code. Compare that to the typical nightmares that occur when porting games to the PS3 due to Sony's bullet-points-vs-functionality design choices.

So, in answer to the OP's question: Carmack has already reinvented the 3D wheel - we just haven't seen how well it rolls yet.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
I've got to dash to work, so I don't have time now to really go into things, but the ratio of ignorance vs. commonly available knowledge here is appalling.

* An engine isn't a game! It's just a means to make a game. Blaming the Q3 engine for iD's love of brown and dirty art direction is like saying the Yugo was a crappy car because the USA drives on the right side of the road. Conversely, games like Crysis are pretty, but deathly boring.

* Carmack is such a genius that he'll write device drivers for fun. His tech work on iDTech5 has been pretty much done for a while as anyone who has read interviews with him knows. His Armadillo Aerospace work doesn't distract from this iD work any more than someone with a hobby takes away from their day job unless they're someone who's blowing off work to WoW raid. The holdup on Rage has nothing to do with the engine or the smaller capacity DVD media of the Xbox.

* The major selling point of the iDTech 5 engine is that it's supposed to be a "write once/run on anything @ 60 Hz" deal meaning devs will only have to create one set of assets and the engine will be able to compile fast-running output for the PC, Xbox, and PS3 with minimal massaging of the code. Compare that to the typical nightmares that occur when porting games to the PS3 due to Sony's bullet-points-vs-functionality design choices.

So, in answer to the OP's question: Carmack has already reinvented the 3D wheel - we just haven't seen how well it rolls yet.
I agree Carmack is a genius.

I thought Crysis was fun though.. I couldn't play it maxed out, not hardly, but I still had a lot of fun playing the single player campaigns, and online play is a blast. Especially once you get used to using the suit to your advantage.

Have you seen Crytek's LiveCreate? It deals with everything you mentioned in your third point.

http://www6.incrysis.com/cryengine3_march_2010_brochure.pdf

Youtube "crytek livecreate demo" and you'll see that Crytek already has tech to build simultaneously for all systems.. xbox, ps3, pc.. It's new, and part of the new CE3 engine.
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
0
71
I played crysis on my old Radeon 9600XT at 800x600, it ran terribly, but It was the best game I played since HL2. Im all for graphics, but Crysis was more that that.
 

scooterlibby

Senior member
Feb 28, 2009
752
0
0
This thread tends to get off topic - it's not about the old graphics vs. game play argument that everyone seems to want to rehash.

As far as Carmack goes, I fear that the people who have stayed on topic are right. IdTech5 is not going to be a revolutionary engine (again, not commenting on quality of game play) like the one that powered Doom III was. Carmack has stated as much in interviews. Id is simply maximizing its utility and pursuing the graphically underwhelming console market with this engine. Can't blame them for going where the money is, but it sucks for PC gamers who like envelope pushing engines.

Kinda looking forward to the engine in Metro2033. Maybe Cryengine 3 will be amazing, but, again, they are also aiming for consoles with that one. Dunia was wonderful IMHO.

I think Frostbite was a good example of how it should be done. Tons more features on the PC version and it looks way better than the console interation of BC2.
 

BassBomb

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2005
8,392
1
76
Unreal engines
Source
CryEngines are incredible but I think no other games come on them
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Meh, who cares about the engines anymore? Good engines are a dime a dozen, and most studios just go with the Unreal Engine just due to the design tools (and love of making everything look like the same game).

Hardware hasn't changed substantially from what UE3 was designed for, the next major engines will target more general purpose designs like Tim Sweeney predicted. (a return to software renderers, but with massively parallel hardware)
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,917
11,848
126
Meh, who cares about the engines anymore? Good engines are a dime a dozen, and most studios just go with the Unreal Engine just due to the design tools (and love of making everything look like the same game).

Hardware hasn't changed substantially from what UE3 was designed for, the next major engines will target more general purpose designs like Tim Sweeney predicted. (a return to software renderers, but with massively parallel hardware)
Thats just plain wrong.
They take years to make and a shitload of money. If you wanna license them you'll pay out the ass.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
22,439
23,818
136
So...is it possible to run Crysis at max settings yet without breaking the bank on a system?
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
"We cannot fight new wars with old weapons, let him who desires peace prepare for war...."--Prophet (one of my favourite characters from Crysis)

This trailer is mostly console, can't wait to see the PC gameplay, nice find!
The 2nd scene, and only that scene, from the video is "PC". it's the nighttime city scene. It looks nice.
 

clok1966

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,395
13
76
Meh, who cares about the engines anymore? Good engines are a dime a dozen, and most studios just go with the Unreal Engine just due to the design tools (and love of making everything look like the same game).
Carmack created the stuff all the others used rooms full of programs to "enhance". Looking at somebodies code and making it better isnt really that impressive.

ALL ENGINES are based off the original (quake), sure they are "different companies" so they cant "stal" ideas.. ya right.

While I cant argu (and wont) that id hasnt really made anything to "game changing" in a long while, they changed the game completly with networked deathmatch that everybody else has been milking into the ground, (you cant swing a dead cat and not hit 10000 FPS online games, be it console or PC nowdays).

the Wright brothers made the first Airplane, everybody else just copied it and made it better, Carmack made the first 3-D engine (basicly one mand show) now TEAMS (as in more then one person) creat copies that look better and preform better.

I'm not really sure where Carmack can make the next big step? 3D is pretty much the last step you can take with the current hardware. Maybe some VR googles (with a engine that can run it well?)

I guess one engine that changed the whole of gameing and still is, isnt enough? kinda beats the crap out of a LIVE gamer score that most of the people in the thread use as a high point of thier life (for those of you who dont, disreguard comment)
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
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.
Don't get me started on what was wrong with UT3. I purchased it two days after its release and since then I have written gobs of text about what was wrong with it and why it was a stillborn. Basically, it was consolized and released in a buggy beta-like condition. (You couldn't even add Favorites to the server browser!)

There's also something about the feel of the UT3 game play that just doesn't feel right. Perhaps it's the default movement speed (which seems much faster than that of UT99) or something about the nasty grungy Gears of War look they implemented. The on-foot game play really isn't too bad and for the most part they got the chemistry and feel of the that right, which is why it's such a shame that that game is a failure. Where they really screwed up in UT3 was with the consolized vehicles. They feel horrible compared to the UT 2004 Onslaught vehicles and you cannot even have first person view for flying vehicles.

That's just a very small summary from a long long list of what was wrong with that game. I've probably forgotten more about what was wrong with than I can remember and that most people will ever know.

If I want to play UT99 I just play UT99 in a 5v5 PUG match organized on IRC. UT3 just isn't a substitute for UT99 and from what I can tell it even has lower player counts than UT99 (and perhaps even UT 2004).

Do note that the UT99 pro CTF community had seriously considered moving to UT3 and actually liked the feel of the Deathmatch game play in the Beta Demo. However, as soon as they learned the truth about the retail release (that it was exactly like the Beta Demo) they completely lost interest.

The conclusion that I have reached about UT3 is that UT3 is an abortion.

I feel dirty whenever I load up UT3. I feel like I am supporting the consolization of PC gaming and morally sanctioning Epic Games in some sort of a way. The fact that they did such a horrible job with the Gamespy implementation, the user interface, and the server browser compared to what they were in UT99 and UT 2004 is just repulsive.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY