Interesting article on id...

Post by **Don Carlos** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:30 pm

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?optio ... mitstart=0

Post by **Hannibal** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:39 pm

He's right.

Post by **glossy** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:40 pm

accurate. i like it.

Post by **MKJ** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:40 pm

Hell, even the famed Reaperbot for the original Quake is still 10 times more entertaining than fighting drones in Doom 3.

fucking word

much attention has been paid to rendering a realistic environment that there just isn’t a lot of room left for that many bad guys.

thats what plagues quake2 as well. fuck the graphics for a change and make us a <i>game</i> :icon33:

Post by **bork[e]** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:41 pm

Steve Bowler has been working in the videogame industry on and off for the past 10 years, currently working at Midway Games as a lead animator in Chicago. While his main passion is animation, occasionally he spouts opinions about games. Quite often, people disagree with him.

I smell odium.

Post by **Penguin** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:47 pm

This reminds me of Hollywood...Great on special effects, but they can't write a story to save their lives...

Post by **4days** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:53 pm

bork[e] wrote:
Steve Bowler has been working in the videogame industry on and off for the past 10 years, currently working at Midway Games as a lead animator in Chicago. While his main passion is animation, occasionally he spouts opinions about games. Quite often, people disagree with him.
I smell odium.

dunno, this guy seems like he's being pretty fair, as opposed to being an ignorant, blinkered nomark.

Post by **dzjepp** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:57 pm

I dunno, I thought Doom 3 was okay. I mean look back at 2003, it was still a jaw dropping engine with nothing elese on the horizon that looked close. IMO maybe if the game came out in 2003 instead of '04 it would have a larger impact.

Post by **Underpants?** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:58 pm

good article, but narrow-visioned and shortsighted. What id created was a pillar of opportunity, a fertile base from which imaginative developers can generate fresh perspectives; it's not over by a long shot. Also, people who gripe and complain about the work of innovators are usually total worthless twats in real life.

Post by **rep** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:02 pm

Underpants? wrote:good article, but narrow-visioned and shortsighted. What id created was a pillar of opportunity, a fertile base from which imaginative developers can generate fresh perspectives; it's not over by a long shot. Also, people who gripe and complain about the work of innovators are usually total worthless twats in real life.

Exactly.

I think most people cry because DOOM 3 isn't as big as Quake 3. Quake 3 obviously has a presence because it was desgned for multiplayer, and over time it's got a lot of popular mods to keep people interested.

DOOM 3 is the best looking, and most innovative engine on the market. Everyone else just copies what they did.

Post by **shiznit** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:04 pm

Doom3 is not the best looking, I think Farcry was. Doom3 just doesn't look that real and it's too dark, it has a plastic feel to it.

Post by **R00k** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:11 pm

Doom3 was okay, even though it does get a bit tedious in parts.

But I agree that the engine is still very marketable. It's still ahead of the hardware. Once people have PCs that can run a massive outdoor map full of players, on the Doom3 engine, then I think we'll be able to judge id on the engine. Until then, developers aren't going to be using it because people won't buy a game that runs like crap on their system -- unless it's an id game or HL, pretty much. Devs aren't going to take that risk. I think we'll see more games coming out on the D3 engine in the next 1-2 years.

I have to admit they've crippled it though, with the shitty netcode and demo recording.

Post by **dzjepp** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:18 pm

Well, the thing is, people ARE licensing the UE3 engine, after all the media hype it's received. id on the other hand, I think only has splash damage doing ET: QW and maybe one other game using their engine (and you could consider splash damage a sister company of id, seeing as they are like on the same block and all). So it can't really be about performance issues. Even if you had a number of devs. licence the D3 engine now, that would be better beause a game is still gonna take them 2-3 years to make. You don't want them licencing the engine in 2005-6, that's gonna make their game see the light of day in 2008.

Post by **DooMer** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:25 pm

If you compare d3 to hl2 or farcry, then its the shit. I dont think I even finished farcry. When I saw the mongaloid enemy running in circles, and I could kill them with a knife, it was over for me. I beat hl2, even though I saw that the soldiers stand there until you kill them, unless you stop firing at them for a few seconds to reload.

Post by **Eraser** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:10 pm

The problem with many of these articles is that people see the game and the engine as one thing. While they are closely related, they should be viewed as two seperate things (eg: stating that the Doom3 engine sucks because it can render only small dark rooms is false and ignorant)

Post by **Eraser** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:12 pm

dzjepp wrote:Well, the thing is, people ARE licensing the UE3 engine, after all the media hype it's received. id on the other hand, I think only has splash damage doing ET: QW and maybe one other game using their engine (and you could consider splash damage a sister company of id, seeing as they are like on the same block and all). So it can't really be about performance issues. Even if you had a number of devs. licence the D3 engine now, that would be better beause a game is still gonna take them 2-3 years to make. You don't want them licencing the engine in 2005-6, that's gonna make their game see the light of day in 2008.

You've mixed up Splash Damage and Raven Software.
Raven are doing Quake IV and are indeed like what you could call id Software's sister company. Splash Damage does Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (another D3 engine game) and it UK based. Human Head Studios use the Doom3 engine for 3DRealms' Prey.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:12 pm

Eraser wrote:The problem with many of these articles is that people see the game and the engine as one thing. While they are closely related, they should be viewed as two seperate things (eg: stating that the Doom3 engine sucks because it can render only small dark rooms is false and ignorant)

i'm pretty sure anyone with half a peanut doesn't believe that. i don't get so anal about games, but it's pretty easy to figure that the Doom3 engine is capable of much more than what the game had to offer.

oh, and Underpants owned this thread.

/closed.

Post by **shadd_** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:26 pm

sure the original doom3 could render massive enviroments, with a computer 6 years from now.

thats probably why Id introduce their new rendering tech add-on to QW-ET for massive
enviroments.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:50 pm

DooMer wrote:If you compare d3 to hl2 or farcry, then its the shit. I dont think I even finished farcry. When I saw the mongaloid enemy running in circles, and I could kill them with a knife, it was over for me. I beat hl2, even though I saw that the soldiers stand there until you kill them, unless you stop firing at them for a few seconds to reload.

The AI in FarCry is fucking retarded at times.

The best AI in any game to date is PacMan. Those fucking ghosts would corral your stupid ass in no time.

Post by **bork[e]** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:55 pm

The best AI in any game to date is PacMan.

So you are going to compare something that has 4 different directions it can go to something that has, well...an unlimited supply of choices. hmmmmmm. idiot?

Post by **Eraser** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:59 pm

bork[e] wrote:
The best AI in any game to date is PacMan.
So you are going to compare something that has 4 different directions it can go to something that has, well...an unlimited supply of choices. hmmmmmm. idiot?

take a cup of sarcasm

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:03 pm

bork[e] wrote:
The best AI in any game to date is PacMan.
So you are going to compare something that has 4 different directions it can go to something that has, well...an unlimited supply of choices. hmmmmmm. idiot?

oh boy. obviously your "vacation" did you no good.

Post by **bork[e]** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:26 pm

Eraser wrote:
bork[e] wrote:
The best AI in any game to date is PacMan.
So you are going to compare something that has 4 different directions it can go to something that has, well...an unlimited supply of choices. hmmmmmm. idiot?
take a cup of sarcasm

maybe a cup of your own would do you some good.

Post by **obsidian** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:12 pm

shadd_ wrote:sure the original doom3 could render massive enviroments, with a computer 6 years from now.

thats probably why Id introduce their new rendering tech add-on to QW-ET for massive
enviroments.

The megatexture technology was already implemented in Doom3. It just wasn't used at all since Doom3 was almost entirely based in indoor environments. But the code's there, though Id Software hasn't publicly explained how it works yet in the SDK. The Doom3 engine is already quite capable of handling large outdoor environments.

It's one of the greatest myths surrounding the engine - just because someone who has no idea how the Doom3 engine works looks at just the game and decides to post an article about how the game only had indoor environments jumps to the conclusion that the engine couldn't do large outdoor environments at all. Have they actually built a large outdoom map to test this theory? Not likely. I've seen it in action and I know for a fact that it works quite well.

The only thing that Doom3 didn't implement (but quite easy to add on... possibly in QW:ET?) is LoD terrain. Someone at Id Software commented on how it was omitted since they thought that the LoD transitions in Doom3 looked a bit distracting. This is true for FarCry where you will notice that the terrain sort of changes shape slightly as the player approaches.

I'm quite tired of people who call themselves experts writing articles about game engines. While I agree that Doom3 wasn't as good of a game as it could have been, his comments on the engine are uneducated.

Doom3 does have head shots, so what's he going on about? Maybe he just can't shoot so it takes him 6 shots at the head (missing 4). Comparing any current engine with UE3 is retarded - UE3 doesn't really exist just yet and it certainly won't run on current machines.

I could go even further and discuss how banal the whole metal + hell aspect of it is. One can only take so much future-goth architecture overflowing with demons. It’s sufficiently played out. I’ve played through every Id title to date, and after 12 years of the same thing packaged in a new box, suddenly, I just don’t give a damn about hell anymore.

What was he expecting? Anything less wouldn't have been Doom3. It would have been called Half-Life2 or FarCry or something. The metal + hell, future-goth architecture thing was the whole basis of Doom3. Was he expecting pink textures with fuzzy bunnies to shoot at?

Pfft! This guy's a joke.

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:12 pm

dzjepp wrote:I dunno, I thought Doom 3 was okay. I mean look back at 2003, it was still a jaw dropping engine with nothing elese on the horizon that looked close. IMO maybe if the game came out in 2003 instead of '04 it would have a larger impact.

i beg to differ here. the tenebrae engine was out years ago and while it wasn't that great with the vanilla q1 maps it looked as good as d3 in the custom maps

DooMer wrote:If you compare d3 to hl2 or farcry, then its the shit.

:splutter:

it doesn't have true dynamic lighting but the source engine is the dog's proverbial bollox run under proper dx9, and its physics beats d3 by a country mile, especially the way valve incorporated them so strongly into the gameplay (which was streets ahead of d3 too).

dzjepp wrote:Well, the thing is, people ARE licensing the UE3 engine, after all the media hype it's received.

if it's built on the UE2, then they're licensing it because it's the most efficient engine out there for big spacious maps. BIA used UE2, and it runs like billy-o even with the huge scenery