Why D3 engine?

[brabee]

Hi guys, I was just curious, why do Human Head Studios use D3 engine? In my opinion, it would be more reasonable if they would DNF engine, with all the great stuff 3DR made with it. But maybe DNF engine just isnt that hot shot... Who knows...
But anyway, I believ Prey will be a great game, Rune was awesome. A one more question: is there any release date? Or just WID? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Gryph]

I was wondering the same thing. What makes D3 engine better than the others and more suitable for Prey. I hope the PC Gamer article will address that issue.

[vivftp]

Who knows... maybe they would've gone with Source, if they had known about it/had access to it when they started again in 2001. But Doom III tech was available, so they went with it...

It's not a bad engine... who knows, maybe HH can outshine Id on their own engine http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[shiranui]

How involved is 3dr in this anyway? I'm finding it a little hard to get excited about it as it seems, right now at least, to be "Prey" in name alone.

[Another Duke Fan]

GryphonKlaw said:
I was wondering the same thing. What makes D3 engine better than the others and more suitable for Prey. I hope the PC Gamer article will address that issue.



The answer is: best lighting + portal technology.

[Kev_Hectic]

^ I've read posts that mention that Doom 3's unified lighting would fix the problems that the original Prey engine had with lighting and portals.

My guess is they thought the Doom 3 engine was best suited for this kind of game.

[DLT]

Well if they started in 2001 wouldn't that be around the time that 3dr thought duke was going to be out but later scraped it?

If this was the case then why would they pick a 3d engine that would have been at it's peak in 2001 for a game that was going to be out in 2005?

That would have made little sense. The way I see it you pick the engine that you think is going to be high tech when your game comes out.

What do you think devs are buying now for games that are going to be out in 3 years+ Doom 3 or Unreal 3?

[dudetheman19]

Why didnt they use the DNF engine in Prey? Would have been cheeper + DNFs engine should be better or just as good as DOOM3's acorting to 3drealms. Or when did they start Prey on the doom3 engine?

[IHerman]

Here's what I think.

In 2001 the DNF engine was far from done. They had to choose between buying an (almost finished) engine, like Doom 3, or wait for 3DR to finish the 'DNF'-engine.

My guess is Doom 3, even though maybe not entirely finished, was ready to go. They could start developing levels and characters.

Waiting for 3DR was pretty risky, they switched before, and my guess is they knew then 3DR was going to start over again. It could take years before they could start.

Doom 3 seems a pretty good choice to me. It's an impressive engine, and ID failed to use it's full potential. I bet Prey will have stuff nobody knew the Doom 3 engine was able to pull off.

[Viper Knight]

shiranui said:
How involved is 3dr in this anyway? I'm finding it a little hard to get excited about it as it seems, right now at least, to be "Prey" in name alone.


Looking from the Max Payne games, two people from 3D Realms will have input into Prey. Those people being George Broussard and Scott Miller. A group of people from 3D Realms will also beta test the game most likely too.

[lonestar]

brabee said:
Hi guys, I was just curious, why do Human Head Studios use D3 engine? In my opinion, it would be more reasonable if they would DNF engine, with all the great stuff 3DR made with it.




yeah. that's what i said here, too. dnf plays on earth, probably with wide-open areas, a very detailed and interactivity world etc. so, 3drealms made a neat engine to handle all this stuff. i'm sure. since there are some prey shots with earth scenarios and this '98 prey demonstration video where are also typical everyday life scenes are shown, i thought, maybe the dnf engine would be a better choice.

but i'm sure, they made something great out of it. hopefully, it's not so d3-like dark and plays only in space.

[Kanzler]

It's easy...If you want to make the best game you have to buy the best engine.

Doom 3 engine beats Valve's Source in every aspect.
Better lightning, physics, etc.

I can't even imagine what D3 engine looks like in open areas.

For instance, in terms of graphics the Doom 3 Expansion Pack beats original Doom 3 and Half Life 2. (This expansion pack was released 8 months after D3).

(I'm only talking about the engine not gameplay)

[Daedolon]

I don't see why they dropped the original Prey engine, at least looking at one interview where they showed the features of their engine. Or was it the lightning problems what Kev_Hectic mentioned about?

[Drazula]

The Doom 3 engine is the best engine to date, and by far the best engine when they started work on Prey.

IMO, Prey will make the "Doom 3 can do it" site unnecessary. Prey will compliment current and upcoming Doom 3 engine games, showing Doom 3 can do just about anything. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[sflufan]

Kanzler said:
It's easy...If you want to make the best game you have to buy the best engine.

Doom 3 engine beats Valve's Source in every aspect.
Better lightning, physics, etc.

I can't even imagine what D3 engine looks like in open areas.

For instance, in terms of graphics the Doom 3 Expansion Pack beats original Doom 3 and Half Life 2. (This expansion pack was released 8 months after D3).

(I'm only talking about the engine not gameplay)



Better lighting - perhaps until we see Valve's "Lost Coast" level with HDR and the like

Better physics - you've got to be kidding me. And you do realize that a graphics engine has nothing to do with physics? HL2 used the Havok physics engine while I'm not sure what physics engine Doom 3 used. Whatever it was, it certainly was NOT on par with Havok.

[crunchy superman]

Daedolon said:
I don't see why they dropped the original Prey engine, at least looking at one interview where they showed the features of their engine. Or was it the lightning problems what Kev_Hectic mentioned about?



Here's something (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.graphics.algorithms/msg/dee51c21b20d0e4a?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rnum=5) William Scarboro wrote after he was off the project:

"There are many ugly problems in maintaining such an engine: two rooms linked by more than one portal (which results in rendering a room twice, basically, and even though they won't overlap, all the culling and transforms are duplicated), graph maintenance with spatial discontinuities, collision detection through portals, handling sound where one sound can seem to be coming from many different locations, rendering characters moving across portals that the z-buffer won't handle correctly, etc. It wasn't fun. The effects were really awesome, though"

[crunchy superman]

sflufan said:
while I'm not sure what physics engine Doom 3 used. Whatever it was, it certainly was NOT on par with Havok.



Maybe I'm wrong, but I was thinking Havok was precisely what they used. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

In any case, I would assume that proper implementation of physics by the developer is what would make it good or bad, and not necessarily the physics engine itself.

[TheKins]

crunchysuperman said:

sflufan said:
while I'm not sure what physics engine Doom 3 used. Whatever it was, it certainly was NOT on par with Havok.



Maybe I'm wrong, but I was thinking Havok was precisely what they used. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Doom 3 didn't use a "real" physics engine, all the physics stuff was done with game script, making it completely moddable.

[crunchy superman]

/stands corrected

[Gabrobot]

Doom 3 uses its own physics engine (all the D3 tech was made by id Software...makes it easier for Carmack to release the source code later). The physics engine was programmed by Jan Paul Van Waveren, who also did the AI system in Quake III and Doom 3. The physics engine is easily on par with Havok (Van Waveren is quite a genius) and the collision detection is far better (apparently Source still uses the old method which checks for collisions at each engine tick). Doom 3's physics are calculated out before they happen so that the engine already knows when things are going to collide. This means you can have very fast moving objects without having them go right through things. You can read about it here (http://archive.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/id/index2.shtml).

Doom 3 didn't hardly use the physics engine at all. The use of it is configured to disable physics on objects after a certain amount of time or when the object slows down to a certain speed (which is why you get the occasional wrench standing on end). It also tends not to activate objects until the player directly interacts with them, which is why objects sitting on other objects don't always seem to behave right. However, that can all be configured in the editors, and anyone who's toyed around with it much (and g_dragentity) will know that it's easily as good as Havok. It also has great Walk IK, which completely fixes all the problems with feet not touching the ground, and feet sliding on the ground, which is something I haven't noticed before in other engines. (Just switch to 3rd person view and run around some terrain for a while to see why it's so great)

Edit: The physics engine isn't done with scripts, it's all C++ code. However, the whole engine was released in the SDK so it is completely moddable. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cerberus_e]

they probably want a game that is not about walking into infinite squares http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[FireFly]

Gabrobot said:
It also has great Walk IK, which completely fixes all the problems with feet not touching the ground, and feet sliding on the ground, which is something I haven't noticed before in other engines. (Just switch to 3rd person view and run around some terrain for a while to see why it's so great)


George indicated that DNF does this.

[Drazula]

TheKins said:
Doom 3 didn't use a "real" physics engine, all the physics stuff was done with game script, making it completely moddable.


You make it sound like it was a gimmick. It was a real physics engine, but it was built in-house. And yes, it is VERY moddable.

[brabee]

Theres another thing: Rune used Unreal engine, so Human Head are pretty familiar with it. But still, why use a 3rd party engine, when 3DR have great engine "in da house"? Maybe it was like this: "Ok human head studios, we want to wait for unreal engine 3.0 for DNF, so use another one for prey" http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif))))))))))))))
Who knows:)
I would also like to ask any guy from 3DR, whats the release date and what are the minimum system specs, if these information are not secret:) Thx

[Kristian Joensen]

3D Realms hasn't got any in house engine.

[hell-angel]

Kristian Joensen said:
3D Realms hasn't got any in house engine.



The way I understand it, the engine they use for DNF is based on the unreal engine, but so heavily modified that it will most likely not be recognized as an unreal engine anymore. So you could say that the engine for DNF is an in house engine from 3DR. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kristian Joensen]

That is correct, but it is still based on the Unreal Engine, but they didn't start developing it until they restarted in early 2002. Prey was started

[Vexed]

hell-angel said:
So you could say that the engine for DNF is an in house engine from 3DR. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The license deal on the engine thing might protest to that.. I dunno

[Kristian Joensen]

They could still get a new licensen. The reason they did not use the same engien as DNF was that they hadn't even started development of the engine yet, while the Doom 3 engine had been in developent fo about a year.

YOu guys have to remeber that Prey started development in late 2001 while DNF was restarted in early 2002.

[Vexed]

You'd also think they'd want to save their pride and joy for their pride and joy, if you know what I mean.

[Karthik]

Prey was in developement?!

[Kristian Joensen]

All games go through development, they don't appear out of nothing.

[elloehpipati]

Kristian Joensen said:
All games go through development, they don't appear out of nothing.



And all this time I thought they grew on trees...

[Kristian Joensen]

Well, Karthik seems to think that.

[Gryph]

I wonder how the tools were for the Doom 3 engine. I remember reading that early on the tools were really bad for the level designers and stuff. I think Tim Willits said that.

So I guess Prey and Quake IV were the first to license the Doom III engine. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[brabee]

Yeah I remember something like that too. Anyway, I dont think they needed to license D3 engine for Quake IV:)

[The Count]

Kristian Joensen said:
They could still get a new licensen. The reason they did not use the same engien as DNF was that they hadn't even started development of the engine yet, while the Doom 3 engine had been in developent fo about a year.

YOu guys have to remeber that Prey started development in late 2001 while DNF was restarted in early 2002.



Yes, George said that HH began work on Prey in late 2001. Probably at the same time when 3DR began to turn their unreal-based engine they had so far into their own DNF-engine. That´s why they had no engine to provide for HH and had to license one from another company. Doom3-tech seems to be especially suitable for the new Prey-game, otherwise 3DR could have licensed the Unreal2-engine also.

[Lengis]

GryphonKlaw said:
So I guess Prey and Quake IV were the first to license the Doom III engine. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



First and only. I doubt anyone would license it anymore. UE3 is the platform of choice.

[ishak540m]

Lengis said:

GryphonKlaw said:
So I guess Prey and Quake IV were the first to license the Doom III engine. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



First and only. I doubt anyone would license it anymore. UE3 is the platform of choice.



My guess is that the Doom 3 engine can do just about anything the UE3 engine can do and vice versa obviously but both engines and Source need better particle systems.

[Duoae]

Plus i would speculate that a finished product (ie. Doom 3 and source - plus actually licencing the game from 2001 to today) would be more attractive in the short term future - 2006/7 rather than the Unreal 3 engine which will hit it's peak late 2006 early 2007.

Developers are going to want the tech that's applicable in their game's timescale....

[JackpotDen]

One thing, even though this seems extremly stupid, but with half life, you could pick things up.

Therefore, the physics was used, by our will.

This was not true in D3.

[Gryph]

JackpotDen said:
One thing, even though this seems extremly stupid, but with half life, you could pick things up.

Therefore, the physics was used, by our will.

This was not true in D3.


That doesn't mean that Doom III doesn't have a fully capable physics engine.

[Vexed]

Wait, what? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif anyway you can pick thing up in Doom3's expansion pack thing.

[JackpotDen]

GryphonKlaw said:

JackpotDen said:
One thing, even though this seems extremly stupid, but with half life, you could pick things up.

Therefore, the physics was used, by our will.

This was not true in D3.


That doesn't mean that Doom III doesn't have a fully capable physics engine.



I know, but its just not in the game (To be honest : ***** the expansion pack, im poor), therefore, I cant use it properly. Nothing says physics like "lob shit around"

[Vexed]

What's the point you're trying to make? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[John]

HL2 proved their physics by allowing you to pick up just about any object within weight capabilities. In Doom 3, you had less freedom in this way.

Ofcourse, this has nothing to do with the engine itself. Just the games; Doom 3 felt like it had less freedom for some reason.

And is it me, or whenever you punched an object and it flew somewhere, did it sorta go by too fast? I'd punch a box and it'd FLY across the room, rather than look like it's being punched.

[Lengis]

ishak540m said:

Lengis said:

GryphonKlaw said:
So I guess Prey and Quake IV were the first to license the Doom III engine. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



First and only. I doubt anyone would license it anymore. UE3 is the platform of choice.



My guess is that the Doom 3 engine can do just about anything the UE3 engine can do and vice versa obviously but both engines and Source need better particle systems.



Uhh no. Other than the fact that UE3 just plain looks better, it can handle outdoors MUCH better. Doom 3 engine was never known for it's ability to render elaborate outdoor enviroments. Or anything organic for that matter.

With that said, I don't think iD ever made an engine that could do outdoors very well. Epic makes better game engines, this is demonstrated by the sheer amount of 3rd parties that license it's tech, compared to the amount of companies that licensed iD's tech over the years.

Then there's the flexibility of the UE3. You can make pretty much any game you want with it. RPG, Strategy, Action, etc. Doom 3 is just good for FPS action.

I think Dark Pulse would agree with me on this

[lvlmaster]

You can pretty much make any engine work for whatever game you're willing to create. Just because UE3 has the ability to render outdoor areas, like terrain and forests, doesn't mean its the better engine.

Not every product on the market needs to have Unreal style terrain in order to be good...Its all a matter of content and how the game plays.

Doom3 isnt a good example of what Doom3 tech can do...They made their game and they wanted to make it a corridor crawler...It doesn't mean every game using that engine is doomed to be...well...Doom. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lengis]

lvlmaster said:
You can pretty much make any engine work for whatever game you're willing to create. Just because UE3 has the ability to render outdoor areas, like terrain and forests, doesn't mean its the better engine.




Can Doom 3 create a grand GTA3 style city scape? No, I don't think so. UE3 can.

[lvlmaster]

Why couldnt it? Have you tried? And how do you know UE3 can? Because of a silly tech demo? Id suggest actually learning something about the tech before you doom it completely.

Or are you the kinda guy who thinks every game should be GTA style?

[Gryph]

Out of the two I'd have to side with lvlmaster since, you know, he's actually worked with Doom III engine.

Could you answer one question, is the game lit? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[lvlmaster]

Check out the shots in the PCGamer ;D

[Lengis]

lvlmaster said:
Why couldnt it? Have you tried? And how do you know UE3 can? Because of a silly tech demo? Id suggest actually learning something about the tech before you doom it completely.

Or are you the kinda guy who thinks every game should be GTA style?



If it could be done, we would have seen it already. Where are all these great examples of D3 showing off it's true potential? I'm supposed to trust your word alone?

And yes, I trust a tech demo over the fillabuster of some employee of humanhead (if u really are)

[lvlmaster]

We wouldve seen it already? Theres no Doom 3 engine games on the market right now besides Doom 3.

So..once again...No one knows what Doom 3 can really do because all they have to look at IS Doom 3.

And sorry...Not a random forum kid...This is the Prey forum, and Im a level designer on the game.

EDIT : You quickly changed your random forum kid to an employee comment...Smooth moves ;D

[Lengis]

>>>>>And sorry...Not a random forum kid...This is the Prey forum, and Im a level designer on the game.

Yea I realized that after I read your profile.

>>>>>We wouldve seen it already? Theres no Doom 3 engine games on the market right now besides Doom 3.

It would have been in tech demos. There were plenty before Doom 3 was finished, showing off the tech. It makes sense for iD to show off everything it's capable of.

[Gryph]

I don't really remember too many tech demos shown by id for any of their engines. Everytime they showed the tech it was only part of the game and nothing special. If you have any links to the videos I'd really appreciate it. I only remember the MacWorld unveiling of the engine and I already have that video.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and showing clips of the game at QuakeCon.

[Lengis]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screenindex.html?page=22

Tech demo screenshots. It was shown in Tokyo for the Geforce 3. They wowed the audience with it's fantastic visual display, there's no doubt they would have shown everything it was capable of durring this presentation.

[lvlmaster]

Thats a good point...Why not show it in a tech demo if its possible to do it...

The only problem with that is how old is the Doom 3 engine? The tech demos were from at least 2 years ago, if not more. It could date to even back to 2001/2002...GTA 3 came out in 2001.

Cut to the point here....GTA style games were just getting popular. The whole idea of a massive city wasn't the "coolest" thing in the world at that time. The coolest thing for ID to show was that they could have completely badass shadows and some high poly stuff on the screen.

Gamers today want everythign to be large...Large open scale battles, Epic cities and terrain, vehicles. UE3 is brand new, so why not show everything that gamers want to see?

Hell, even look at Quake 4, its using Doom 3 and they are promising vehicles and large areas, including terrain.

[John]

Dude...he's a level designer on the game using the D3 engine http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif He might know alittle bit about this.

[Lengis]

lvlmaster said:

Hell, even look at Quake 4, its using Doom 3 and they are promising vehicles and large areas, including terrain.



But it's no where on the same level as what we saw in that UE3 tech demo.

Do I think you are completely full shit? No, but I think you are way over exageratting. If it's so easy to do, why not put it in Prey? You are a level designer after all. Tangible evidence speaks much louder than words.

[lvlmaster]

And Im agreeing with you on the fact that UE3 can do outdoors better...Sure...Its newer. Its still not even done.

But you said this engine can't do it at all...and Im simply saying it can.

And why dont we do it in Prey? Why do we have to make a GTA style game like everyone else? We have a chance to make a completely unique game with stuff you havent seen before...We aren't a cookie cutter company, either is 3DR.

We have good ideas, we're making cool original games.

If you want to play the same GTA style stuff over again, buy something that has gangs and is set in an urban city. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Oh, and dont forget the cool hip-hop soundtrack.

[Gryph]

I'm expecting phat beats by P. Diddy with guest singer Beyonce to be in Prey. If it doesn't have it, well I'm sorry but I'm not going to play.

[John]

Do you atleast have modern day looking rooms and such, like in the original Prey?

A room filled with furniture, not all dark and such.

[Lengis]

Doom 3 is a fine engine. I'm sure the game will be at least decent.

[lvlmaster]

awww giving up? I was having fun http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[lvlmaster]

haha but seriously, UE3 is by far a better engine...Sure.

But then again, FarCry can do much larger outdoor areas than UE3 http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif So, its just a toss-up.

It all depends on what you wanna make...Whatever engine sounds good and whatever tweaks you can do to make it better. It all comes down to the gameplay...Hell, If I could still make levels with the BUILD engine I would be http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lengis]

You haven't convinced me if that's what you are thinking. I still believe D3 can't do organic outdoors. Yea, it can do outdoors, but with a lush jungle type setting? Quake 4 will be fine, Prey will be fine, but they both still look exactly like Doom 3.

[Drazula]

This is a ridiculous argument. UE3 cannot run on the hardware that Doom 3 can run on. And given the bigger hardware, Doom 3 can run bigger levels.

But Doom 3 is not targeted to that hardware. So it will reach its limitations before the hardware reaches its limits. However, Doom 3 subsystems are flexible enough to be improved and expanded to match the improved hardware.

[Ninja]

Regardless of what engine Prey uses, I hope there's vast landscapes (as partly seen in the 1998 video interview) and unique art direction; I'd hate to see it look like all these generic sci-fi shooters of late.

[Nailed]

Stop irritating the level designer. He'll put in a bunch of jumping "puzzles" to pay us back. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

LvlMaster, here's some things you can do to make the public happy. Most of them you already know, but it can't hurt to repeat them:

1. Don't let the artists shine things up too much. People really don't like everything to be shiny.

2. Stick in some good secret areas. People love talking about those sorts of things, and it helps to spread the game by word of mouth.

3. Constantly compare your work to the levels in Doom3. If they're too similar in style, don't be afraid to redo things to make Prey different.

4. Keep asking yourself why the level is fun, and if it's not fun, redo it. Learn from your mistakes.

5. Keep the crates to a minimum. Come up with more original props.

6. Don't spawn enemies where the player is certain there shouldn't be any, such as areas he has just explored.

7. Keep up the good work.

Also, any links of your previous work for us to check out?

[Krid]

Vexed said:
What's the point you're trying to make? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif



The point is that the first game ID releases on an engine is always a tech demo - this has been true since they realized they could license their engines out.

DooM 3, however, sucks as a tech demo. The engine itself it fully capable of outdoors areas, multiple lights, high-quality physics, etc... However, they didm't show those features off at all.

Valve, however, did a wonderful job showing engine features off, and the ones they didn't they plan to demo for free. They gave people the ability to play with the physics directly, they had an entire section of the game devoted to large-scale maps with fast transport, they ran their shaders into the ground, they gave you plenty of time to look at their facial features system up-close, and they adored showing-off the lighting system. In actual technical specs, the engine is roughly equal to the DooM 3 engine, but they used what they had better and are reaping the rewards. Case in point, DooM 3's problem with distorted normal maps is likely a result of lackluster texture use, while HL2 has everything looking silky-smooth (Albet blurry) on even the lowest video settings.

---

Re: Nailed, point 5: No, barrels are NOT an acceptable alternative.

[Gabrobot]

Krid said:
The point is that the first game ID releases on an engine is always a tech demo - this has been true since they realized they could license their engines out.

DooM 3, however, sucks as a tech demo. The engine itself it fully capable of outdoors areas, multiple lights, high-quality physics, etc... However, they didm't show those features off at all.



What? id Software has stated many times that Doom 3 is not a tech demo. The most obvious proof of this is that it doesn't show off what it can do. I'd say Quake IV is much closer to being a "tech demo game" because it's doing large outdoor areas with tons of enemies and vehicles. Of course, maybe it could be to that some people don't understand the concept that a game can still be tons fun without actually doing anything new...just because it's not "innovative" doesn't mean it's a tech demo. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Was Quake III a tech demo? (If you answer yes, then you might want to talk to all the hardcore DM fans who can't imagine playing anything but Q3) It didn't even come close to what the later (of the huge number of) Q3 powered games did (look at Wolfenstein ET for an example).



An interesting thing that I have noticed with Doom 3 is that it's technology is actually much better suited to organic enviroments. This should be pretty obvious (to anyone who actually played through the whole game) since the most stunning things in the game are the organic growths and the Hell and ruins levels.

A good example of an outdoor level is this (http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=9295) level. (The hills are part of the level, and not in the skybox)

Oh, and I really do care about Prey, not just Doom 3 (I'm anxiously awaiting my issue of PCGamer which ought to arive soon!). I just tend to post when I get pissed off about people talking about the D3 engine. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Giblet]

Are you just making things up to sound right Lingus?

UE3 is made for gfx cards that really haven't come out yet. You won't be getting more than 30 fps with anything but the top gfx cards.

If one thing id can do, it's scalable engines. Add a few more polys, write some more shaders to do proper displacement mapping, make new textures then add some HDR , and you can get any style you want. Doom i3 is out a few months now, UE3 won't be seen for a while. It probably won't be seen until the XBOX2 (I have a feeling the first UE3 games will be on the XBOX2 over the PC)

I mean, why bother making up "facts" about what each engine can do. Trust me, the Doom III engine can do more than was showing in the game. People seem to forget that the more you add the more problems you get performance wise. This won't be a problem in another 18 months time.

[Drazula]

Krid said:
The point is that the first game ID releases on an engine is always a tech demo - this has been true since they realized they could license their engines out.


I disagree. I have yet to see an id game take full advantage of an engines capabilities. None of the Quake games did. Maybe Doom. This is not a slam on id. Trailblazers push to new areas, they don't examine the potential of area they are in.


Krid said:
DooM 3, however, sucks as a tech demo.


Because it's based on a game design document, not an engine's capabilities. The engine is built to accomadate the design, but if additional capabilities can be added with minimal impact, they get put in. While it may have been easy to add the feature in the engine, it may be hard to put in the levels/models/design/etc.

They should not go back and change a game's design because an engine can do something better than expected. That is feature creep. And the game will never get completed if every time a cool thing is added to the engine a design change takes place (See 3DR). Save that for the expansion pack! (See ROE, the best expansion pack EVER!)


Krid said:
The engine itself it fully capable of outdoors areas, multiple lights, high-quality physics, etc... However, they didm't show those features off at all.


I agree. You have to look at future game engines (like UE3) to find anything comparable to Doom 3.

[FireFly]

Drazula said:
I disagree. I have yet to see an id game take full advantage of an engines capabilities. None of the Quake games did. Maybe Doom. This is not a slam on id. Trailblazers push to new areas, they don't examine the potential of area they are in.


You're proving his point. To take full advantage of the tech requires focus on gameplay, i.e examining "the potential of area they are in".

So id's games are considered tech demos not because they fully exploit their new tech but because they fail to. This leaves an unexploited tech framework, i.e a "tech demo" that showcases new tech but doesn't have the gameplay to fully utilise it.


I agree. You have to look at future game engines (like UE3) to find anything comparable to Doom 3.


Future game engines exceed Doom 3. Current game engines are on par with Doom 3, feature-wise. What does the Doom 3 engine do that other engines don't?

I mean, the sound system is pretty simple, the specularity system is incredibly limited, there's no support for pre-computed shadowing, there's no support for post process effects, there's no advanced squad based A.I system.

[Lengis]

Stop irritating the level designer.



I'm getting a little tired of kids who jump to the rescue of the developers. They are big boys, they can handle themselves. I have an opinion, and I'm allowed to have it. Stop irritating me.


UE3 is made for gfx cards that really haven't come out yet. You won't be getting more than 30 fps with anything but the top gfx cards.



This was not my point. What does this have to do with anything?


Giblet said:
I mean, why bother making up "facts" about what each engine can do. Trust me, the Doom III engine can do more than was showing in the game.



Actually, I didn't make up any facts goblet. And no, I won't trust you.

[lvlmaster]

"I'm getting a little tired of kids who jump to the rescue of the developers. They are big boys, they can handle themselves. I have an opinion, and I'm allowed to have it. Stop irritating me."



Indeed, Its not a big deal http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif He's making good points about past-tech and future-tech.

[Kristian Joensen]

What physics engine does Prey use ?

[Lengis]

Thanks lvlmaster http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif


btw, I believe the physics are megon?

[Kristian Joensen]

Where have you read that ?

[Gabrobot]

FireFly said:
Future game engines exceed Doom 3. Current game engines are on par with Doom 3, feature-wise. What does the Doom 3 engine do that other engines don't?

I mean, the sound system is pretty simple, the specularity system is incredibly limited, there's no support for pre-computed shadowing, there's no support for post process effects, there's no advanced squad based A.I system.



The sound system may be simple, but the reason for that was because it was easier for the developers to use and get the results they wanted (the sound engine that was in Doom 3 before was very advanced and had sound physics that could bounce sounds off walls and all that shit). If developers want an advanced sound system they can either use the old one (they have access to such things even if it never made it into the final Doom 3 engine used in Doom 3) or they can use the EAX one that'll soon be released in the 1.3 patch. I'd say D3 has no problems in the sound department.

Specularity system is limited? You mean there's no gloss map support? All one needs to do to add support for gloss maps is add some code in the interaction shader...mods have already done this, it's certainly no problem for developers.

No support for precomputed lighting...why the hell would you want precomputed lighting? Even UE3 doesn't use precomputed lighting even though it still uses precomputed shadows. Real time lighting is far more realistic looking and a lot more flexible. Did you mean precomputed shadows? Precomputed shadows take tons of time to compute (offline) but still often end up low res and often glitchy. They make doing large areas very hard because of the resolution you need on the lightmap in order for the shadows to not look like crap (blocky mess)...this takes a long time to compute, and it takes up tons of memory when running the level.

No post processing effects? You can run shaders on the screen...what kind of post-processing effects did you have in mind?

How do you know there's no advanced AI system? You obviously didn't do any research since Doom 3 has an extremely powerful AI system powered by the engines scripting system. Doom 3 hardly even scratched the surface...I presume Quake IV is going take better advantage of it from what the articles have said.

And as far as UE3, for the most part what has wowed people is the artwork...you can get just about the same thing with the Doom 3 engine since most of it is simply geomtry with high-res normal maps. You'd need to add HDR to D3, but that's not to hard a thing to do (Doom 3 already has some HDR code...the biggest problem with adding HDR is actually just implemmenting controls for it into all the different tools). UE3 uses soft shadows on a few things, but most of the real-time shadows are actually stencil shadows like Doom 3 has. Of course if you talk about the tools UE3 has, then there's no contest...UE3 far surpasses everything we currently have.

[Drazula]

You're proving his point. To take full advantage of the tech requires focus on gameplay, i.e examining "the potential of area they are in".


You are not saying the same thing he is. He said Doom 3 was not a good tech demo because it didn't take full advantage of the engine. In other words, a good tech demo takes full advantage of the engine. You are saying good gameplay takes full advantage of an engine.

He calls full advantage a tech demo, you call it gameplay. Which is it? And no, it can't be both since a "tech demo" implies no gameplay.

BTW, what I said was that none of id's games took advantage of the engine, therefore they were not good "tech demos". They were great games.


Future game engines exceed Doom 3. Current game engines are on par with Doom 3, feature-wise. What does the Doom 3 engine do that other engines don't?


You'll have to wait until I stop laughing for me to reply sensibly to this... it may take a while. Features are only as good as their implementation. By your logic, the Serious Engine is better than all of them because it has more features. It is how good those features are that matters.


I mean, the sound system is pretty simple, the specularity system is incredibly limited


Sound is simple but the results are good. As for the specular system, that is your opinion.


there's no support for pre-computed shadowing,


Uh, that's a good thing. All lighting is treated the same way. That's the point.


there's no advanced squad based A.I system.


You mean that POS static node system used in Source? The one I had to gut out so I could put a real AI system in place? I would have been better off with Doom 3. At least it is not pretentious about AI. (Far Cry's AI is still the best.)

[Kristian Joensen]

Kristian Joensen said:
What physics engine does Prey use ?



Oh and btw is there any code at all in there from the old Prey ?

[Krid]

Kristian Joensen said:

Kristian Joensen said:
What physics engine does Prey use ?



Oh and btw is there any code at all in there from the old Prey ?



What I want to know is how much of the nifty stuff shown in these videos is going to be in the game:

http://www.imhz.com/videos/Prey_E3_1998_IMHz.avi
http://atlas.secs.oakland.edu/~lcmatero/prey/files/Prey_E3_1998_Demo.mpg

I'm mostly intrigued by the portal system, as AFAIK it hasn't been used since the days of Build, and then only a fairly crude implimentation.

[Kristian Joensen]

Portals are in.

[Kev_Hectic]

Nevermind, looks like Joe already took all the links down. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[FireFly]

Drazula said:
You're proving his point. To take full advantage of the tech requires focus on gameplay, i.e examining "the potential of area they are in".
You are not saying the same thing he is. He said Doom 3 was not a good tech demo because it didn't take full advantage of the engine. In other words, a good tech demo takes full advantage of the engine. You are saying good gameplay takes full advantage of an engine.

He calls full advantage a tech demo, you call it gameplay. Which is it? And no, it can't be both since a "tech demo" implies no gameplay.


Both http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

A game demo can simply be an effective demonstration of the tech. He gives the example of HL2, a game which relies on its game design to show the full power of its tech. And again, take his physics systems example. In Doom 3 the physics system is fully present. According to your definition Doom 3 should be a great tech demo, however it's not because the applications of the tech have barely been touched upon.

So id aren't utilising their engine properly because they're concentrating more on the tech itself, which in turn makes that tech less marketable. This is why the "but they didn't utilise the tech properly" argument is no defence.


You'll have to wait until I stop laughing for me to reply sensibly to this... it may take a while. Features are only as good as their implementation. By your logic, the Serious Engine is better than all of them because it has more features. It is how good those features are that matters.


What makes you think feature-wise simply refers to the sheer number of features?


Sound is simple but the results are good.


Why settle for good when you can have great! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif


As for the specular system, that is your opinion.


You're right. It also happens to be Carmack's opinion.

"human characters have a kind of plastic look about them. This is because there's only a simple specular highlight system in place -- that's the part of the engine that renders light hitting a surface. DOOM 3's basic system looks great on surfaces that are dull or plastic, but it's not good at rendering high-gloss surfaces such as polished, shining steel."

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/doom-3/539049p1.html

"What we call specular maps in Doom 3 are more commonly called "gloss maps," where it's just affecting the
intensity of the specular highlight, but we now also add in new technology, the ability to change the breadth of the specular highlight. That lets you do a lot of interesting things with... the highlight that we've got in Doom is
really quite broad for a specular highlight, and it's about what you'd get on a really dull plastic; something that wasn't very shiny, it's a kind of fairly broad, spread out thing. You don't get anything that looks like a really good metallic highlight, or things that would be shiny cast plastic, so there's a lot of neat stuff that you get just
playing with that, and going ahead and having some that are even broader and some that tighten down a whole lot to give you bright little pin-point highlights on there."

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=266373


Uh, that's a good thing. All lighting is treated the same way. That's the point.


Why do you want to treat all light in the same way? You're taking a mathmatical principle over visual judgement.

You get a massive boost in performance combined with a boost in lighting detail. And of course you can tweak the lighting models until the difference becomes nearly imperceptible.


You mean that POS static node system used in Source? The one I had to gut out so I could put a real AI system in place? I would have been better off with Doom 3. At least it is not pretentious about AI. (Far Cry's AI is still the best.)


Some squad combat is better than no squad combat at all. But why bring up Source? What about the Far Cry and F.E.A.R. engines?

In response to Gabrobot (I had a response but my browser crashed):

The sound system may be limited because id fell foul of excessive sophistication, but that doesn't invalidate the entire paradign. I didn't realise all previous code was available for easy integration.

I actually said "advanced squad based A.I", so I was talking about the group combat behaviour (working together, flanking, laying down fire etc.) And again, I said pre-computed shadowing so I wasn't talking about raytracing or anything. Doing precomputed shadowing should only yield a performance hit while the lighting is being calculated. After that it's baked into the level. Also texture size shouldn't be a problem because it's being rendered offline (and Carmack is already doing this stuff in real time anyway).

UE3 actually uses a lot of soft shadows. Stencil shadows are only utilised for moving lights. All shadows cast by static lights are soft. I agree that art is a lot of the appeal but that doesn't mean there isn't a hug gape technology wise between the two engines.

[Gabrobot]

FireFly said:
So id aren't utilising their engine properly because they're concentrating more on the tech itself, which in turn makes that tech less marketable. This is why the "but they didn't utilise the tech properly" argument is no defence.



This would be a good argument except that D3's tech was already pretty much done in 2003. Carmack talked about how much time he had to kill which he spent polishing the engine (he said he polished it more than any engine he's worked on before) and experimenting with technology for his next engine (which is where the HDR and shadow buffer cvars came from). Also, there are a couple test levels with two vehicles, with models and everything. It wouldn't have been hard to polish them and put them in the game, but id didn't because they didn't think it fit the design of the game they wanted.


FireFly said:Why do you want to treat all light in the same way? You're taking a mathmatical principle over visual judgement.

You get a massive boost in performance combined with a boost in lighting detail. And of course you can tweak the lighting models until the difference becomes nearly imperceptible.



Workflow. This is especially important today with the incredible amounts of detail artists have to create. Pre-computing things throws a wrench into the workflow. I have to work with lightmaps in my Jedi Academy levels and it's a real pain in the arse to have to compile a level, look at the lighting, go back into the editor and tweak it, compile again, rinse repeat. In Doom 3 the artist can render the level in real-time and tweak things to perfection in a tiny fraction of the time it would otherwise take. What you get is better quality much quicker (which means even more good stuff). Sure it runs slower, but modern computer have no problem running it. If an engine is running at 120fps on current computers, it doesn't mean it's well designed, it means it's out of date. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
(Referring to the Source engine there, btw)


FireFly said:I actually said "advanced squad based A.I", so I was talking about the group combat behaviour (working together, flanking, laying down fire etc.)



That's entirely up to the programmer who writes the AI scripts...the point is the AI scripting system is powerful enough so that you can actually do that. TinMan made a squad combat mod, and Quake IV promises complex squad AI that flanks, distracts, ect.


FireFly said:And again, I said pre-computed shadowing so I wasn't talking about raytracing or anything. Doing precomputed shadowing should only yield a performance hit while the lighting is being calculated. After that it's baked into the level. Also texture size shouldn't be a problem because it's being rendered offline (and Carmack is already doing this stuff in real time anyway).



What I was referring to is something I've had to deal with in my Jedi Academy levels. In large levels with terrain, the lightmap data becomes huge (real-time shadowing only needs to process what's visible...when a lightmapped level is loaded, it needs to load the whole lightmap into memory). Early Q3 levels with terrain (such as those in Team Arena) didn't have lightmaps at all. With games using a diffuse map, normal map, specular map, and possibly a gloss and luminosity map, then a ton of lightmap data takes a large toll on the quality of all those other maps. UE3 isn't quite as bad here because it only has shadow masks (it does all lighting in real-time) but it still isn't as elegant as a unified system. Also, there are bound to be glitches and such in an engine with several shadowing methods used together...with a single method, the system can be polished to a much greater degree.

And again, workflow is a huge thing to consider. I think you have to be a level editor to really appreciate what real-time lighting let's you do. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyway, I'm done ranting for now. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[FireFly]

Gabrobot said:
This would be a good argument except that D3's tech was already pretty much done in 2003. Carmack talked about how much time he had to kill which he spent polishing the engine (he said he polished it more than any engine he's worked on before) and experimenting with technology for his next engine (which is where the HDR and shadow buffer cvars came from). Also, there are a couple test levels with two vehicles, with models and everything. It wouldn't have been hard to polish them and put them in the game, but id didn't because they didn't think it fit the design of the game they wanted.


And why is the game design limited? Because they are tech rather than gameplay focused!

If they wanted they could have made full use of the physics system, it was one of the things they talked about a lot in early previews. They chose to downplay its role.


Workflow. This is especially important today with the incredible amounts of detail artists have to create. Pre-computing things throws a wrench into the workflow. I have to work with lightmaps in my Jedi Academy levels and it's a real pain in the arse to have to compile a level, look at the lighting, go back into the editor and tweak it, compile again, rinse repeat. In Doom 3 the artist can render the level in real-time and tweak things to perfection in a tiny fraction of the time it would otherwise take. What you get is better quality much quicker (which means even more good stuff).


As I understand it though, workflow isn't smooth anyway. Level developers are waiting on tech, on programmer assistance and other art assets. So it's not just a case of "ok, we've done the lighting quicker so we'll automatically complete the level quicker".

I'd like to see some real world evidence as to the effect this sort of WYSIWYG editing has, especially in comparison to the quickest pre-computed solutions.


Sure it runs slower, but modern computer have no problem running it. If an engine is running at 120fps on current computers, it doesn't mean it's well designed, it means it's out of date. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
(Referring to the Source engine there, btw)


Performance gained from using a pre-computed lighting model can be used on other areas, like texture or model 'resolution'. And of course with lower overhead, owners of lesser graphics cards don't have to sacrifice as much to get playable frame rates.


That's entirely up to the programmer who writes the AI scripts...the point is the AI scripting system is powerful enough so that you can actually do that. TinMan made a squad combat mod, and Quake IV promises complex squad AI that flanks, distracts, ect.


Ok, but how big a step up is that from writing everything yourself?


UE3 isn't quite as bad here because it only has shadow masks (it does all lighting in real-time) but it still isn't as elegant as a unified system. Also, there are bound to be glitches and such in an engine with several shadowing methods used together...with a single method, the system can be polished to a much greater degree.


What sort of glitches?


And again, workflow is a huge thing to consider. I think you have to be a level editor to really appreciate what real-time lighting let's you do. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


I understand that, but I'm speaking as a gamer who wants the maximum performance and eye candy possible. Valve managed very effective lighting design despite a hugely time consuming map compile system, so why can't the rest of the world? And shadow masks should have a much lesser compile time anyway.

[ADM]

Lengis said:
Quake 4 will be fine, Prey will be fine, but they both still look exactly like Doom 3.



See this is proof that you just bullshit all the time Lengis. Ok we've seen Quake 4 screens but have you seen the new Prey screens?

No? So how do you know it'll look exactly like Doom 3?

An engine is an engine.. just a bunch of code, it's up to the Art team in the end to make it look different then Doom 3. Just because it's the same engine doesn't mean they have to look remotely similar.

Plus who even said they arn't going to make changes to the rendering engine?

[John]

Um...I've seen the Prey shots, and I'll go on a limb and say they look like Doom 3.

[Kev_Hectic]

^ Yeah, the whole PC Gamer article was posted on the board yesterday.





<font color="#1F1F22">Move along, nothing to see here...</font>

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ADM]

Well there you have it http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I apologise.

[Drazula]

I thought the style of the creatures seemed more Unreal-like than Doom 3.

[Cerberus_e]

as long the AI is good like the review says (you never know: think of doom 3 and HL2)
because I'm tired of shooting seek-and-destroy-AI type monsters in games that only throw few enemies at a time at you.
doom 3 and half-life 2 are good but they only throw 1-2-3 enemies at you at the same time, and they have seek-and-destroy AI (HL2: except on hard, then the combine has hide-AI, but still no variaton, and it's only for the combine and is stille easy), which makes it less good.
painkiller and doom 2 also have seek-and-destroy AI monsters, but they come in groups of 20-30-40, which makes it fun.
I didn't mind it in doom 3 because the game is unique to some extent, but quake 4 and prey look like doom 3 so I don't want the same.
another exception to this rule would be far cry, because:
1) there are tons of other INTELLIGENT enemies
2) it only happens in a certain part of the game (the middle part)
3) the big/open environment makes it all good.

[Imfamous]

Drazula said:
I thought the style of the creatures seemed more Unreal-like than Doom 3.



http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ADM]

Drazula said:
I thought the style of the creatures seemed more Unreal-like than Doom 3.



True.

It's definitely got it's Doom 3 qualities but all in all I think it's quite impressive and a far cry (heh) from Doom 3's dark style.

[Lengis]

John said:
Um...I've seen the Prey shots, and I'll go on a limb and say they look like Doom 3.



Nuff said^

[FireFly]

Drazula said:
I thought the style of the creatures seemed more Unreal-like than Doom 3.


The art design does, but there's something about the quality of the skin and lightiing that make the monsters seem very Doom 3-like.

It's like a version of Doom 3 with truly twisted enemies. Those Hounds look nasty.

[John]

It looks like a really badass Doom 3 expansion.

[Ivan]

John said:
It looks like a really badass Doom 3 expansion.



It looks badass, but I still have a problem with the too-close-similitute with D3. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Lengis]

It looks better than Doom 3, I think we can agree on that at least.

[Cerberus_e]

looking better? looking the same? looking like far cry?
what strange opinions will I yet hear http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[KaiserSoze]

graphics a game do not make.

gameplay guys, gameplay!

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FireFly]

Graphics + gameplay = game. Both are important.

[KaiserSoze]

i will take fun gameplay over graphics any day of the week. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lengis]

KaiserSoze said:
graphics a game do not make.

gameplay guys, gameplay!

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



You aren't telling us anything we don't know. But graphics are supposed to help serve the gameplay, and the atmosphere. If prey was Cell Shaded, it would be a completely different game. Humans are visual animals, and we react accordingly.

[Duoae]

KaiserSoze said:
i will take fun gameplay over graphics any day of the week. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



Kaiser, you say that so often these days i think that it might save you some writing time if you just put it in your sig! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[FireFly]

KaiserSoze said:
i will take fun gameplay over graphics any day of the week. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


Of course, but imagine fun gameplay with perfect graphics. That's why graphics are so important, they're the final layers of icing that give that deeper flavour.

Do you want Prey to just provide an enjoyable game, or would you like an enjoyable world and experience?

[John]

I definatley agree that the game is better looking than Doom 3. The picture with the lights on the floor looks simply amazing. And I am definatley hoping to see some outdoor elements;

seeing as how this game isn't based on Mars, so it doesn't have an excuse to look bland.

[Cerberus_e]

it's on a space ship instead, even less outdoor environments than mars http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[John]

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif Nooooooo!

[FireFly]

But that's what's so cool. The ship is its own outdoors. And you get your own space pod \0/

[Kev_Hectic]

^ It might not be limited to just spaceship environments though. In the preview it says that there will be some vehicles to drive around in, including one that's a small space ship. If you look carefully at the screenshots, you can see that the player appears to be flying around in a small spacecraft on the moon.

EDIT: http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif beaten by firefly!

[Orochi Avlis]

Some things in the environment look like they came directly from Doom 3. Or is it just me?

[Gabrobot]

FireFly said:
And why is the game design limited? Because they are tech rather than gameplay focused!

If they wanted they could have made full use of the physics system, it was one of the things they talked about a lot in early previews. They chose to downplay its role.



I'd like to point out that there was a lot of bad feeling at id Software with the decision to do a Doom game (a couple pro-Doom people were even fired by the lead artists). It's interesting to note that before that, id Software was actually looking at doing a fantasy themed RPG (they had even started design work on it). Carmack is definitely tech focused, but he knows that and lets the artists do the actual design. Things were omitted because their goal was not about showing off their tech. Doom 3 barely even scratched the surface of the engine's power, even considering computer hardware.


FireFly said:As I understand it though, workflow isn't smooth anyway. Level developers are waiting on tech, on programmer assistance and other art assets. So it's not just a case of "ok, we've done the lighting quicker so we'll automatically complete the level quicker".

I'd like to see some real world evidence as to the effect this sort of WYSIWYG editing has, especially in comparison to the quickest pre-computed solutions.



I think you misunderstood what I meant about the advantages of getting stuff done faster. If you can do something as time consuming as lighting much faster, than you can concentrate your efforts on things such as interactivity, less linear design, larger more detailed levels, ect. Even if nothing else, it means you can tweak the flow and gameplay of your level more instead of spending it tweaking lighting. If things are far enough along for the level designer to be making a level, they probably won't be held back from doing a lot of these things because of other factors.

As for real world evidence, I can't really say anything about that, but I know there is a level designer for Prey around here...perhaps he might be able to better compare workflow.


FireFly said:Performance gained from using a pre-computed lighting model can be used on other areas, like texture or model 'resolution'. And of course with lower overhead, owners of lesser graphics cards don't have to sacrifice as much to get playable frame rates.



You're talking about different things here...doing shadows in real-time doesn't take up memory which would normally be used for textures (that's what lightmaps do). The reason Doom 3 has lower resolution textures is simply because it uses more of them (every material has several layers). And while it's true that older video cards have to turn settings down, it still looks great. On my older computer (P3 866Mhz, Geforce 4) it still looks pretty damn good. (Although the CPU makes it run a bit slow...the outdoor levels actually run the fastest, going about 40FPS when a lot of indoor levels run at 5-10FPS in the worst parts).


FireFly said:Ok, but how big a step up is that from writing everything yourself?



It enables you to work at a higher level and concentrate more on the AI since you don't have to worry about low level stuff.


FireFly said:What sort of glitches?



Overhead from using several methods may make it run slower than if it had a single well optimized system. It's liable to run into problems with lots of lights (Far Cry for example has a cap on the number of dynamic lights that can cast shadows...that's why the flashlight doesn't cast shadows) due to all the interaction between different systems. I obviously can't speak directly about UE3 (it may be it works fine), but I still think a unified system is more efficient and dependable.


FireFly said:I understand that, but I'm speaking as a gamer who wants the maximum performance and eye candy possible. Valve managed very effective lighting design despite a hugely time consuming map compile system, so why can't the rest of the world? And shadow masks should have a much lesser compile time anyway.



It took Valve six years to make HL2, though. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Also shadow masks still take several hours on top of the line systems (lighting isn't what makes compiling lightmaps take so long...it's the shadow stuff).

[FireFly]

Gabrobot said:
I'd like to point out that there was a lot of bad feeling at id Software with the decision to do a Doom game (a couple pro-Doom people were even fired by the lead artists). It's interesting to note that before that, id Software was actually looking at doing a fantasy themed RPG (they had even started design work on it). Carmack is definitely tech focused, but he knows that and lets the artists do the actual design. Things were omitted because their goal was not about showing off their tech. Doom 3 barely even scratched the surface of the engine's power, even considering computer hardware.


I agree, but the fact remains that their direction is very tech focused, and is geared towards not fully exploiting the gameplay ramifications of that technology, which is why many of their games are branded tech demos.


As for real world evidence, I can't really say anything about that, but I know there is a level designer for Prey around here...perhaps he might be able to better compare workflow.


Yes, I'm still not sure what the qualitative benefits are, and I'd like to see some insight.


You're talking about different things here...doing shadows in real-time doesn't take up memory which would normally be used for textures (that's what lightmaps do).


I know but I'm talking about sheer performance. Although actually real time-shadows for Carmack's next engine will be created using shadow maps.

What I'm saying is, couldn't you use that extra power to add more detail to the environment, or even reduce the hit of other effects like HDR?


It took Valve six years to make HL2, though. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif


Only two years level design though. How many years of level design for Doom 3 http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif



Also shadow masks still take several hours on top of the line systems (lighting isn't what makes compiling lightmaps take so long...it's the shadow stuff).


Ok, thanks.

Edit: In UE3, how are the shadow masks generated? I thought maybe they were just using a simple shadow mapping system.

I mean Carmack is going to be using shadow maps for all the real time lighting, so why not just bake all the static shadows into the map using this system? Each shadow could be recalculated when an object is moved in the editor.

[pegisys]

I know but I'm talking about sheer performance. Although actually real time-shadows for Carmack's next engine will be created using shadow maps.

What I'm saying is, couldn't you use that extra power to add more detail to the environment, or even reduce the hit of other effects like HDR?



I thought it was the shadow buffer instead of the zbuffer, and from what I heard he is using both, a shadow buffer when light is going in one direction and the zbuffer for multiple shadows from one object from multiple lights, I don't know how true that is but it's what I heard

and I thought a shadow maps are static so you can do anything realtime with them

[Viper Knight]

KaiserSoze said:
graphics a game do not make.

gameplay guys, gameplay!

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


Your right, but graphics that make full use of the hardware available do increase the wow factor of the game significantly I think.

[supermeerkat]

What little has been shown of Prey appears to look like D3. Howsabout waiting for the released game, then playing it and then making comments about the style of the game? Or am I missing something?

[Gabrobot]

FireFly said:Edit: In UE3, how are the shadow masks generated? I thought maybe they were just using a simple shadow mapping system.

I mean Carmack is going to be using shadow maps for all the real time lighting, so why not just bake all the static shadows into the map using this system? Each shadow could be recalculated when an object is moved in the editor.



Yeah, well that does make sense (Carmack will probably do this since he actually had an optimization in Doom 3 which wouldn't recalculate shadows if things were static, and apparently shadow maps make this even easier) but from what I've read the shadow masks in UE3 are like lightmaps only just for the shadows. Shadow maps are used on characters though.



Something I just noticed while looking at my PCGamer (it came today!) is that in the little round picture labeled "Your spirit guide", you can see in the background what looks like a canyon on Earth with some stone ruins. Also, the scans of the preview are missing a (fairly large) screenshot which is in the front page of the magazine...it shows three of those zombie girls rushing at the player. In the background there's a bunch of alien looking organic stuff. I'd say that while at first it seems to look like Doom 3, the art design seems to be more greenish organic alien...reminds me of some of the Duke3d levels actually. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ronald McDonald]

Something I just noticed while looking at my PCGamer (it came today!) is that in the little round picture labeled "Your spirit guide", you can see in the background what looks like a canyon on Earth with some stone ruins. Also, the scans of the preview are missing a (fairly large) screenshot which is in the front page of the magazine...it shows three of those zombie girls rushing at the player. In the background there's a bunch of alien looking organic stuff. I'd say that while at first it seems to look like Doom 3, the art design seems to be more greenish organic alien...reminds me of some of the Duke3d levels actually. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



What page?

[X-Vector]

Post deleted by Joe3DR

[dark_angel]

John said:
It looks like a really badass Doom 3 expansion.



It is not.

[MeatWagon]

Doesnt look like doom3 to me, the tech design of the levels looks different, not to mention its more colourfull.

I wonder if the idea of the organic grenade, where the player rips off its limb in order to make it explode, is from the 2001 DNF video where duke rips that little creatures leg off.

[Drazula]

Post deleted by Joe3DR

[X-Vector]

Drazula said:
Someone hanging out at an Unreal 2 forum should not be making funny pictures of other games. He should be walking around with his tail between his legs. That game was a big time POS.



No argument about Unreal 2, but how does that relate to the topic at hand?

I don't think the picture is funny either, but I do think that if the Prey screenshots in the PCG article were announced as taken from a second DooM III expansion in stead, that a lot of people would have accepted it without question.
The more I look at them, the more striking the similarity becomes.

[Kristian Joensen]

The more I look at at them the less of a similarity I see.

[Gabrobot]

The second page...there's a couple pages for the contents and it's on the first one.

[Drazula]

X-Vector said:
No argument about Unreal 2, but how does that relate to the topic at hand?


None. I am just surprise an Unreal 2 forum even exists. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hhg.gif


X-Vector said:
I don't think the picture is funny either, but I do think that if the Prey screenshots in the PCG article were announced as taken from a second DooM III expansion in stead, that a lot of people would have accepted it without question.
The more I look at them, the more striking the similarity becomes.


I don't see any pointy heads. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif And if you look at some early Unreal 2(!) shots of creatures, you'll see a more striking similarity in the models than with Doom 3.

While the environments that have been revealed of Prey are similar to Doom 3, should that be a surprise? Both are alien tech levels. I'm sure there will be places in Prey that will differentiate it from Doom 3, since there is no restriction in the engine itself that says it has to do alien tech environments. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fritzchen1]

The preview pictures are looking very doomish to me. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
I can only pray, that they will have a lot of different settings.
Variety + epic cutscenes/story + action is the key to create a great game imho.
If it is a dark & boring maze game, where you have to search keycards it is a nobuy for me!
Somehow the old screenis in the pcgamer preview where much more appealing.

I will wait, till a demo is released, because I was soooo disappointed with Doom3. Halflife2 was great btw.

Maybe I sound to pessimistic in the above paragraphs. I really do anticipate this game and wish HumanHead good luck/success.

[Cerberus_e]

fritzchen1 said:
I was soooo disappointed with Doom3. Halflife2 was great btw.



funny comment http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
and you say you dislike the doom 3 engine because you don't want to search for keycards? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[lonestar]

it sure reminds on doom3 levels, but it doesn't have that of a dark look like d3 and this screenshot where you see earth in background gives me hope that it's not just some running through corridors. the article says, there's more variety in the architecture of enviroments and they modified the engine to be able to create large outdoor enviroments. here's hoping that i will be pleased.

it's ridicilous, when i see people posting "omg! look, a doom3 expansion!" in the end, it's a si-fi shooter, what makes you realise more similarities to d3, of course.

[fritzchen1]

Cerberus_e said:
funny comment http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
and you say you dislike the doom 3 engine because you don't want to search for keycards? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif



No, I didn't like the game doom 3; the engine is fine!
But the screenshots of Prey didn't show what I expected. It shouldn't push you through endless claustrophobic dark corridors.
I don't have anything against some gloomy levels, but it isn't necessary to keep that mood the whole game, even if it's sci-fi.
Sure I do not expect it to be a colourfull outdoor shooter like FarCry.
A mix between FarCry and Doom3 would do it for me (graphicswise).

[Kristian Joensen]

The preview says:"The game features larger and much brighter environment than those seen in Doom 3. Wheras id's shooter relied on constricted passageways and omnious darkness, Prey's alien mother-ship is marked by huge, cavernous spaces as well as more traditional passages. "

[fritzchen1]

Kristian Joensen said:
The preview says:"The game features larger and much brighter environment thatn those seen in Doom 3".


Ok, let's all hope that's the case http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I'am sure HumanHeads leveldesigners know how to create a good atmosphere.
Nevertheless, I tend to play a demo and read a lot of user reviews before I come to the decision to buy a game lately. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinyted.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kristian Joensen]

3D Realms logo on the box should be more than enough reason to buy a game, you can't get a better quality stamp than that.

[Tim. Just Tim.]

I agree that Prey looks like Doom3. Its using the Doom3 engine what did you expect? Anyway I dont think this is a bad thing - I thought Doom3s graphics were great. The game was pretty creepy the first time, but nothing special, and it was too dark of course. But Prety will improve on all of these things, so who cares that it looks like Doom3?

[hell-angel]

FireFly said:
Graphics + gameplay = game. Both are important.



Don't forget the sound (which mostly create the all important atmosphere. )

A great game need:

Graphics that are on par with the rest (preferably better)
Great gameplay
Good sound which complements the above two.


(story line is also important if the action is not that high)


this is just my opinion of course. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Killd a ton]

I hate it when a game dosen't have voiceactors http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[hell-angel]

Killd a ton said:
I hate it when a game dosen't have voiceactors http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


hmm... pacman with voice actors... I like the sound of that http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dopefish.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif


voice actors should be used only when they are possible or required, Serious Sam for example can do pretty well without voice actors. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cerberus_e]

fritzchen1 said:

Kristian Joensen said:
The preview says:"The game features larger and much brighter environment thatn those seen in Doom 3".


Ok, let's all hope that's the case http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I'am sure HumanHeads leveldesigners know how to create a good atmosphere.
Nevertheless, I tend to play a demo and read a lot of user reviews before I come to the decision to buy a game lately. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinyted.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif



ID knows too, I'm still impressed after almost a year

[fritzchen1]

After taking a closer look at the Prey preview screenshots and reading the article once again, I am confident that HumanHead and 3DRealms will create a great game. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
The shots are indeed well-lit so you do not need a flash light. Perhaps my earlier worries were arbitrary.

3DRealms is Apogee + they produced MaxPayne. So somehow I should trust in their ability to create wonderfull computer games. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/love.gif

[hell-angel]

fritzchen1 said:
3DRealms is Apogee + they produced MaxPayne. So somehow I should trust in their ability to create wonderfull computer games. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/love.gif



You should. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Killd a ton]

hell-angel said:

Killd a ton said:
I hate it when a game dosen't have voiceactors http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


hmm... pacman with voice actors... I like the sound of that http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dopefish.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif


voice actors should be used only when they are possible or required, Serious Sam for example can do pretty well without voice actors. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif



OK, you got me there http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Eli Quinn]

I'll answer a couple of these just from an artist's perspective:


Nailed said:
1. Don't let the artists shine things up too much. People really don't like everything to be shiny.


Most of us grime the hell out of our textures in the game to give them a beaten appearance. However, sometimes you have to exaggerate the specular layer in places so that the level guys don't have to blow the room out with lights to make it appear shiny.


Nailed said:
3. Constantly compare your work to the levels in Doom3. If they're too similar in style, don't be afraid to redo things to make Prey different.


Don't worry, we've striven to create a unique look/feel and I think it's going great so far!


Nailed said:
7. Keep up the good work.


No joke, our level guys are talented as hell!

(and if that was intended as a general statement to the Prey team, thanks http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[ZuljinRaynor]

hell-angel said:

Killd a ton said:
I hate it when a game dosen't have voiceactors http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


hmm... pacman with voice actors... I like the sound of that http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dopefish.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif



It has it already. Remember?
"Wakka wakka wakka wakka."
and "Deun dun dun wack waq. (aka my interpretation of the deat sound." http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dopefish.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hhg.gif

[Spooger]

I have a feeling that once the E3 trailer for Prey is readily available, a lot of these comparisons are going to fade away. Doom III has a very distinct look, and some of the environments we see in the PC Gamer article echo that feel, but the big difference here will be artistic direction.

I think a misconception is that the Doom III only looks great in the dark (something of a paradox). There's no question that Doom III was all about being in the dark, and I think to an extent the engine was built around the idea, instead of say, building the idea around the engine. Creating light - but still realistic - environments in Doom III is quite possible, and it can look great. Some of the later levels in Doom III are proof of this, as they are generously lit.

I think Prey will show players a different side of the Doom III engine. Sure, it's modified and customized, so obviously it will be different, but besides that I know that Human Head isn't out to build something on top of Doom III - that was Nerve's job with Ressurection of Evil http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

No, this is certainly going to be something new, and if my guess is correct, a lot of what we'll see this E3 will bring things into a new light. No pun intended http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Once again, good luck to all the members of Human Head http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Many of us are following the project with more dedication than might be apparant.

[Orochi Avlis]

I have one question to George:
You said that you chose Doom 3 engine at the time because it was the clear winner.
Looking now at the new engine, are you satisfied with your choice? Or would you like to see Prey in the Crytek engine, Source engine, F.E.A.R engine or the Serious Engine 2 engine?

[Drazula]

Eli Quinn said:
Don't worry, we've striven to create a unique look/feel and I think it's going great so far!


http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I can't wait!

[pec]

Orochi Avlis said:
I have one question to George:
You said that you chose Doom 3 engine at the time because it was the clear winner.
Looking now at the new engine, are you satisfied with your choice? Or would you like to see Prey in the Crytek engine, Source engine, F.E.A.R engine or the Serious Engine 2 engine?



Or even in the STALKER (X-Ray) engine!!! Photorealism at its best! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Orochi Avlis]

That's another good one.